Failing Parts Slow F-35B Tests

Failing Parts Slow F-35B Tests

As frenetic stock-picking, carnival barker Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s Mad Money, says: listen to company quarterly earnings reports, you can learn a lot. On Lockheed Martin’s 2nd quarter conference call yesterday, CEO Bob Stevens told Wall Street analysts the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program was at a “critical juncture” as it transitions from development into production.

The systems development and demonstration phase is about 80 percent complete, he said. Of the 19 planned test aircraft, 15 have been delivered; only 13 will actually fly, the others are for structural tests. Nine of the “flyers” have so far completed a total of 136 test flights: the F-35A has flown 56 times; the F-35B short-takeoff and landing version has flown 74 times: and the carrier variant F-35C has flown six times.

While the 74 test flights of the F-35B might look impressive, it’s actually behind schedule; it was supposed to have flown 95 times by now, Stevens said. “Higher than predicted” failure rates of component parts have grounded some F-35B test aircraft. Stevens described the failing parts as sub-components, not major parts such as the engine, which has been performing well.


The components that are failing are more of the things that would appear either smaller or more ordinary like thermal cooling fans, door actuators, selected valves or switches or components of the power system.

Yet, testers have had to pull the engines out to access those failed components and the follow-on maintenance has taken far longer than expected, Stevens said. Lockheed and its suppliers are trying to figure out whether the problems lie in botched manufacturing (Friday jobs), whether the design of the parts must be changed or whether the program needs to buy more spares. Stevens said the problem is fixable.

On the production side, Stevens said 31 airplanes are in various stages of assembly. “We continue to see improved cost performance… I think it’s fair to say that the production cost trends overall remain on the favorable side of prior estimates which is where we all want them to be.”

Crackerjack Morgan Stanley aerospace analyst Heidi Wood asked Stevens about F-35 requirements creep, which has been the death knell for many a program. “[T]he hardware is progressively locking into a good configuration,” the CEO replied, “and there are no major technical showstoppers to date on the program.”

I know the numbers of airplanes are big, the size of the program is large, and therefore the cost numbers are significant… But again, I want to disabuse you of any sense you might have that requirements turn or creep are driving either our performance on the airplane or within the program or the overall cost of the program because that’s really not a source of cost concern at present.

As for international sales, Stevens threw around a bunch of notional figures, muttered about European commitments among declining defense budgets and said there is “growing” interest in Asia, including Japan, Singapore and South Korea, and the Middle East.

Join the Conversation

Sounds like more of the same, ‘everthing is wonderful it is just taking longer and going to cost more’…

So has the $614M withhold now been paid to Lockheed? Was it ever withheld?

So the STOVL problem is a tough nut. Knowing people on both teams, I have heard all agree that it would be the real issue. Several of the people on the losing team (especially in the propulsion tong) predicted these problems. Nobody expected it to be easy. And several predicted “expensive.”

What may be lost here is the “work” that it takes to sustain a fix.

These aircraft were suppose to be designed to an “A sub o” (operational availability) of 95%. Right now even with their lab-like “care” & maintenence, they are only making it into the high 70s. This could be a very expensive redesign. Especially if they want to find space to maintain these birds afloat.

“As for international sales, Stevens threw around a bunch of notional figures, muttered about European commitments among declining defense budgets and said there is “growing” interest in Asia, including Japan, Singapore and South Korea, and the Middle East.”

And don’t forget Greece! They were mentioned in the PowerPoint brief at Farnborough the other day. Confidence is high for the sales force. Yuk, yuk.

Ho boy! Another HUGE waste of money! The solution? First we should just dissolve the US Air Force & put them back under the US Army as their air arm. Second, the US Navy should TRASH this program + all their silly FA-18s as well? And finally, we should bring back the F-8 Crusader platform! Remember! > “When you’re out of Crusaders, YOU’RE OUT OF FIGHTERS!”

You forgot to say that we should drop the AR15 platform and reissue the M14, and also get rid of those silly jeep things because horses are much better.

You again???Thanks for adding nothing relevant to this thread.

No, No you get it wrong. All things are going to plans. It’s just that it is LM plan, not ours. Just pay the bills and don’t ask silly questions.….….

F-35B will hide in the forest and strike when you least expect it.….….….. after the logistics catch up

You didn’t really expect the CEO of a major corporation to come out and state that his prize program is a disaster in the making did you? The F-35 will be in every service, even if it doesn’t perform to specifications simply because the vast amount of funding dumped into the program makes starting over irrelevant.

Actually most people are missing the point. The whole problem with the F-35 program is the fact that once again they are trying this silly idea of one aircraft that does all for all services, just like the old F-111. It just won’t work, that’s why all of the problems they are having with development. I know that all other projects had development problems, but not as bad as this one. It is supposed to replace the A-10, AV8B, F-16, and F-18, so maybe it has “steathly” capabilities and the latest electronics, but there is no way it can out perform the A-10 in ground attack or carry near the payload. It will NOT be able to out dogfight the F-16 or F-18. This is why I think that this is a waste of money. For the time being, put F-120s in the super Hornet and build them with the same stuff they use for the F-15SE. Build more F-22s and upgrade them with F-35 electronics, and produce the F-22B. Replace all B-1Bs with the B-1R. Then start immediately on the 6th generation fighters.

this is what happens when they try to combine new technology with COTS items — never has and never will work on high end gear like this. COTS is OK for items like buying a rifle off the shelf, or for a new truck design with the following cots items “cummins engine –allison trans –dana differentials — willwood brakes –etc” COTS just does not work when your trying to bild something that didnot exist before and it really does not save you much considering all the down time waiting for replacement parts because the ones you got are new designs because they stopped producing the old style forcing you into a contract at higher cost to build the old part. We (the government) have really dropped the ball on acquisition requirements.

M-14? You are forgetting the impressive cost savings of the “Pointed Stick”, sir.

Actually, to contradict “anonimous” this is relevant. I heard that Lockheed was saying that Greece was interested — that is ludicrous. Greece is broke, what are they gonna do — buy 1/2 of one and share it with Turkey? Greece could fly it from January to June and then Turkey would fly it from July to December.

This is not TJRedNeck’s first rodeo, obviously. We have tried to build one aircraft for multiple roles/services before and it has almost always been a disaster. The F-111 is still the poster child for that. Eventually, the F-35 (the 200 that will be built) will be A-10 replacements — just much thinner skinned than the A-10. The test program for the naval F-35 will run a long time before the Navy decides to just stick with the F-18 in its variants. Sigh. And we are more likely to replace the B-1B with the B-52!

DensityDuck? You are absolutely correct sir! When it has to be re-configured (quickly) in the field for specific “snipers purposes,” the M-14 is a MUCH better rifle by a long shot! Tommydeuce is correct too, when he mentions the “pointed-stick;” bayonets are MUCH more effective (longer reach) on the business end of an M-14, then it EVER would be on a silly AR15.

Producing one jet to replace fifty will lose the U.S. in the next major war. For a few main factors

1. The jet will be overwhelmed

2. It costs alos

3. Producing huge quantities of weapons of war rather than just 1 is good for the economy

4. The technology used to build these weapons is brought from other countries and we can make them alone-Japan

Scrap the F-35 and produce more F-18’s instead

–CANT make them alone

I really don’t have too much of a problem with the main topic of the article. At least they are flying the aircraft and learning somethings, X, Y, and/or Z part wears at a certain rate. That is normal to learn in a flight test program as long as it isn’t something like a major design flaw that could have been knocked out early. My main problem has always been with the spin-doctors.

Well everyone? Tell me, what’s so wrong with bringing back the F-8 Crusader? That was an AWESOME platform; not a lot of that sissy “fly=by-wire” stuff in THAT airplane! Another thing too — you all seen the recent news about the navy having an “Airship” again, related to the ongoing gulf oil disaster? Whoaa YEAH! The navy made a HUGE mistake in terminating their “Zeppelin squadrons back in the early 60s. Damned fixed-wing weenie aviator admirals screwed that up for us.

Failing parts? The hell you say. NO new aircraft has EVER had parts fail during initial development. /sarcasm

Thanks, I just about fell out of my damn chair to hear you say that. Maybe there’s hope afterall ;-)

WTH? You want to bring back that Gold Plated Crusader? That’s Gucci thinking. You need to reach back to the P-38 for REAL value (oh wait, that was expensive in it’s day too.)

You need to work on your math.

The original model of the P-51 was a ground-attack aircraft. And forty years later the F-15 went from fighter to bomber with only some bolt-on pods. And, of course, there’s the multi-service multi-mission F-4.

The F-111 was a casualty of McNamara’s idiot ideas about program management; there’s nothing inherently wrong with multi-service development.

Indeed, the F-35 program is an example of people suggesting that “learning from history” means “doing things exactly like we did before”. The F136 thing is the same way.

Ha. According to some people in this debate, that’s exactly the case!

Density — at least you type well.

The NA-73X was the initial version of the P-51 Mustang, the Mustang was ordered by England. It was referred to as a fighter bomber but they were designed as interceptors to counter the German fighters that England was seeing overhead. It was designed as a counterpart to the Supermarine Spitfire, which was very expensive to produce and maintain. Sure is beautiful, however.

There is nothing inherently wrong with interservice development except that it normally delivers aircraft that are barely usable for any service involved! The Navy needs heavy landing gear for use on carriers, and wants folding wings for storage. The Air Force has the advantage of big bases and does not care to trade off performance for durable landing gear. Now, the F-111 is still being used by Australia so it did something right.

The F-15 A/B evolved into the F-15E with the addition of a “bolt on pod or two” all right — one of the pods carries the WSO I guess. And lots of additional radars, etc. You can drop bombs from the C/D models but the E is the real bomber.

part 2
The F-4 was originally a Navy aircraft but is still a very capable aircraft today, the Air Force bought a lot of them. That is a rare example of an aircraft that met a lot of the needs of both the AF and Navy. Egypt may still be flying some of them. Many days, I wish we were still flying the E/F models since they could handle many missions (Wild Weasel for instance) that otherwise are given to the F-16 — with only one crew member and less ability to carry HARMs.

Anyway this was a fun excursion into history mostly since no one has any idea what you meant by your reply.

Does anyone out there think it would be possible to “re-start” the F-8 Crusader production line? Um, I think Vought still is in the warplane making business?

I think you forget your meds

anonimous? You appear to be an overbearing, unhumorous, self-important T-BONK! What is your problem anyways?

An airship is a right smart idea! It makes a good observation platform — is cheap — you can hang UAVs all over it; and save a butt load of fuel to boot! They can stay on station for months with no resupply, and if they get destroyed by hurricane or attack. The UAVs can leave like a bunch of angry wasps, and the NAVY and the tax payers are not out of a lot of dollars!

Makes sense to me!!

you have any idea what are you talking about???

People that have not idea and doesn’t make sense are my problem

In other words, people just like yourself?

yes,people like me

We should purchase some Saab Gripen NG jets! They are considered the best jets for the buck!

*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