JSF STOVL Woes Strike Pax River

JSF STOVL Woes Strike Pax River

UPDATED: Ash Carter Says LockMar Should Share Costs To Bring Program Back on Track. LockMar Says Plane Back To Flight Dec. 7.

A troublesome fuel shutoff valve. The engine inlet rake needs replacement.

Those are among the latest reported problems with the Joint Strike Fighter program, specifically with the STOVL version that just arrived at Patuxent River.


Here are the details of what we heard from Pax River. There was a fuel problem Tuesday at Patuxent. They found a problem with a fuel shutoff valve. They decided the aircraft cannot fly with this and need to change the valve. That requires engine removal.

The engine inlet rake is also “problematic,” our source said, and they needed to fix it for STOVL flight testing. They plan to fix the inlet rake while removing the engine to replace the fuel shutoff valve. This may take 10 to 12 days.

A congressional aide, told of the issues, checked on them: “All true apparently , except the “inlet rake” was a pre-planned remove/replace as it has a finite “service life”, when they had to R/R the engine. Since the rake was going to stop them before they could finish all 14 flights to VL, they decided to do it concurrent with the engine R/R–at least, that is the story.”

The upshot is that “this is pretty typical of flight test. Nothing about this is a ‘tester screw up,’ supposedly,” the aide said in an email.

However, a close observer of the program begged to differ, saying these problems are emblematic of the program’s much slower pace through testing than planned. “[Ash] Carter [head of Pentagon acquisition] is pretending he can accelerate these test flights; the airplanes cannot hack it at this point.”

Lockheed Martin spokesman Chris Geisel said the F-35 BF-1 is “undergoing required maintenance.… During normal ground operations the crew observed a partial malfunction of a component in the fuel system that manages distribution of onboard fuel. Additionally the aircraft will undergo the removal and replacement of the transparency removal system (TRS) detonation cord which is bonded to the canopy. This is a required process driven by the Nov. 25 expiration date of the canopy’s detonation-cord material (the detonation cord helps remove the canopy from the pilot’s path during an ejection). Maintenance for both is a 10-to-12 day operation. Additionally, maintainers will take advantage of the down-time to perform other maintenance on the jet. Return to flight is planned for the week of Dec. 7.”

Meanwhile, Carter told reporters today that F-35 builder Lockheed Martin should help bear the costs of schedule slips.

“We don’t want to be in a situation where the government bears the cost of schedule slips in a program all by itself,” he said. “It’s reasonable that risk in a program be shared — be shared equitably.”

Carter said he was considering adding aircraft to the F-35 testing program to compress its schedule. Another option he was weighing was adding more personnel to speed up completion of the aircraft’s mission software, he said. The New York Times reported Saturday that the Pentagon is considering adding $200 million to the program. Carter met Sunday with Robert Stevens, Lockheed’s chief executive, and other executives to discuss the program’s woes and how best to address them.

Share |

Join the Conversation

Teething troubles, always a pain to get right sometimes!

Yeah I don’t know if this is really the big deal that SOME will make it out to be. This is the handoff from a manufacturer to the US military. Issues are to be expected.

In other words…

Two items of pre-planned remove/replace due to finite “service life” & ONE fuel shutoff valve…

It much REALLY suck for those trying to find bad new to report on the F-35 program.

Funny how that works. Of even more interesting is that there is no proof that the JET report is a “worst case scenario”. Based on what they looked at, it could easily be a best case scenario by their view.

As for the feel good progress fed to Ashton Carter by the gone-native F-35 DOD project office and LM, what else did anyone expect?

So much for the superior testing methodology employed by LM and used to belittle the latest JET report. It seems that old fashioned flying is still required to properly test a jet fighter. What a surprise!

I remember seeing a few accidents myself, but we lost about 32 Harriers in the Marines in about a three-year span.

Anyone know why this configuration is necessary??
How many Harrier combat sorties were ever generated from a forest?

Part I :

To the poster Mr. Anthony Scott:

You wrote: “Teething troubles, always a pain to get right sometimes!”

I’m not sure that both the F-22 and the F-35 just need to iron out some final “teething problems” : It rather looks to me as if no molecule in their whole D.N.A. strand made sense!

There is a FORMIDABLE , synthesizing November 11, 2009 article about the F-35 on the Internet, the second one I found with this quality. It happens to be Australian, too. Since there is a size limit for our posts on “DoD Buzz”, and – I suspect – for uninterrupted sequences of posts too, I don’t dare to copy/paste it even in several small parts onto here. Instead, I’m going to copy/paste just some excerpts of it. I recommend you very much to read the whole article yourself:

http://​blogs​.crikey​.com​.au/​p​l​a​n​e​t​a​l​k​i​n​g​/​2​0​0​9​/​1​1/1...

So, if my sequence of 9 ( N-I-N-E ) further posts below suddenly gets cut off, you know why…

(Continued)

Part II :

THE J.S.F. STARTS TO LOSE THE U.S. MEDIA

The wall of lies and delusions that surrounds the J.S.F. project is starting to crumble apace in Washington D.C. .

Meanwhile, in the real world, the F-35 program continues to fall apart. The latest – but hardly last – shoe to drop is a new internal analysis (breathlessly refuted by Lockheed) that the cost growth stage for this airplane is just beginning.

Lockheed’s refutation of the Joint Estimating Team (JET) analysis of cost growth and delays in the F-35 program borders on the hilarious: New computer aided design, simulation, and desk studies (un-validated by empirical testing) make cost growth in truly modern defense technology a thing of the past, they assert. Indeed, just like in DDG-1000, LCS, FCS, VH-71, etc., etc., etc…..

(Continued)

Part III :

How pathetic.

Even sadder than Lockheed’s desperate grasp for reasons to do nothing to fix the self-dismembering F-35 program is the fact that the future of Western combat aviation relies on it. The 2.456 models of it on order for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps will ultimately replace almost all tactical aircraft now in our inventory, except for the F-22, for which production beyond 187 aircraft was cancelled this past summer. Major allies, including Britain and much of the rest of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Israel have all made commitments to buy the aircraft.

Unfortunately, the F-35 is unaffordable, and it is a technological kluge that will be less effective than airplanes it replaces. It will undo our air forces and our allies’, not help them.

Few agree now, but in time the finger pointing will start. That’s when someone will have to pick up the pieces to give our pilots a war winning aircraft. The road between here and there will be neither smooth, pretty, nor short, but it is time to take the first step.

(Continued)

Part IV :

A financial disaster? Impossible.

… last August, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates assured us that the F-35 will be “less than half the price … of the F-22.”

Technically, Gates is right – for now.

However, F-35 unit cost has barely begun to will climb. In 2001, the Pentagon had planned to buy 2,866 aircraft for $226.5 billion – $79 million per airplane. In 2007, that unit cost increased to $122 million, thanks to more cost and fewer airplanes being planned.

…the F-35 program will cost up to $15 billion more, and it will be delivered about two years late, and there are rumors the “Joint Estimating Team” ‘s (JET’s) findings may even be worse.

(Continued)

Part V :

With F-35 flight testing barely three percent complete, new problems – and big new costs – are sure to emerge. Worse, only 17 percent of the aircraft’s characteristics will be validated by flight testing by the time the Pentagon has signed contracts for more than 500 aircraft. Operational squadron pilots will have the thrill of discovering the remaining glitches, in training or in combat. No one should be surprised if the final F-35 total program unit cost reaches $200 million per aircraft after all the fixes are paid for.

The latest version of the F-16, heavily laden with complex electronics and other expensive modifications, costs about $60 million, twice its original price – in today’s dollars. The A-10, which the F-35 will also replace, cost about $15 million in today’s dollars. Thus, to replace the almost 4.000 F-16s and A-10s built with just over 1,700 F-35s, the Air Force will have to pay far more to buy less than half as many airplanes.

(Continued)

Part VI :

In an age when the Air Force budget looks to increase only marginally, if at all, while simultaneously planning to buy several other major aircraft (new aerial tankers, new transports, new heavy bombers, and new helicopters), the plan to distend the fighter-bomber budget is a pipe dream.

While most, but not all, in the Pentagon and Congress remain oblivious to the unaffordability of the F-35, some of its foreign buyers are becoming horrified. Despite their governments’ investment of hundreds of millions, parliamentarians and analysts in Australia, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands are expressing real concerns. The F-35’s single largest international partner is the United Kingdom. There, the Royal Navy and Air Force have just decided to reduce their F-35 buy from 138 aircraft to 50. The reason: “We are waking up to the fact that all those planes are unaffordable.”

(Continued)

Part VII :

As a fighter, the F-35 depends on a technological fantasy. Having failed to develop in the 1950s, the 1960s, and the 1970s an effective (and reliable) radar-based technology to shoot down enemy (not friendly) aircraft “beyond visual range”, the Air Force is trying yet again with the F-35, like the F-22 before it. Both have the added development of “stealth” (less detectability against some radars at some angles), but that new “high tech” feature and the long range radar have imposed design penalties that compromised the aircraft with not just high cost but also weight, drag, complexity, and vulnerabilities. The few times this technology has been tried in real air combat in the past decade, it has been successful less than half the time, and that has been against incompetent and/or primitively equipped pilots from Iraq and Serbia.

(Continued)

Part VIII :

If the latest iteration of “beyond visual range” turns out to be yet another chimera, the F-35 will have to operate as a close-in dogfighter, but in that regime it is a dog. If one accepts every aerodynamic promise DOD currently makes for it, the F-35 will be overweight and underpowered.

The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 “Lead Sled”, a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: Most of the Air Force’s fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)
Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the “Lead Sled”.

(Continued)

Part IX :

As a “close air support” ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10.

This is the same vision that President Obama expressed to the VFW in Phoenix last August when he said he wanted to stop “the special interests and their exotic projects that are years behind schedule and billions over budget”. Clearly, no one has told the President that the F-35 is a leading poster child for those evils.

For the part of the inventory that most urgently needs immediate expansion, the A-10 and the close support mission, hundreds of airframes now sitting in the “boneyard” can and should be refurbished – something that can be done at extraordinarily modest cost.

(Continued)

Part X :

The F-35’s bloat — in cost, leaden weight, and mindless complexity — guarantees failure. It will shrink our air forces at increased cost, rot their ability to prevail in the air and support our ground forces, and will needlessly spill the blood of far too many of our pilots.

We have to take the first steps to better understand the extent of the F-35 disaster and to reverse the continuing decay in our air forces.

.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…

Are these all the “teething problems” you have found, Mr. Scott, or are there more?

Air shows are tough

Did any Harrier ever deploy to the woods in combat??

Thanks! (subscribed) Wished there was a way to subscribe without commenting sorry!

Now that the F-22 production has been cut by more than half, the target of the main stream media, all of the left-wing politicians, and their uneducated supporters is going to be the F-35. Yet the F-35, much like the F-22 is key to the future of the USAF. Unless we can design a superior aircraft and have it ready for service by 2015, there is no realistic alternative here gentlemen! The F-35 is fine if considered a replacement for the F-16, AV-8, and F/A-18 Hornet. However when it comes to replacing the F-15, that is where the F-22 should come in. A fighter-bomber like Lockheed’s proposed FB-22 or Northrop’s FB-23 would also be a welcome addition, and can give our bomber force something to work with until our next true strategic bomber comes online.

As far as CAS goes, the A-10C is still king, we should keep as many of these as possible in service.

When will we learn that adding new employees to a software project does not always speed up software development! I learned this while getting my Master of Science in Software Engineering & Project Management. Dr. Ash Carter should have learned this too! The more people you add, the more training is required to get everyone up to speed, and the more coordination is needed between developers. You CAN’T rush software especially with software-intensive systems. You will eventually get software with defects that will cost 3 times more to remove later on. Lockheed Martin has even been trying to take “shortcuts” within their own Lean Six Sigma process. Now there is a lawsuit against Lockheed Martin stating that the software is unsafe! In 2009, a f-22 crashed killing the pilot. In 2007, the International Date Line shot down the other F-22. The DoD is only making the problem worse. Maybe they should hire me to run their F-35 program!

Lockheed has to start saying “NO”. “NO” to changes in the requirements which caused the redesign that led to many of the schedule overruns. “NO” to trying to speed up critical software development especially when there is a lawsuit, by former employees, stating the software does not comply with DoD standards. Lockheed Martin needs to estimate better and do a better job in risk management. Maybe if Lockheed had accurate and valid historical data they could make better estimations. They won’t since they try to hide some of the defects from the DoD as stated in the lawsuit. The Military needs to ask for more reasonable requirements and stop changing them. DoD projects are tough to estimate due to their length, technology, and dynamically changing threats.

The answer is better requirement traceability, avoiding requirement creep, controlling customer’s expectations, reasonable technology goals, fixed contracts, better risk management, oversight and auditing by a 3rd party embedded within development teams, and have shorter development to production cycle while implementing more enhancements/upgrades later after production.

Everyone is worried for nothing. Our dollar and economy will soon be so worthless that even if we make the JSF 35 perfect, even if the costs for us sky rocket, the rest of the world will be able to buy it.

Very true;

The dropping dollar would make all manufacturing sectors viable in this country. However it would also make our debt blow-up out of control too. The world would be feasting on free products, because we would owe so much money, that would be the only way to pay it off — with slavery.

This configuration is necessary for take off and landing aboard the Amphibs.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement