F-35 more problems
12-14-2011, 07:37 AM
#1
Working weekends
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
F-35 more problems
More problems with F-35 joint strike fighter are revealed | Business | Dallas Business, ...
Problems with the F-35 joint strike fighter appear to be more numerous and more serious than the Defense Department has been willing to concede publicly, according to an internal report prepared for top Pentagon officials and obtained by the Star-Telegram.
The report, dated Nov. 29, sounds alarms that technological and performance problems, which will be costly to resolve, lie ahead for the already troubled and over-budget warplane. Among the issues raised are unexpectedly severe shaking and failures of an important electrical component. However, the report does not suggest that any of the problems cannot be overcome or that the F-35 will be unable to fulfill its intended capabilities.
In a statement issued Tuesday, Lockheed Martin said: "The report is still currently under review by senior Department of Defense officials. We expect to work closely with the F-35 Joint Program Office and Defense Department to understand and address any concerns expressed in the report."
Last week, Lockheed and the Pentagon announced a contract for the next batch of F-35s that calls for the company to shoulder more of the plane's rising costs.
The latest report comes as the Pentagon faces big budget cuts even as spending on the F-35 program is scheduled to rise sharply.
'Significant concerns' raised
The "Quick Look Review" has more than 50 pages, including numerous charts, illustrations and detailed projections. It was prepared starting in mid-October by a team headed by five senior Pentagon officials with expertise in weapons testing and engineering. It leaked from the Pentagon a week ago and was first reported by Bloomberg News. A copy was provided to the Star-Telegram this week.
The report is a damning assessment of the state of the F-35 program, said longtime Pentagon weapons procurement critic Franklin C. "Chuck" Spinney, a former Air Force officer and Defense Department civilian weapons analyst.
"They basically said there's no showstopper," Spinney said, using the defense industry term for a single unmanageable scientific or technical challenge. But taken together, he said, the severity of myriad technical problems and the cost to fix them "are a showstopper."
From its inception, the F-35 -- being built for the Air Force, Navy and Marines -- has been touted by Lockheed officials and other backers for its "unmatched lethality" and affordability.
But a team of U.S. and British weapons testers found "unsatisfactory progress" in developing and testing nearly all the important air combat roles in which it would be used. Most of the flight testing in high-speed combat situations has yet to be performed, but military officials overseeing testing "expressed significant concerns with aircraft performance characteristics."
Frank Kendall, acting undersecretary of defense for weapons acquisition and development, requested the report to assess F-35 development so defense officials can decide how many planes to buy. The authors of the latest report say the Pentagon should go very slowly in buying more jets, essentially concluding that sophisticated design and modeling technology failed to predict problems in the aircraft and its critical combat systems.
In an interview with AOL Defense last week, the Navy officer now running the program, Vice Adm. David Venlet, criticized the long-ago decision to build dozens of the airplanes -- hundreds were planned -- while testing was still in the early stages.
In response to his comments, Lockheed said last week that the "F-35 test program is going extremely well as evidenced by the fact we have already exceeded the planned test flights and test points for 2011."
Frequent system failures
While the report doesn't conclude that the F-35 issues cannot be resolved, it strongly suggests that the worst problems may not yet be known and that the fixes will take years and vast new sums of money.
According to the report, key components of the F-35 and its Star Wars-like weapons and targeting systems have often failed or so far are worse than existing technology.
For example, the F-35 has "much higher-than-predicted buffet loads" -- severe shaking during high-speed maneuvers -- that may accelerate wear and tear.
The helmet-mounted display that lets the pilot view data from radar and electronic warfare systems has problems with its night vision. It's also unreadable when the aircraft is shaking.
And an electrical system that is supposed to perform for 2,200 hours failed or had problems that required replacement 16 times, mostly in the past year. If the system failed in flight, the plane would lose much of its electronics, its backup power, the pilot's primary oxygen supply and its cockpit pressurization.
The extent and long-term ramifications of the buffet problem won't be known until many more tests under even more rigorous flight conditions, the report says, and the results may not be known for two to three more years.
Lockheed has 6,100 people working directly on the F-35 program in Fort Worth. About 3,000 are production workers, and the rest are in development and support. Without increased production, employment at the plant won't grow and may decrease as development and engineering work winds down.
The report, dated Nov. 29, sounds alarms that technological and performance problems, which will be costly to resolve, lie ahead for the already troubled and over-budget warplane. Among the issues raised are unexpectedly severe shaking and failures of an important electrical component. However, the report does not suggest that any of the problems cannot be overcome or that the F-35 will be unable to fulfill its intended capabilities.
In a statement issued Tuesday, Lockheed Martin said: "The report is still currently under review by senior Department of Defense officials. We expect to work closely with the F-35 Joint Program Office and Defense Department to understand and address any concerns expressed in the report."
Last week, Lockheed and the Pentagon announced a contract for the next batch of F-35s that calls for the company to shoulder more of the plane's rising costs.
The latest report comes as the Pentagon faces big budget cuts even as spending on the F-35 program is scheduled to rise sharply.
'Significant concerns' raised
The "Quick Look Review" has more than 50 pages, including numerous charts, illustrations and detailed projections. It was prepared starting in mid-October by a team headed by five senior Pentagon officials with expertise in weapons testing and engineering. It leaked from the Pentagon a week ago and was first reported by Bloomberg News. A copy was provided to the Star-Telegram this week.
The report is a damning assessment of the state of the F-35 program, said longtime Pentagon weapons procurement critic Franklin C. "Chuck" Spinney, a former Air Force officer and Defense Department civilian weapons analyst.
"They basically said there's no showstopper," Spinney said, using the defense industry term for a single unmanageable scientific or technical challenge. But taken together, he said, the severity of myriad technical problems and the cost to fix them "are a showstopper."
From its inception, the F-35 -- being built for the Air Force, Navy and Marines -- has been touted by Lockheed officials and other backers for its "unmatched lethality" and affordability.
But a team of U.S. and British weapons testers found "unsatisfactory progress" in developing and testing nearly all the important air combat roles in which it would be used. Most of the flight testing in high-speed combat situations has yet to be performed, but military officials overseeing testing "expressed significant concerns with aircraft performance characteristics."
Frank Kendall, acting undersecretary of defense for weapons acquisition and development, requested the report to assess F-35 development so defense officials can decide how many planes to buy. The authors of the latest report say the Pentagon should go very slowly in buying more jets, essentially concluding that sophisticated design and modeling technology failed to predict problems in the aircraft and its critical combat systems.
In an interview with AOL Defense last week, the Navy officer now running the program, Vice Adm. David Venlet, criticized the long-ago decision to build dozens of the airplanes -- hundreds were planned -- while testing was still in the early stages.
In response to his comments, Lockheed said last week that the "F-35 test program is going extremely well as evidenced by the fact we have already exceeded the planned test flights and test points for 2011."
Frequent system failures
While the report doesn't conclude that the F-35 issues cannot be resolved, it strongly suggests that the worst problems may not yet be known and that the fixes will take years and vast new sums of money.
According to the report, key components of the F-35 and its Star Wars-like weapons and targeting systems have often failed or so far are worse than existing technology.
For example, the F-35 has "much higher-than-predicted buffet loads" -- severe shaking during high-speed maneuvers -- that may accelerate wear and tear.
The helmet-mounted display that lets the pilot view data from radar and electronic warfare systems has problems with its night vision. It's also unreadable when the aircraft is shaking.
And an electrical system that is supposed to perform for 2,200 hours failed or had problems that required replacement 16 times, mostly in the past year. If the system failed in flight, the plane would lose much of its electronics, its backup power, the pilot's primary oxygen supply and its cockpit pressurization.
The extent and long-term ramifications of the buffet problem won't be known until many more tests under even more rigorous flight conditions, the report says, and the results may not be known for two to three more years.
Lockheed has 6,100 people working directly on the F-35 program in Fort Worth. About 3,000 are production workers, and the rest are in development and support. Without increased production, employment at the plant won't grow and may decrease as development and engineering work winds down.
12-14-2011, 07:57 AM
#2
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Money Maladies & Technology Troubles
I still believe this program is on life-support, waiting for the plug to be pulled. Highly-touted as "the most expensive weapons program in history," and "The Last Manned Fighter," it has a huge policial lobby.
But for what purpose?
With Congress hamstrung over how to reduce spending and the deficit (let alone debt), how would replacing F-18s, Harriers, F-16s, and A-10s with F-35s help over the next 20-30 years fighting Toyota Terrorists? (ie, insurgents in a 4WD).
I honestly think it wouldn't.
I think one of the services, probably the Marines, will pull out, and the whole house of cards will collapse.
"Oh no, what to do?" For the wars we are likely to fight over the next three decades, A-10s, F-16s, F-18s, and both flavors of Eagle will work just fine. (New F-16s are one-third the cost of an F-35).
But for what purpose?
With Congress hamstrung over how to reduce spending and the deficit (let alone debt), how would replacing F-18s, Harriers, F-16s, and A-10s with F-35s help over the next 20-30 years fighting Toyota Terrorists? (ie, insurgents in a 4WD).
I honestly think it wouldn't.
I think one of the services, probably the Marines, will pull out, and the whole house of cards will collapse.
"Oh no, what to do?" For the wars we are likely to fight over the next three decades, A-10s, F-16s, F-18s, and both flavors of Eagle will work just fine. (New F-16s are one-third the cost of an F-35).
12-14-2011, 08:19 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
F-35
The most expensive weapons program in U.S. history is about to get a lot pricier.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, meant to replace nearly every tactical warplane in the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, was already expected to cost $1 trillion dollars for development, production and maintenance over the next 50 years. Now that cost is expected to grow, owing to 13 different design flaws uncovered in the last two months by a hush-hush panel of five Pentagon experts. It could cost up to a billion dollars to fix the flaws on copies of the jet already in production, to say nothing of those yet to come.
In addition to costing more, the stealthy F-35 could take longer to complete testing. That could delay the stealthy jet’s combat debut to sometime after 2018 — seven years later than originally planned. And all this comes as the Pentagon braces for big cuts to its budget while trying to save cherished but costly programs like the Joint Strike Fighter.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top weapons-buyer, convened the so-called “Quick Look Review” panel in October. Its report — 55 pages of dense technical jargon and intricate charts — was leaked this weekend. Kendall and company found a laundry list of flaws with the F-35, including a poorly placed tail hook, lagging sensors, a buggy electrical system and structural cracks.
Some of the problems — the electrical bugs, for instance — were becoming clear before the Quick Look Review; others are brand-new. The panelists describe them all in detail and, for the first time, connect them to the program’s underlying management problems. Most ominously, the report mentions — but does not describe — a “classified” deficiency. “Dollars to doughnuts it has something to do with stealth,” aviation guru Bill Sweetman wrote. In other words, the F-35 might not be as invisible to radar as prime contractor Lockheed Martin said it would be.
The JSF’s problems are exacerbated by a production plan that Vice Adm. David Venlet, the government program manager, admitted two weeks ago represents “a miscalculation.” Known as “concurrency,” the plan allows Lockheed to mass-produce jets — potentially hundreds of them — while testing is still underway. It’s a way of ensuring the military gets combat-ready jets as soon as possible, while also helping Lockheed to maximize its profits. That’s the theory, at least.
“Concurrency is present to some degree in virtually all DoD programs, though not to the extent that it is on the F-35,” the Quick Look panelists wrote. The Pentagon assumed it could get away with a high degree of concurrency owing to new computer simulations meant to take the guesswork out of testing. “The Department had a reasonable basis to be optimistic,” the panelists wrote.
But that optimism proved unfounded. “This assessment shows that the F-35 program has discovered and is continuing to discover issues at a rate more typical of early design experience on previous aircraft development programs,” the panelists explained. Testing uncovered problems the computers did not predict, resulting in 725 design changes while new jets were rolling off the factory floor in Fort Worth, Texas.
And every change takes time and costs money. To pay for the fixes, this year the Pentagon cut its F-35 order from 42 to 30. Next year’s order dropped from 35 to 30. “It’s basically sucked the wind out of our lungs with the burden, the financial burden,” Venlet said.
News of more costs and delays could not have come at a worse time for the Joint Strike Fighter. The program has already been restructured twice since 2010, each time getting stretched out and more expensive. In January, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put the Marines’ overweight F-35B variant, which is designed to take off and land vertically, on probation. If Lockheed couldn’t fix the jump jet within two years, “it should be cancelled,” Gates advised.
Tasting blood in the water, Boeing — America’s other fighter-plane manufacturer — dusted off plans for improved F-15s and F-18s to sell to the Pentagon, should the F-35 fail. Deep cuts to the defense budget certainly aren’t helping the F-35′s case.
Humbled, Lockheed agreed to share some of the cost of design changes, instead of simply billing the government. The aerospace giant copped to its past problems with the F-35 and promised better performance. “There will not be another re-baseline of this program. We understand that,” Lockheed CEO Robert Stevens said in May.
But another “rebaselining,” or restructuring, is likely in the wake of the Quick Look Review. F-35 testing and production should be less concurrent and more “event-based,” the panelists advised. In other words, the program should worry less about meeting hard deadlines and more about getting the jet’s design right. It’ll be ready when it’s ready. Major production must wait, even if that means older warplanes — the planes the F-35 is supposed to replace — must stay on the front line longer.
Needless to say, that’s got some members of Congress up in arms. “It is at this exact moment that the excessive overlap between development and production that was originally structured into the JSF program … is now coming home to roost,” said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “If things do not improve — quickly — taxpayers and the warfighter will insist that all options will be on the table. And they should be. We cannot continue on this path.”
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, meant to replace nearly every tactical warplane in the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, was already expected to cost $1 trillion dollars for development, production and maintenance over the next 50 years. Now that cost is expected to grow, owing to 13 different design flaws uncovered in the last two months by a hush-hush panel of five Pentagon experts. It could cost up to a billion dollars to fix the flaws on copies of the jet already in production, to say nothing of those yet to come.
In addition to costing more, the stealthy F-35 could take longer to complete testing. That could delay the stealthy jet’s combat debut to sometime after 2018 — seven years later than originally planned. And all this comes as the Pentagon braces for big cuts to its budget while trying to save cherished but costly programs like the Joint Strike Fighter.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top weapons-buyer, convened the so-called “Quick Look Review” panel in October. Its report — 55 pages of dense technical jargon and intricate charts — was leaked this weekend. Kendall and company found a laundry list of flaws with the F-35, including a poorly placed tail hook, lagging sensors, a buggy electrical system and structural cracks.
Some of the problems — the electrical bugs, for instance — were becoming clear before the Quick Look Review; others are brand-new. The panelists describe them all in detail and, for the first time, connect them to the program’s underlying management problems. Most ominously, the report mentions — but does not describe — a “classified” deficiency. “Dollars to doughnuts it has something to do with stealth,” aviation guru Bill Sweetman wrote. In other words, the F-35 might not be as invisible to radar as prime contractor Lockheed Martin said it would be.
The JSF’s problems are exacerbated by a production plan that Vice Adm. David Venlet, the government program manager, admitted two weeks ago represents “a miscalculation.” Known as “concurrency,” the plan allows Lockheed to mass-produce jets — potentially hundreds of them — while testing is still underway. It’s a way of ensuring the military gets combat-ready jets as soon as possible, while also helping Lockheed to maximize its profits. That’s the theory, at least.
“Concurrency is present to some degree in virtually all DoD programs, though not to the extent that it is on the F-35,” the Quick Look panelists wrote. The Pentagon assumed it could get away with a high degree of concurrency owing to new computer simulations meant to take the guesswork out of testing. “The Department had a reasonable basis to be optimistic,” the panelists wrote.
But that optimism proved unfounded. “This assessment shows that the F-35 program has discovered and is continuing to discover issues at a rate more typical of early design experience on previous aircraft development programs,” the panelists explained. Testing uncovered problems the computers did not predict, resulting in 725 design changes while new jets were rolling off the factory floor in Fort Worth, Texas.
And every change takes time and costs money. To pay for the fixes, this year the Pentagon cut its F-35 order from 42 to 30. Next year’s order dropped from 35 to 30. “It’s basically sucked the wind out of our lungs with the burden, the financial burden,” Venlet said.
News of more costs and delays could not have come at a worse time for the Joint Strike Fighter. The program has already been restructured twice since 2010, each time getting stretched out and more expensive. In January, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put the Marines’ overweight F-35B variant, which is designed to take off and land vertically, on probation. If Lockheed couldn’t fix the jump jet within two years, “it should be cancelled,” Gates advised.
Tasting blood in the water, Boeing — America’s other fighter-plane manufacturer — dusted off plans for improved F-15s and F-18s to sell to the Pentagon, should the F-35 fail. Deep cuts to the defense budget certainly aren’t helping the F-35′s case.
Humbled, Lockheed agreed to share some of the cost of design changes, instead of simply billing the government. The aerospace giant copped to its past problems with the F-35 and promised better performance. “There will not be another re-baseline of this program. We understand that,” Lockheed CEO Robert Stevens said in May.
But another “rebaselining,” or restructuring, is likely in the wake of the Quick Look Review. F-35 testing and production should be less concurrent and more “event-based,” the panelists advised. In other words, the program should worry less about meeting hard deadlines and more about getting the jet’s design right. It’ll be ready when it’s ready. Major production must wait, even if that means older warplanes — the planes the F-35 is supposed to replace — must stay on the front line longer.
Needless to say, that’s got some members of Congress up in arms. “It is at this exact moment that the excessive overlap between development and production that was originally structured into the JSF program … is now coming home to roost,” said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “If things do not improve — quickly — taxpayers and the warfighter will insist that all options will be on the table. And they should be. We cannot continue on this path.”
12-14-2011, 08:26 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
I agree with everything you say except there is a need to push the technological envelope. If not, we'd still be flying F-4s as our front line fighter. While I don't see a hot war with any opponent that has a serious fighter or SAM threat, I'd like to think we're ready for the next war, not just GWOT. As you say, money will ultimately drive this.
12-14-2011, 09:27 AM
#5
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
And What's Wrong with Phantoms?
I agree with everything you say except there is a need to push the technological envelope. If not, we'd still be flying F-4s as our front line fighter. While I don't see a hot war with any opponent that has a serious fighter or SAM threat, I'd like to think we're ready for the next war, not just GWOT. As you say, money will ultimately drive this.
But, fair enough. To push the edge of technology, we buy 2-300 of the latest Flankers from Russia, and put our own avionics in them. Still less than half the cost of an F-22, and 2/3 of an F-35!
12-14-2011, 04:47 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
I still think the F-15s, -16s, and -18s would be more than a match for any "real" air-to-air war (ie, China). Can't see it happening (a war) against India or Russia, though.
But, fair enough. To push the edge of technology, we buy 2-300 of the latest Flankers from Russia, and put our own avionics in them. Still less than half the cost of an F-22, and 2/3 of an F-35!
But, fair enough. To push the edge of technology, we buy 2-300 of the latest Flankers from Russia, and put our own avionics in them. Still less than half the cost of an F-22, and 2/3 of an F-35!
12-14-2011, 09:22 PM
#8
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Well, from my experience (back in the day), the stick is more about the weapon than the platform. 
I wouldn't call the APG-63, 70, 80, 66, 68, 80, or 83 slouches, especially with data-link.
I guess we need to buy 10-Chucks, to go with our Flankers, too!
Having numerical superiority--three guys with medium stick versus one with a big stick---is an advantage in my mind, too.
I wouldn't call the APG-63, 70, 80, 66, 68, 80, or 83 slouches, especially with data-link.
I guess we need to buy 10-Chucks, to go with our Flankers, too!
Having numerical superiority--three guys with medium stick versus one with a big stick---is an advantage in my mind, too.
12-14-2011, 10:13 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
Well, from my experience (back in the day), the stick is more about the weapon than the platform.
I wouldn't call the APG-63, 70, 80, 66, 68, 80, or 83 slouches, especially with data-link.
I guess we need to buy 10-Chucks, to go with our Flankers, too!
Having numerical superiority--three guys with medium stick versus one with a big stick---is an advantage in my mind, too.
I wouldn't call the APG-63, 70, 80, 66, 68, 80, or 83 slouches, especially with data-link.
I guess we need to buy 10-Chucks, to go with our Flankers, too!
Having numerical superiority--three guys with medium stick versus one with a big stick---is an advantage in my mind, too.
12-15-2011, 02:08 AM
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,038
They were rushed into service and were never developed to the same degree that a manned aircraft aircraft would have been. Basically they are disposable.
Going forward we can make them more robust and reliable at great expense, or stick with the cheaper disposable model. The cost might be a wash either way.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
miker1369
Major
1
12-01-2006 02:42 PM
