A single strike fighter was intended to improve the combat capability of the U.S. Army, but instead loosened.
"The program appears to have stabilized," said Michael Sullivan, the Congress of the United States Court of Accounts. "I am encouraged by what he saw," echoed Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, director of the program by the government. The representative of Lockheed Laura Siebert says he expects a "more positive" articles than usual, in the light, as she put it, "substantial progress" program.
But the chorus hvalebschikov wrong. Unified Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35, Lockheed Martin Corporation to create will override enemy radar, bombing ground targets and destroy enemy warplanes problem as before. All the recent seemingly good news can not change the fundamental flaw in the design of the aircraft, the roots of which lie in the conflicting requirements for a new fighter.
Due to severe compromise in terms of aircraft produced, imposed for the most part, the Marine Corps, F-35 is inferior even old Russian and Chinese fighter jets that fly faster and farther, and agility are better. In a lightning air battle JSF «too heavy and too poorly armed," said the director of the Project on the Strauss Military Reform in the Project on Government Oversight Winslow Wheeler.
And the future enemy aircraft, developed specifically for dogfighting, may be a compromise for JSF even more deadly.
It really does not matter how smooth is the work of government and Lockheed on a new combat aircraft. Even a perfectly designed JSF is a second-class fighter in the air battles with the enemy for life and death. And that could mean a death sentence for American pilots flying for vulnerable F-35.
Inferiority of the F-35 was clearly evident five years ago during a computer simulation, organized and run by John and Harold Scott Stillionom Purdue — two analysts research the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California.
During an August 2008 model, many Chinese air and naval forces amid rising tensions in the western Pacific Ocean piled on longtime rival Beijing — Taiwan. Sudden strike the Chinese missile destroyed the tiny, old Taiwanese Air Force, leaving based in Japan and Guam American fighter combat aircraft of Beijing.
In this scenario, 72 Chinese fighter patrol the Taiwan Strait. Only 26 U.S. combat aircraft — survivors of a missile strike on their airfields, could intercept them. Among them, ten 2-motor stealth fighter F-22, which are quickly used up their ammunition, leaving 16 smaller, 1-motor F-35 fight with the Chinese. When the mathematical model they began to exchange fire, the results were shocking.
The latest U.S. stealth fighters and the basis for future Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps did not reach to the level of Chinese military aircraft. Despite their vaunted ability to avoid radar detection, JSF has been erased from the face of the sky. «F-35 th concede twice", concludes in his later leaked to the press summary Stillion and Purdue.
Analysts have expressed outrage at the new plane, which, speaking of justice, played the entire simulation small role. "Inferior to the acceleration in the rate of climb in the maneuvering capabilities," they wrote. "Also, a lower maximum speed. There can not maneuver or gain off or accelerate. "
And partly so, the United States lost as a result of the simulated war. Hundreds of computer code modeled the American crew were killed. Nearly a century of American aviation supremacy over the wreckage of simulated combat aircraft scattered across the Pacific Ocean.
Even if these results can be challenged, war games 2008 had to serve as a wake-up call. Since the mid-90s the Pentagon is fully dependent on the F-35, designed to replenish dwindling arsenal of combat aircraft, built for the most part, in the 1970s and 1980s. Even if there was a small chance that the plane will not be able to fight, the Pentagon would have to be very, very worried.
Among the pathologies inherent in the design of the F-35, the most devastating is the result of a kind of institutional obsession with one of the three main clients of the program. Early on, the Marines managed to push through their version of the aircraft for the opportunity to take off vertically.
Unified Strike Fighter JSF is created in three versions — for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps — all three have the same fuselage, engine, radar and weapons. Wings and equipment for vertical take-off at different models differ.
Together, all three variants of the F-35 for the replacement of nearly a dozen older versions of aircraft from half a dozen different manufacturers — from the maneuvering models of the Air Force supersonic F-16, or slow armored A-10, and ending with the AV-8B Harrier vertical take-off, whose unique characteristics not combined with the features of other aircraft models.
Engineering trade-offs, and plant on the F-35 in this unprecedented need for versatility, impact on the performance of the new aircraft. Largely because of the volume fan to create lift, which required the Marines, JSF was a wide, heavy, have a lot of resistance, and not even close to the speed reaches out to the F-16, as well as not matching the strength of the structure A-10. Who promised all the advantages of other aircraft, JSF as a result did not show any.
Having won the 2001 competition for the right to create a multi-purpose JSF, Lockheed headed out to eventually become the only active U.S. aircraft manufacturer's new generation, giving competitors like Boeing to promote the design options of old aircraft.
Which means that the worst of the new fighters in the world, which, as one Australian military analyst, who later became a politician, "in the battle will be hammered like Belka" (pups, approx. Mixednews), could soon become the only new U.S. fighter.
In the following decades, the U.S. Air Force can completely surrender to the air forces of any country with the latest models of military aircraft Russia or China, one of which is ironically, it seems, is an improved copy of the JSF, minus all of its shortcomings.
Lifting blower, designed in the early 1980s, the agency DARPA and Lockheed Corporation was the only complete solution for the ability of the aircraft to take off vertically, plus supersonic speed and the ability to remain invisible to enemy radar, the latter of which required that the aircraft had a smooth shape, and did not was suspended outside.
But this mix of characteristics proved costly to all three versions of the aircraft, although two of them the opportunity to take off vertically was not needed.
Adding the lift fan to the basic design of F-35 turned into a cascade of problems that have made it harder, slower, more difficult, more expensive and more vulnerable to attack enemy — koi became more apparent as a result simulation war over Taiwan.
To reduce the cost, all three variants of the aircraft, substantially the same fuselage. To be consistent with the requirements of the presence of the lift fan and the bomb bay, represented in all three options, "Intersection part" of the fuselage had to be "much more than those airplanes that we have replaced the" reluctantly agreed the head of Lockheed Tom Burbage.
But the problems continued to arrive, and the solution slowly biting off their ability to fight the F-35. Adding a lift fan forced to give up a second engine, which is present in many other fighters. Bulky fan built into the fuselage just behind the pilot, blocking rear visibility from the cockpit — a lack that, as one of the pilots, will the fact that "the plane will shoot down every time."
Vice President of Lockheed Steve O'Brien said the aircraft sensors, including video cameras mounted in the fuselage that scan 360 degrees around the aircraft, with more than compensate for the rear-view restrictions. Critics have argued that the video resolution is much worse than look to the naked eye, and it is quite insufficient for tracking and recognition of tiny black dot in the sky, each of which you can be ready to destroy an enemy fighter.
Many problems were formed together in 2004, when Lockheed was forced to admit that the option for the Marine Corps is overweight, which, in part, contributed to the addition of lifting blowers. Ironically, the addition of the fan and the other designed for vertical take-off equipment was threatened that the plane would be too heavy to take off.
In a panic, Lockheed has allocated more people, time and money (do not forget to put the government expense) for the upgrade, which will get rid of most of the excess weight — in fact, provides a safe way of getting rid of equipment, and making parts of fuselage is thinner and less durable.
O'Brien said that the weight loss ultimately benefits all three variants of the fighter. But the reconstructed Joint Strike Fighter, although somewhat more lightweight and maneuverable, has also become less durable and safe for flight. In particular, as the analysis of the Pentagon, getting rid of valves and fuses made fighter 25 percent more vulnerable to enemy fire.
The problems multiplied. It was initially supposed to cost about $ 200 million for the development and construction of 2,900 aircraft, expected to debut in combat use in 2010, the cost of the fighter is constantly growing, and commissioning has been repeatedly delayed. Today, the cost of development and production of new aircraft in 2500 ballooned to $ 400 billion, plus another trillion dollars on the service over the next five decades.
To help cover the cost overruns, between 2007 and 2012 the Pentagon wrote off nearly 500 existing A-10's, F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18-h — that is, 15 percent of Navy fighter aircraft?, before the F-35 would be ready to be replaced. Naked and unarmed F-35, with a half-shelf software, and just a few examples of compatible weapons will not be ready for operational use until 2015, at which Boeing had planned to cease production of its F/A-18E/F-h — except for a single JSF-release models of fighter that gets the Pentagon (fighters F-15 and F-16 are still produced for foreign customers Boeing and Lockheed, respectively).
When two years later the first ready-made F-35 finally make its first normal flight, it can really be of a generally accepted worst new fighter in the world, and in the worst case scenario will still be the only new fighter, which will be available for purchase by the U.S. Army .
Instead of breathing new life into the air Pentagon's arsenal as planned, JSF slowly devours him than jeopardizing the future strategy of the war. In 2012, the chief arms procurement embarrassed to Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's F-35 called "negative practice of acquiring weapons systems."
But Kendall was referring only new program delays and cost increases. He did not mention the more threatening flaw that surfaced as a result of military simulations 2008 Stilliona and Purdue: that no matter when or at what price the F-35 entered service because of their equipment for vertical take-off fighter is a new aerodynamic equivalent of flying bricks — completely losing the last Russian and Chinese fighters.
Wheeler advocates replacing the F-35 upgraded A-10 and F-16, and the new F-18 assembly line Boeing. These steps helped to "prevent the continued deterioration of our air force," he said.
An experienced design engineer Pierre Spray, who had a hand in creating agile F-16 fighter jets and tanks, A-10, warned that the U.S. engineers can take years to re-learn the intricacies of creating supersonic fighters that were lost as a result strengthens the monopoly of the F-35, and the only way to accomplish this would be funding non-spending competition, based on the layout of air battles between rival counterparts.
But the investment of time, talent and resources would be better than continuing to fund outgrew all estimates and terms of combat aircraft, which is being weighed down by the lift fan, can not maneuver or gain altitude or speed up.
Replacing the useless universal American fighter would be, according to Wheeler, a headache, but the continuation of the program is even worse. F-35, he writes, "will cost the lives of too many of our pilots."