Should we buy the F-35?

[LordFerret]

It's got nothing to do with frying the computers, and everything to do with creating an explosion hazard from vapors in the fuel tank. Read the article I posted already.

[Camacha]

[quote name='pTrevTrevs']Well, I imagine it would fry the computers, and since the F-35 relies on electronics so much, one well placed lightning strike (or EMP) would render the instruments useless, and the fly-by-wire probably messed up too. The A-10 and F-15 still use analog instruments, and therefore are not affected by lightning as much.[/QUOTE]

Can you indicate how much of a problem lightning is for fighter planes? My best guess would be it is negligible to non-existent, if you look at actual numbers. Glass cockpits and fly-by-wire craft have drawbacks, but major benefits too.

[Mikki]

[quote name='sodopro']So, should we (any country buying the F-35) buy it?[/QUOTE]

No. I would prefer the superior products from (deleted by myself) (If they where available at all... :wink:), or the (deleted by myself) as second.
(My [I]personal [/I]opinion btw.) Edited November 25, 2015 by Mikki
deleted my choices:)

[Guest]

One thing makes me curious.

What if a F-35 gets EMP'd, or suffers a short circuit? All its electronics will be gone, and bam, you've got no avionics.

Good luck landing that blind bird in a carrier.

edit: oof

Edited November 29, 2019 by Guest
just... oof man

[pTrevTrevs]

[quote name='Camacha']Can you indicate how much of a problem lightning is for fighter planes? My best guess would be it is negligible to non-existent, if you look at actual numbers. Glass cockpits and fly-by-wire craft have drawbacks, but major benefits too.[/QUOTE]
Wel, lightning striking [I]any[/I] aircraft is a bad thing, since metal conducts electricity. But the F-35, along with the F-23, relies on electronics more than any planes before it. Before, aircraft used manual control tubes and analog gauges, so if they got struck by lightning, the biggest thing they would have to worry about would probably be a fire being started (many aircraft have built in for extinguishers anyway). The F-35, on the other hand, will lose [I][U]all[/U][/I] of its instruments if it gets hit, and you can't fly a plane without instruments. In addition, it uses fly-by-wire instead of hydraulic controls, so lightning would kill that too, so you wouldn't be able to fly it at all, really.

[Camacha]

[quote name='pTrevTrevs']Wel, lightning striking [I]any[/I] aircraft is a bad thing, since metal conducts electricity. But the F-35, along with the F-23, relies on electronics more than any planes before it. Before, aircraft used manual control tubes and analog gauges, so if they got struck by lightning, the biggest thing they would have to worry about would probably be a fire being started (many aircraft have built in for extinguishers anyway). The F-35, on the other hand, will lose [I][U]all[/U][/I] of its instruments if it gets hit, and you can't fly a plane without instruments. In addition, it uses fly-by-wire instead of hydraulic controls, so lightning would kill that too, so you wouldn't be able to fly it at all, really.[/QUOTE]

I will ask you again: what are the actual statistics on these things happening? My guess is that they do not, or so rarely that the gains of electronics vastly outweigh the risk of something so unlikely. The lightning argument is moot, because the insignificant risk of a total loss of aircraft due to lightning strike is well worth the bonus of an aircraft performing better or even surviving due to advanced electronics.

Besides, glass cockpit or not, lightning can both be a problem or not be a problem. I have heard stories of glider planes crashing, because lightning hit and welded the simple metal wire cables to the frame. Having less advanced technology will not necessarily save you.

[Octa]

[quote name='pTrevTrevs'] The F-35, on the other hand, will lose [I][U]all[/U][/I] of its instruments if it gets hit, and you can't fly a plane without instruments. In addition, it uses fly-by-wire instead of hydraulic controls, so lightning would kill that too, so you wouldn't be able to fly it at all, really.[/QUOTE]

I recall that many modern aircrafts (Eurofighter?) are aerodymic unstable and rely on a avionic-computer to stay in the air, so this problem is not exclusive to the F35.

[pTrevTrevs]

[quote name='Camacha']I will ask you again: what are the actual statistics on these things happening? My guess is that they do not, or so rarely that the gains of electronics vastly outweigh the risk of something so unlikely. The lightning argument is moot, because the insignificant risk of a total loss of aircraft due to lightning strike is well worth the bonus of an aircraft performing better or even surviving due to advanced electronics.

Besides, glass cockpit or not, lightning can both be a problem or not be a problem. I have heard stories of glider planes crashing, because lightning hit and welded the simple metal wire cables to the frame. Having less advanced technology will not necessarily save you.[/QUOTE]
Alright, lightning is a problem for pretty much any plane, and although it seems far fetched, it does happen (Remember, Apollo 12 was struck by lightning during launch), but what about EMPs? Lightning is just an environmental hazard that happens by chance, but EMPs can be deliberately created by an enemy to attack planes. An aircraft from, say, the Vietnam era wouldn't be as badly affected because it has little or no electronics in it. Modern fighters will be easily taken out by EMPs. The F-35's biggest selling point; its stealth, is going to be useless very soon, so all the money that went into it will have been wasted. It probably would be a better idea to invest money in finding ways to make aircraft resistant to EMPs, so they can safely fly with all those fancy avionics.

[Camacha]

[quote name='pTrevTrevs']An aircraft from, say, the Vietnam era wouldn't be as badly affected because it has little or no electronics in it.[/quote]

Do you have any substantiation for that statement? Aircraft have been relying on electronics for quite a while now, which makes the discussion about an aircraft that uses more electronics rather academic.


[quote]It probably would be a better idea to invest money in finding ways to make aircraft resistant to EMPs, so they can safely fly with all those fancy avionics.[/QUOTE]

What makes you think they did not do that? Do you assume that a couple of lads on a forum thought of a (somewhat obvious) weakness that a large team of highly trained engineers overlooked?

[pTrevTrevs]

[quote name='Camacha']Do you have any substantiation for that statement? Aircraft have been relying on electronics for quite a while now, which makes the discussion about an aircraft that uses more electronics rather academic.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, F-4 Phantoms and MiG-19s do have electronics, but they're things like missile targeting systems or airborne radar, not essential instruments such as airspeed indicators or artificial horizons. There are no MFDs, all the instruments are in gauges which do not use electronics to give a reading. If a Vietnam jet gets EMPed, it will still have the systems necessary for the pilot to at least fly the plane, and the guns should even still work, allowing the plane defend itself if necessary.
[QUOTE]
What makes you think they did not do that? Do you assume that a couple of lads on a forum thought of a (somewhat obvious) weakness that a large team of highly trained engineers overlooked?[/QUOTE]

Maybe they did try and protect the F-35 against EMPs, but as far as I know, it's still vulnerable. It's biggest selling point (and, therefore, the aspect which likely took up most of the designers' efforts) is what makes is such an expensive aircraft. So expensive, in fact, that several nations have decided not to buy significant numbers of the aircraft because they are afraid it will be too expensive to operate. It's stealth limits its payload capacity drives up the process, complicates repairs, and for what? The chance to be able to sort of hide on today's radar? Remember, the F-35 won't be in widespread use until the 2020s, by which time radar will have advanced to the point where the F-35 is easily detectable.

[Red Iron Crown]

Fighter planes have been FBW since the '80s. Modern airliners are all FBW, too. On average, each airliner in service gets struck by lightning [URL="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-when-lightni/"][i]once per year[/i][/URL]. The last crash directly attributed to lightning damage was in 1967. Much worry about a [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2012/may/16/worried-lightning-striking-plane"]solved problem[/URL] here.

Going back to less capable analog designs to avoid not-yet-fielded-to-public-knowledge EMP weapons would greatly compromise their actual combat effectiveness, safety and maneuverability. Edited November 26, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[Glaran K'erman]

In the over 2 years since this thread was created a lot about the F-35 has changed. I won't enter the argument because I would risk getting infracted all the way to the Kraken itself, so instead will just provide some decent specs to work off.

[URL]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm[/URL]