F-35 Lightning info

[Guest]

That's one great read. Got a signed copy! The A-1 was one heck of a bird!

The guys in my flight at Eielson gave me a Mike Machat Sandy One print of Drury's Midnight Cowboy A-1 signed by both Drury and Machat as a going away gift.

It is my prized possession.

[ClearedHot]

A short history of the subsystem that grounded the F-35

[Chip]

A short history of the subsystem that grounded the F-35

Sounds like a story of success!

[Breckey]

Looks like LM's eyes were bigger than its stomach.

[Royal]

Ugh, where have all the Boydian disciples gone?

[338skybolt]

Interesting F-35B video: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE

[Bayou_Eagle_Driver]

Interesting F-35B video: http://www.youtube.c...p?v=Ki86x1WKPmE

Love it or hate it, that's pretty damn impressive.

[NEflyer]

Love it or hate it, that's pretty damn impressive.

What would be more impressive is if they didn't discover a major problem after every dog and pony show.

http://www.flightglo...-f-35bs-365059/

Three of the five developmental Lockheed Martin F-35Bs have developed tiny cracks in a lift fan-related component which prevent the flight-test aircraft from reconfiguring in flight and landing vertically.

Two flight-test aircraft - BF-1 and BF-2 - are now being modified with a redesigned actuator support beam, according to the joint programme office.

BF-4 has also developed "hairline" cracks in the same part, but is continuing to fly in conventional mode only until the part is modified, the programme said.

The potential for cracks to develop in the actuator support beam was identified several years ago. A redesigned beam was installed on the fifth short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) test aircraft during final assembly, the programme said. That means the BF-5 test aircraft can continue to make vertical landings as part of the flight-test programme.

The only remaining test aircraft - BF-3 - has accumulated fewer flight hours. No cracks have yet been found. BF-3 is not technically restricted from completing vertical landings, but has only flown in conventional mode since the cracking problem was discovered.

The overall impact on the flight-test programme is expected to be light, programme officials said. BF-5 was the only STOVL variant scheduled to complete more vertical landings this year.

The cracks were discovered about a month after BF-2 and BF-4 completed a series of shipboard vertical landings on the USS Wasp, an LHD-class amphibious carrier.

The 18-day period aboard the Wasp was hailed as a landmark in the F-35B flight-test programme, symbolising its recovery from technical issues that had limited the STOVL variant to 10 vertical landings in 2010.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates placed the F-35B variant on a loosely defined "probation" earlier this year, warning that further problems could result in the programme's termination.

The F-35B appeared to rebound after Gates' announcement on 6 January. Three of the five propulsion system glitches have been fixed, with the remaining two expected to be cleared by February. A cracked bulkhead discovered in durability tests last November has also been redesigned.

However, the F-35B continues to face higher scrutiny amid the US military's uncertain budget situation.

Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, and a noted F-35 critic, links the newly-discovered cracks on the actuator support beam to his overall case against the F-35B.

"The least capable, most complex, most expensive, most problematic F-35 is amply demonstrating its doomed-from-the-start heritage," Wheeler said.

Edited January 6, 2012 by NEflyer

[Apollo]

I still don't get why the government would have to pay extra for design errors... Wouldn't that just encourage contractors to ###### up, then get paid more to fix it?

[NEflyer]

I still don't get why the government would have to pay extra for design errors... Wouldn't that just encourage contractors to ###### up, then get paid more to fix it?

I'm not sure either, but it reminds me of paying insurance on shipping. Why do we have to pay in case the shipper f*ucks it up? It doesn't offer much of an incentive for getting it right.

[spaceman]

I remember in the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich, he talked several times about how if they ran into issues or messed something up, the government made LM cover the costs. On the other hand, if LM came in under budget (which would probably never ever happen these days), they would reimburse the government the savings. What has changed?

I know he cited exponentially growing beuracracy as a huge problem. I don't remember the exact numbers, but he said something like only a couple hundred people were involved in developing the U-2, versus thousands of inspectors, etc, and millions of pages of mostly useless paperwork generated PER DAY on the F-22 program. I guess it all adds up to a huge amount of wasted money in the end! And that was in the 90's; it's probably only gotten worse since then.

[Guest YJ619]

On the other hand, if LM came in under budget (which would probably never ever happen these days), they would reimburse the government the savings. What has changed?

Blame it on the non-technical program managers/executives with the MBA degree for screwing everything up.

There are still a few Ben Rich/Kelly Johnson types in Lockheed/Boeing/Northrop, but their voices are not being heard. That's been my experience.

Edited January 6, 2012 by YJ619

[Get Some]

The remaining Boyd Fighter Mafia jumps in on the F-35 fight with some scathing words in Time:

Moreover, if the F-35 lived up to 100% of its depressingly modest design specifications, it would still be a complete failure in combat utility: a bomber of shorter range, lower payload and far higher vulnerability than the Vietnam War’s appallingly flammable, underperforming F-105 Lead Sled; an air-to-air fighter so unmaneuverable and sluggish in acceleration that any ancient MiG-21 will tear it to shreds; and a close support fighter that is a menace to our troops on any battlefield, unable to hit camouflaged tactical targets and incapable of distinguishing friendly soldiers from enemies. Individually and collectively, we often fretted with Boyd on the irresponsibility of equipping our people with such foolishly complex weapons designs, so bereft of practical combat effectiveness—and on the deep corruption of acquisition programs, such as the F-35’s, that deliberately plan to buy a thousand or more units long before user testing has fully probed combat utility.

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/01/10/the-heritage-foundation-then-and-now/#more-63546

I just wonder if Lockheed will gladly look forward to a future battlefield to vindicate their designs or will cross their fingers and wish for the best--when and if the day comes that both the 22 and 35 are the only available weapon systems still flying.

[Royal]

The remaining Boyd Fighter Mafia jumps in on the F-35 fight with some scathing words in Time:

Thanks for posting this.

[brabus]

The only problem is that this is some of the most idiotic and horribly incorrect statement making I've seen in quite some time. Clearly Chuck Spinney et al have zero clue what they're talking about and the above is so retardly wrong its laughable.

[Get Some]

I don't know shit about it more than I can Google, but this did seem to blatantly miss the mark:

incapable of distinguishing friendly soldiers from enemies.

[Guest]

I just wonder if Lockheed will gladly look forward to a future battlefield to vindicate their designs or will cross their fingers and wish for the best--when and if the day comes that both the 22 and 35 are the only available weapon systems still flying.

They don't care about vindication.

[pintail21]

http://aviationintel.com/2012/01/10/f-35c-cannot-land-on-a-carrier/

Looks like they made the tailhook a bit too short. What a cluster######.

[Guest Grind]

The cost of the Pentagon’s largest weapon system continues to grow, as a Pentagon official contends that the increases are being brought under control.

According to a Pentagon report delivered to Congress March 29, the cost of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is inching higher, rising 4.3% to $395.7 billion in the last year. That Pentagon report was delivered the same day that the Government Accountability Office pointed out that cost growth on the JSF makes up more than half of the cost increases of the Pentagon’s largest 96 programs. It represents 21% of the overall portfolio.

The Pentagon has re-approved the program to start low-rate production, a decision that was pulled back after breeching congressional cost targets in June 2010. Cost increases were driven by slower production in the U.S. and abroad and higher-than-planned labor costs.

The cost of the Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine is also up, growing 9.7% to $63.8 billion primarily because of an increase in spare parts.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s acting acquisition chief, has set a new baseline for the program, and pushed back full-rate production by two years to 2019.

Going forward, software development and the cost of sustainment remain ongoing focus areas, notes the Selected Acquisition Report (SAR). The report also describes challenges with integration and development of software increments. During the next year, the program will undergo a business case analysis and the program is implementing new ways to lower sustainment costs that Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter last year predicted would exceed $1 trillion.

In his confirmation hearing to formally become Carter’s replacement as acquisition chief, Kendall told senators that he believes the cost of the JSF is “beginning to get under control.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) warned the Pentagon that letting negotiations drag on for the next set of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters could compromise fiscal 2013 funding. Lawmakers have reduced funding for the F-35 program in the past, citing delays in prior contract negotiations, Cornyn said last week. And the fifth lot of advanced fighter jets, for which money was appropriated a year ago, is still not on contract, he said.

Kendall, nominated to become the Pentagon’s next acquisition chief, said the Defense Department has an undefinitized contract for the fifth lot of advanced fighter jets and is working to negotiate a final price. The Pentagon hopes to streamline the negotiating process for the next two lots of aircraft, he said during his nomination hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Cornyn replied that the program needs better clarity. “Since we put all of our eggs in the F-35 basket … we’d better take care of the basket,” Cornyn said.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2012/03/29/awx_03_29_2012_p0-442561.xml&headline=JSF%20Costs%20Escalate%20Again

[Lawman]

The remaining Boyd Fighter Mafia jumps in on the F-35 fight with some scathing words in Time:

Moreover, if the F-35 lived up to 100% of its depressingly modest design specifications, it would still be a complete failure in combat utility: a bomber of shorter range, lower payload and far higher vulnerability than the Vietnam War’s appallingly flammable, underperforming F-105 Lead Sled; an air-to-air fighter so unmaneuverable and sluggish in acceleration that any ancient MiG-21 will tear it to shreds; and a close support fighter that is a menace to our troops on any battlefield, unable to hit camouflaged tactical targets and incapable of distinguishing friendly soldiers from enemies. Individually and collectively, we often fretted with Boyd on the irresponsibility of equipping our people with such foolishly complex weapons designs, so bereft of practical combat effectiveness—and on the deep corruption of acquisition programs, such as the F-35’s, that deliberately plan to buy a thousand or more units long before user testing has fully probed combat utility.

http://battleland.bl...now/#more-63546

I just wonder if Lockheed will gladly look forward to a future battlefield to vindicate their designs or will cross their fingers and wish for the best--when and if the day comes that both the 22 and 35 are the only available weapon systems still flying.

If you go back to about the 1999-2002 Time frame you'll hear pretty much the exact same statement about the Super Hornet from the F-14 mafia. Guess who turned out to be wrong as hell in that argument.

[FallingOsh]

The only problem is that this is some of the most idiotic and horribly incorrect statement making I've seen in quite some time. Clearly Chuck Spinney et al have zero clue what they're talking about and the above is so retardly wrong its laughable.

We've started down this road before, but why do you always seem so defensive about the -35 program?

[brabus]

We've started down this road before, but why do you always seem so defensive about the -35 program?

I'm not saying it's the greatest invention ever or it doesn't have issues, but I will point out when idiots talk out their ass and make completely retarded claims like Spinney does. Here's a RHETORICAL question for you...how much do you know about the aircraft beyond the news, op ed pieces, the Air Force Crimes, WOMs heard at the bar, etc? I'm just sayin...

[Danny Noonin]

Here's a RHETORICAL question for you...how much do you know about the aircraft beyond the news, op ed pieces, the Air Force Crimes, WOMs heard at the bar, etc? I'm just sayin...

Holy shit. How much do YOU know about the aircraft? You know any of the pilots? You know any of the guys working the program? Do you know anything beyond a Secret *proposed* capes brief, built by the blue kool aid brigade or Lockheed?

If you knew anything real about this airplane, the program, the problems with it, etc, you would be shutting the fuck up right now.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Danny Noonin

[brabus]

Why do you think I said rhetorical question and left it at that? Dude, relax a bit...I am not saying this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and I'm as happy as the rest of you about the DoD's awesome idea of putting all its eggs in one basket. But the truth is we've said fuck in front of mom and we need something to happen soon to replace our aging fleet. SLEP, etc. goes a little ways, but it's not the 100% answer and it's not even a quick fix.

a bomber of shorter range, lower payload and far higher vulnerability than the Vietnam War’s appallingly flammable, underperforming F-105 Lead Sled; an air-to-air fighter so unmaneuverable and sluggish in acceleration that any ancient MiG-21 will tear it to shreds; and a close support fighter that is a menace to our troops on any battlefield, unable to hit camouflaged tactical targets and incapable of distinguishing friendly soldiers from enemies

I'm not addressing anything outside the scope of an internet forum, but just look at this shit above. If you agree with those statements, then I don't even know what to say. That's it, that's all I'm "defending" this jet against.

[Guest Grind]

It's too much money that could be spent elsewhere.