Home » Air » JSF Likely Flies Tomorrow

JSF Likely Flies Tomorrow

By Colin Clark Monday, October 4th, 2010 9:16 am
Posted in Air, International, Naval

UPDATED: JSF is Cleared for Takeoff as of Tuesday Morning

The software glitch that led to the grounding of all variants of the Joint Strike Fighter fleet last Thursday should be fixed very soon, allowing planes to take to the air tomorrow, Pentagon officials say.

The problem, detected in the lab on the ground, resided with code that controls the engine’s three fuel boost pumps. “The minor software modification will correctly align fuel boost pump signal sequencing,” Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said in a statement. The glitch was not insignificant. “It could possibly trigger a shutdown of all three boost pumps, potentially further causing engine stall. Such a simultaneous shutdown is unlikely, but prudence dictated a suspension of operations until the fuel boost pump signal timing was corrected.”

The ability to fix this sort of problem must have grizzled veteran pilots grinning. In the old days a problem like this would probably have been found the hard way — in flight — and someone might have had to eject or make a risky emergency landing, or worse. As it is in today’s software-driven flight environment, this appears at this point to be a potentially significant but easily fixable problem.

Join the Conversation

	Oblat October 4th, 2010 at 9:43 am >The ability to fix this sort of problem must have grizzled veteran pilots grinning. In the old days a problem like this would probably have been found the hard way — in flight — and someone might have had to eject or make a risky emergency landing, or worse. As it is in today’s software-driven flight environment, this appears at this point to be a potentially significant but easily fixable problem. Just more Lockmart propaganda trying to make lemonade out of lemons, you don’t discover these problems in flight you discover them on the test-benches and test-benches have existed forever. Whether you change a couple resistor values or change a few lines of code is a pretty minor difference. It’s sad to see how much of this taxpayer paid for web site is just blatant propaganda for poorly performing projects.
	aeroxavier October 4th, 2010 at 12:33 pm How many days for one another problems? this plane was one big joke , inferior to one f-18, 3x more expensive, just for was furtive. Health reform have make to many protest about his cost (approx 700bn), and nothing for this program who cost 1000bn (not ending).Americans have one problem serious.
	Dog Face Liberal October 4th, 2010 at 12:36 pm An understanding of the function of fuel boost pumps might be helpful for you to understand why you are wrong. Fuel boost pumps are used to maintain positive pressure in the fuel lines during negative G maneuvers. Under normal flight conditions gravity will provide all of the needed force to maintain fuel flow. In years prior a problem with the fuel boost pumps would only become apparent in flight when you lost an engine. The ability to discover and fix these problems on the ground is a very, very good thing.
	Weaponhead October 4th, 2010 at 1:04 pm 1. Grizzled veterans did not have software running their fuel pumps so this would not have happened. 2. The fact that it was found on the bench versus in-flight is pure happenstance since it has been flying that way up until this point. If this had happened in-flight then the pilot would have had to punch out just like the “old days”.
	William C. October 4th, 2010 at 1:52 pm And unlike the old days when many aircraft programs were able to continue and shrug off after a crash (a F-14 prototype crashed for example), such an event could kill the F-35 program.
	Oblat October 4th, 2010 at 2:08 pm Ah no — Last time I looked the F35 wasn’t GA quite apart from everything else. This reminds me on an article I was reading on the decline of engineering and it being replaced with a faith in magic. Certainly helps with those juicy defense contracts if the customers are clueless.
	CharlesHouston October 4th, 2010 at 3:23 pm Hmmm. Let’s try this again and see if the “disappearing reply” monster gets me this time. aeroxavier — do you know that we cannot understand you? Are you talking about the F-35? Do you know that we just ignore you since we can’t understand you?
	pfcem October 4th, 2010 at 6:50 pm It is just ANOTHER example of how things are different with the F-35. In previous programs similar such ‘minor software problems’ took weeks if not months to ‘fix’.
	pfcem October 4th, 2010 at 6:54 pm Days rather than week if not months compared to previous programs. MUCH superior to the F/A-18 for SIMILAR cost (once it reached full rate production).
	@E_L_P October 5th, 2010 at 7:25 am If only it was that simple. Anything fuel and software related on this crate is integrated with the thermal management system. Pumps working create heat. Heat has to be heat-sinked in someway. Lets see where all this goes. It would be interesting to see the fine details of what that 14 million dollar DOD contract on 4 Oct actually is going to pay for.
	E-Stan October 5th, 2010 at 8:51 am How many more delays and cost over runs will the Pentagon put up with on the F-35 program. Its a shame that all the other programs have to be cut back or cancelled due to this politically charged F-35 program. This program was a bad idea from day one no matter what contractor won it. You do not put all your eggs in one basket. This program will eventually be a big problem for our national security. What will we do when a problem is dicovered and every F-35 gets grounded after they are put into service? We will have a lot of pilots with nothing to fly.
	Whiskers64 October 5th, 2010 at 9:52 am For those of us who have had an in military aircraft flight failure of some kind, I am happy they found it now. Anything that would stop a potential compressor stall or other fuel/air problem is well worth the cost and keeps the “pucker” factor down. Now let’s strap that thing on and go flying!
	Spad Driver October 5th, 2010 at 9:56 am Weaponhead.… Guess grizzled veteran is a relative term. When I flew the A-1 (Spad/Skyraider) we had a mechanical furl pump and an electric with an on/off switch in the cockpit. Flight controls were cables and pulleys. Life was just more simple then. Then to the OV-10 (Navy) at 500 plus combat hours and nearly 340 shooting missions in an aircraft that went for $250,000 per copy. Ya we lost pilots then and the war was up close and personal (7.62 in the face was the first VAL-4 loss) but, to the best of my awareness I never hit the wrong folks. We didn’t fight over our aircraft rather we loved the one we had and took care of each other. Grizzled.…ya I guess so but somehow we muddled through.
	Firefox October 5th, 2010 at 9:57 am All those delays ar the more painful if one realises this plane is not pushing any envelope, the only breakthrough (is it) trait of F-35 is sensor fusion, but how that is going to work is difficult to guess. Speaking of kynematic performance, it is inferior to Su-27 bodydesign that has been in service for quarter of century. With regards to F-35 target flight envelope, I would like to know how this plane will perform NORAD intercepts against harrasing Tu-160s (or its replacement), or flying intercepts from carriers against palnes coming to service at the same time, be it T-50, J-XX or who knows what. Common sense and experince says USG should kill F-35 snafu, reopen F-22 line, buy more F-16s and Super Hornets as interim solution, and go for something relevant in the future as F/A-XX and advanced UCAVs.
	freefallingbomb October 5th, 2010 at 2:28 pm To the poster “Dog Face Liberal” Doggie, actually “Oblat” read the article with attention while you didn’t: It was a software glitch that could have shut down the three fuel pumps, not a mechanical problem of the pumps themselves. Software (code) is quite insensitive to negative g maneuvres.
	Bernard Miller October 5th, 2010 at 5:20 pm The future may go to the UAV’s in some combat oriented arena’s but a manned Supersonic craft is where we are headed; to stick with yesterdays craft as the only thing worthy of the American Public is wrong. What can get most of the problems lurking out there is also so saying we only give our pilots to fly a plane capable of defeating some or most of those you’ll come up against. Our pilots are ranging in age to the 60’s, why because they are flying the very best and most affective of all out there; this is another reason our pilots work in the military when they could double or triple their income in the private sector. We are the very best when it comes to the military of all others out there and making what we know today available today to our troops and pilots.
	Dog Face Liberal October 5th, 2010 at 6:09 pm Whether it was the mechanism itself or the software that controls the on/off, sequence and timing of the mechanism is immaterial. Bench testing of components under negative-G conditions is not something that was done in the “old days”. In the old days if there was a problem with your fuel boost pumps you learned it the hard way, in flight at a less than ideal attitude. LM does not always earn it, but on this one they did good.
	Dog Face Liberal October 5th, 2010 at 6:13 pm GA=General Aviation? This point needs some clarification from you as the vast majority of aircraft (rotary wing too) come equipped with fuel boost pumps.
	Mike October 5th, 2010 at 7:41 pm Like no other plane series was ever grounded due to a fault found in one aircraft.…all this Monday Morning Quarterbacking is pathetic. There are a lot more than only one company building this aircraft and they are building three variations. No one has done that before and the technology is pushing the envelope. Of course it’s going to be expensive. In this current Government environment the SR-71 would never have been built, the oversight, paperwork and red-tape would have killed the program before it ever got off the ground. (pardon the pun) The government procurement stormtroopers are soo entrenched and have built such huge sandboxes that it costs companies more money to monitor and report on their contracts than it does to even build or do what the contract is supposed to do. This will be the last manned fighter I’m afraid for many reasons.
	freefallingbomb October 5th, 2010 at 9:27 pm Part 1 / 2 It astounds me that people tinkering around the extremely belated F-35 prototypes seemingly are still at odds with World War One lessons in aviation! The criteria for ANYTHING to be used in Aerospace (from the light absorption coefficient of each paint colour to the effect of solar activity on telecommunications, etc. etc.) are the most demanding of all industries, and military aircraft are even more advanced than civilian ones! Don’t the parts suppliers develop and test their own products according to a well-known (and constantly growing) list of material conditions, before they all get integrated in the main assembly facility? (Continued)
	freefallingbomb October 5th, 2010 at 9:28 pm Part 2 / 2 Well, but recent, prestigious French prototypes had their own ( TOTALLY AVOIDABLE ) software glitches too, but… unlike this one, they weren’t always discovered before take-off…: For example in 1996, when we launched the first of our heavy Ariane 5 (Space) rockets, we simply used the software from the earlier Ariane 4 rockets (“copy/paste” or “Send To”, literally!), and totally uh… “forgot” that Ariane 5 was a much bigger and heavier rocket than Ariane 4… So, during the Ariane 5 protoype’s (absolutely successful and controlled!) take-off, its Ariane 4 “mind” thought that it was accelerating and shaking too violently to possibly survive and opted for controlled self-destruction… How many slaps in the software engineers’ faces will repay the damages?
	E-Stan October 5th, 2010 at 10:29 pm You need to read up on the F-15 and the V-22. They have both had failures that grounded the entire fleet. The F-35 program is behind because of one failure after the other. All airplanes are built by more than one company thats a no-brainer but the prime contractor is solely responsible.
	pfcem October 6th, 2010 at 12:27 am How many more delays & cost overruns is the Pentagon going to CAUSE?
	pfcem October 6th, 2010 at 12:37 am Quite the opposite. About the only envelope the F-35 is not pushing its flight envelope. And even there, it IS — having a combat radius which ‘comparable’ 4th/4.5 generation fighters require at least two external tanks to achieve. The F-35 IS the future & is a BETTER fighter than anything else flying except for the F-22 (which we SHOULD have more of) & will/would perform BETTER vs the T-50/PAK FA & J-XX than anything else flying except for the F-22. Thank God you are not in charge. Your kind of delusional thinking would have had us fighting Korea with obsolete WWII piston aircraft. F/A-XX & UCAVs are a lot farther away than you wish to believe.
	roland October 6th, 2010 at 11:40 am Let it fly if the price is low but if it’s too much then seattle for the latest Boeng F-15E Strike Eagle which have the same capability.
	freefallingbomb October 6th, 2010 at 9:08 pm The problem is trickier to solve than you imagined (at least with U.S. American machines) : Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II: Something between 113 million $ and 191,9 million $ McDonnell Douglas F-15 E Strike Eagle:100 million $ Boeing F-15 SE Silent Eagle: 100 million $ Better pay 150 million $ for a F-22, then buy two F-22s for the price of three F-15s or for the price of three (?) F-35s. Or reopen the F-15 C production line and buy 3 – 6 F-15 Cs (at ~ 30 million $ each) for the price of each F-35, but upgrade the F-15 Cs with F-22 avionics (which could drive up their final price a bit…). If you can live without stealth, then you’ll realize that sensors and weapons are deadlier today than agility. Unless, of course, you feel the absolute need to replace the F-35 by another U.S. American stealth plane: Then you simply got no other choice than the F-22…
	William Bell October 7th, 2010 at 9:07 am aeroxavier — Perhaps you should learn to speak english before you try posting barbs on this site. For your reading level, I recommend Hooked on Phonics.
	Marty mezick October 7th, 2010 at 2:38 pm Oh My God Buying more Eagles and Hornets wont happen because Big Brother Aircraft Company(Boeing ) is trying they’re best to kill off the McDonnell Douglas product line as fast as they can in favor of they’re paper airplane projects.They have already eliminated the commercial line and the dont want to support the DC-9/MD-80,90,95, or the DC-10,KC-10, MD-11s already in service because they know that it a better built product with a longer lifespan. What BBAC will do is offer up another paper airplane that is over priced , poorly built ‚and will barely do the job its designed for. I am a certified aircraft mechanic with almost 30 years in the field of military and commercial aircraft maintenance expirience . Working here in the washington area has proven the old adage “Built by idiots , maintained and made airworthy by a genius”
	shaun October 7th, 2010 at 6:23 pm Obviously you do not work for Lockheed. So you are speaking completely out of ignorance.
	shaxx October 7th, 2010 at 6:25 pm You do not know of F-18’s wings snapping off do you. Such an ignorant fool.
	pfcem October 7th, 2010 at 7:11 pm Nice try but full rate production F-35s will be MUCH less costly than current LRIP aircraft. Similar to that of new F-16s &/or F/A-18s.
	pfcem October 7th, 2010 at 7:11 pm The F-15SE DOES NOT have the same capability as the F-35.
	pfcem October 7th, 2010 at 7:13 pm What are you smokin?. Boeing is try VERY hard to keep BOTH the F-15 & the F/A-18 alive as long as it possibly can.
	enauman October 10th, 2010 at 5:30 am I’m curious just what kinds of backgrounds all of you “experts” out there have that allows such authoritative opinions. Do any of you fly? Have any of you ever been part of an aircraft design team? No flames here. Just curious. I worked for the Skunk Works for 30 years and was the lead flight test instrumentation engineer on the 2 demonstrators (X35). Although the F35 is more of a ‘General Dynamics’ product than a true Skunk Works product (since that’s who’s really running ML Aero now) is still a pretty amazing aircraft considering what it does.

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

DoD Buzz

JSF Likely Flies Tomorrow

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments