JSF Faces Fire Risk: Head Tester

JSF Faces Fire Risk: Head Tester

The Pentagon’s head of operational testing and evaluation is “concerned” that a recent decision to remove fuses and fire extinguishers from the Joint Strike Fighter program means more planes may be lost to enemy fire and may increase the risk from fires resulting from fuel leaks and related risks.

Michael Gilmore, director for operational test and evaluation, said in written testimony prepared for the Senate Armed Services Committee that the program’s recent removal of “shutoff fuses for engine fueldraulics lines, coupled with the prior removal of dry bay fire extinguishers, has increased the likelihood of aircraft combat losses from ballistic threat induced fires. F-35 live fire testing to date has shown that threat impact into fuel tanks results in sustained fires.”

Gilmore noted that the move was approved “as an acceptable system trade to balance weight, cost and risk,” but he said, “I remain concerned regarding the aircraft’s vulnerability to threat-induced and safety-related fires.”


On other testing issues, Gilmore said the program’s biggest challenge has been “late delivery of test aircraft and the failure to adjust to that reality by building and resourcing realistic system development and test plans, as well as plans for producing and delivering aircraft.”

“As of today, three of 12 flight test aircraft operate at one of the government test centers,” Gilmore said in his written testimony. There should have been 10 operating now, with the last two planes “following in the next 90 days. The program office now projects that all 12 of the previously planned developmental flight test aircraft will ferry to test centers by February, 2011. More test aircraft, generated from production lots, are needed to complete block 3 development.”

Gilmore also noted that the program’s software delivery dates “have recently been extended by more than one year each compared to the plans existing at this time last year.” It hasn’t made much difference yet because of the late delivery of test aircraft, he said.

Gilmore is also watching one other “critical” issue, “effective orchestration” of the corporate labs, Cooperative Avionics Test Bed and the use of planes for flight tests. “We have yet to see how the process being put in place will cope with multiple events for three different variants operating at two flight test centers,” Gilmore said in his prepared testimony.

Join the Conversation

buy f-18 that’s better

Okay, I support the F-35 program, but this was a plain stupid decision. Cut the weight elsewhere, not from key survivability components.

I wonder if the cost for a fire extinguisher plus a fuse equals 112M.…NOT! Who is running this program anyway, have we become this complacent in the acquisition/procurement arena? Everybody please take a deep breath and count to ten.

It’s easier to pull safety equipment off the plane than it is to get the weight requirement changed.

I think the underlying problem is that the people running the defence industry have become business-men. Their first priority is to deliver and get payed, not to deliver what they think is the best possible piece of equipment for the military. There is simply no support for that kind of thinking in their organisations, so when something turns out to be not-as-great-as-persived they dont stop and re-think the design — they just steam-wheel ahead. And as long as they meet the last dead-line they feel that they have done a good job, even if the product they deliver is so flawed that it never passes operational testing.

It is of course the governments fault that it has turned it to this, because it has choosen not to punish companies that has delivered sub-standard equipment. Until it starts doing that we will continue to see these kinds of procurement problems. (Sorry for the long comment, got a bit carried away there.)

I hate to say it JOnatan but you’re criticism is justified and pretty sound, one has to confess. It is so frustrating, but even more so incompetent as to the risks of even further capability-gap now being evident. I might only disagree in that it’s more JPO/govt/DoD’s fault and less the actual Contractor/Corporation’s fault. Manufacturers must be held accountable for sub-standard contracted work, absolutely, but the main issue here now appears more to be ‘sub-standard’ acquisition and strategic planning. In that case, it’s more the ‘deciders’ who as you point out are apparently making wrong strategic recapitalisation decisions here, in regards to planning this JSF-or-bust-program from the get go. Way too risky for me as years creep along, sorry.

The issue is again weight with the F-35. A fully loaded JSF with ordnance is projected to weigh in excess of 80,000 pounds making it one of the heaviest single engine fighters in history.

The longer take off distances being experienced by the prototypes in recent test flights is a symptom of poor airframe weight management which was supposed to have been solved by the expensive SWAT initiative.

The removal of safety systems to try and eek out extra pounds on the flying test airframes is criminal and again points to a fighter program in serious trouble.

Just how is this flying catastrophe better then a tested and working F-22?

Their first priority is to get a lucrative consulting gig after they retire.

I agree totally bring on the F-22’s !!!!!!!!

Oh, Heck !
It’s alright!
We’ll just install extra fire extinguishers in the F-18.
That’ll make it right.

Wow, sacrificing fire extinguishers to save weight, next they will be cutting holes in the main wing spars.
This inidcates more serious problems then have been made public to date. Maybe buying more F-18’s makes sense after all, teh F-35 is a non-starter at this point.

Isn’t it about time to severely discipline LockMart for gross overruns, delays, and producing a product not within spec? The Marine PM could be “canned” but not the contractor. The Pentagon is captive to LM’s nonsense. I am glad they do not make civilian planes anymore. They gave me the shakes.

A pound here, a pound there! Somethings should never be removed from an airframe like safety items. As for weight goals, that’s all they are — goals. The USAF and Pentagon made Lockheed re-design the C-5A to have lighter wings to meet the weight goals. Otherwise the airframe met every requirement. They spent a lot of money to do the re-design. A number of years later they re-winged the cargo hauler to put the original designed wing back on. It was needed to put better, more powerful engines on later, ie the C-5M.
The F-35 is trying to meet the current goals now, so later the USAF can hang all kinds of other stuff on the jet in 10, 15, 20 years from now.

*required

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

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.