KaHn said:
Canopy was a static test, granted it went wrong but it was no major flaw, as for the structural problems with the wings, is not a problem with the design of the aircraft but the actual structural flaws of the glue, this is a problem for the manufacture of the glue as it would have been rated falsely, thus not a problem for the design of the raptor.
Ok now, got any more flaws?
KaHn
Did you read the links properly
The canopy:
The canopy became stuck in the down and locked position and could not be opened manually after the pilot cycled the mechanism several times, following a pre-flight warning that the canopy was unlocked.
Structural flaws:
The structural flaws were identified after officials discovered cracks during fatigue testing, according to Raptor program office officials.
We don't know the types of tests, but this could mean that the projected elasticity/durability is much less than what was originally envisaged - design flaw.
In the plane’s forward boom, the point where the wing attaches to the fuselage, titanium was not properly heat-treated, according to Doug Karas, an Air Force spokesman.
(Expensive) manufacturing flaw.
In the aft boom, the point where the horizontal tail attaches to the fuselage, officials are planning modifications to strengthen the structure to get the plane through its planned 8,000-hour service life.
Design flaw, if modifications are required just to make it through the planned service life.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Raptor does not r0x0r.
Did you also read this?
Service officials estimate the Raptor program requires an additional $2.7 billion — including the money needed to fix structural issues — between now and fiscal 2011. More than $600 million of that shortfall would go toward upgrades to the aircraft. About $580 million is needed for military construction because the Air Force had not identified which bases would house the Raptor when the Defense Department put together the fiscal 2007 budget.
The $72 billion program has been in development for about two decades and during that time has seen its share of difficulties. The Raptor has endured years of schedule slips and hundreds of millions of dollars of cost overruns, busting its congressionally mandated budget numerous times.
In 2003, service leaders raided the production budget to cover an $876 million cost overrun due to unexpected testing costs stemming from problems with the aircraft’s computer system.
Yeah damn the Eurofighter, the Raptor is sooooooooo much better and soooooo much better value for money! So far, its one big black hole, and the programs have the same age - both started development in the 80s...
Just posturing I think. I am 99% certain that after this little protest to save face we will accept our biatch role and buy it anyway. I would love to see us abandon the jsf and either navalise euofighter or buy Rafael instead but unfortunately we won't.
The Dutch and the Turks have also expressed concerns. Coupled with the fact that the F35 is too ugly to ever get the license to fly, and considering the huge problems its had in development so far, its not too unlikely a move IMO. Most likely scenario is that the yanks cave in.
