Home » Air » HASC Presses Hard on F136

HASC Presses Hard on F136

By Colin Clark Tuesday, March 15th, 2011 2:45 pm
Posted in Air, International, Naval, Policy

With the F136 engine likely inserted into the coming House of Representative’s Continuing Resolution, some of the second engine’s strongest supporters used a hearing today to press the Air Force and JSF leadership about buying the GE/Rolls Royce engine.

The arguments at the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee were familiar to anyone who has followed the second engine war: competition is good; the US will face operational risks if all most of our fighters rely on a single engine; Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine is greatly over budget. David Van Buren Air Force principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition, repeated the arguments of senior Pentagon officials that the second engine just cost too much in these straitened budgetary times.

Rep.Roscoe Bartlett, subcommittee chairman,asked the assembled officials if they could tell him why compeition was good for the Littoral Combat Ship program but was not good for the JSF engine program. All the officials — including the Government Accountability Office’s acquisition expert Michael Sullivan — demurred, saying either they didn’t know enough about LCS or weren’t able to make such a comparison.

Vice Adm. David Venlet, head of the JSF program, offered the subcommittee some good news. He said seven of the JSF fleet were back on the flight line after the fleet was grounded last week due to the failure of two generators and an oil leak. Venlet said aircraft using older generators were cleared for flight. We hear that the pilot of AF-4, who was flying the stricken jet, did not get a full reading of his instruments after the generators failed and backup systems kicked in. This may raise questions about whether the backup provides enough power. But it is awfully early to make any judgments about just what caused the failure and what is needed to fix it.

Join the Conversation

	Formula March 15th, 2011 at 3:41 pm Its nice to see some “common sense” coming out of our elected officials. Its guy like Mr Bartlett who see real savings and is willing to cut through the political BS that Sentaors McCain, Lieberman, and Florida Rep Rooney have passed around Congress via LIES. These three guys could care less about the 20B in savings the competitive engine brings to the F35. Press on Mr Barttett and I hope you get a bigger following to keep this program funded because it really will be the best solution for this crippled F35 program. Also, its time for the Generals and Admirals to talk to their staff and see what they really think about the competitive engine without any regards to what Mr Gates may think. Mr Gates will retire some day, this engine will be around for the next 50 years and our troops need something they can rely on.
	Formula March 15th, 2011 at 3:41 pm Lets stop being so short sighted on what we can save in 2011 by cancelling this program and look at the real SAVINGS it will bring to the F35 program. Remember, it was Mr Gates ignorance and down right refusal to comply three (3) times in a row concerning GAO recommendations.….the result, the F35 Program is 50B over budget. The GAO has spoken again and have told Mr Gates that the competitive engine can save upwards of 20B over the F35’s life cycle and the competitive engine will cost no additional tax dollars than if we just have one engine. That equates to a savings in our life span, our grandchildrens life span and our great grand childrens life span.…sounds like a plan to me. Lets listen to the GAO this time .
	@E_L_P March 15th, 2011 at 4:11 pm I was actually shocked when I read what Bartlett said. Imagine; Gordon England spinning fairy tales about the F-35 program. I am surprised. I didn’t see that one coming.
	Josh March 15th, 2011 at 4:17 pm No. The common sense approach is to pick one or the other like every other fighter that’s entered service recently. You don’t need TWO engines on a brand new aircraft. BUT… there should have been an open competition in which the F-135 and F-136 were evaluated and a contract awarded after that. It would have not only made pricing competitive but, hopefully, the better engine would have been picked. Lockheed should not have been allowed to dictate that they were using the F-135 engine and call it done. Even the sensor company I work for had to compete to get the contract for parts on this aircraft. From all testing data I’ve seen the Pratt engine isn’t even the better of the 2. But, as is the custom in recent times, both Lockheed and the DoD have screwed this program up so bad it’ll be a miracle if the jet ever makes it into service while there’s still a need for manned fighters. What’s frustrating to a lot of us is the decisions being made have absolutely nothing to do with what’s better for the aircraft and everything to do with district politics.
	Oblat March 15th, 2011 at 4:37 pm Yes folks they screwed up the design twice… >A “design artifact” unique to a new electrical starter/generator configuration is the likely cause of the in-flight dual generator failure on F-35A test jet AF-4 on March 9, says the Joint Program Office. How sadly predictable.
	dirtylodown March 15th, 2011 at 4:46 pm Has any one seen that GE is involved with US Govt with everything. I smell something fishy. Emelt is on the Job commision for President and other committees. The Congress is forcing the issue on this really hard.
	MaxFn March 15th, 2011 at 6:13 pm if your sensor fails the pilot does not die, the aircraft is not lost, or will it ground the fleet. The engine is too important and the F-16 program demonstrates the value of engine competition.
	sferrin March 15th, 2011 at 8:10 pm The F-4 and F-104 did a most execellent job of showing why that sentiment is weak at best.
	MaxFn March 15th, 2011 at 9:42 pm the F-104 was called the widowmaker and the thud because they were single engine aircraft.…the F-4 was a twin. not the same problem
	jetdoc March 15th, 2011 at 9:45 pm Once again ignorance of the logistics history of propulsion systems added to the GE propaganda and our country is headed down the path of foolish spending once again At a time when the budget crisis is so bad that the USAF is having a difficult time paying its troops and considering delaying the F-15s ASEA radar along with.many other programs.…including cutting millions out of the Cip program… makes me think you all spent time in the Japanese GE reactor program –
	hrntphxr March 15th, 2011 at 10:41 pm Its too bad that people supporting the “alternate engine” continue to make claims about saving money and no one has any FACTS to support the claim. Please show how splitting a finite number of something as complex as a turbine engine will increase savings… it is against the basic laws of economics. There is NO REAL savings, it it only percieived by those on one side. Please show the facts the hyperbole.
	retired462 March 16th, 2011 at 1:31 am The money for the F136 will come out of DOD’s hide; so, what program is going to be cut to pay for it? Gates says he doesn’t have the money; so why doesn’t the HASC just listen to Gates?
	Oblat March 16th, 2011 at 1:47 am >Please show how splitting a finite number of something as complex as a turbine engine will increase savings… it is against the basic laws of economics. Yes we all know that capitalism does work for complex systems — that is why the soviet union was so successful in the end. The history of military aviation is 80 years of ever increasing costs and static productivity. The reason for that is ever decreasing competition. The only people who want that to continue are the contractors.
	irtusk March 16th, 2011 at 1:47 am > Yes folks they screwed up the design twice incorrect the original design was fine, it performed to spec it was the spec that was bad > Its too bad that people supporting the “alternate engine” continue to make claims about saving money and no one has any FACTS to support the claim incorrect the alternate engine program for the F-16 (Great Engine War) saved a ton of money > it is against the basic laws of economics incorrect the basic laws of economics say that monopolies result in higher prices: FACT
	Oblat March 16th, 2011 at 2:23 am >the original design was fine, it performed to spec rubbish, the electrical design by Lockheed was completely screwed up. To say that the real problem was the resulting generator spec is typical of contractor cowardice. This is why we and you should never hire people who have worked as defense contractors. Their only skill is ass-covering excuses.
	Charlie March 16th, 2011 at 2:42 am There were two problems, actually, Slow engine response to throttle command, and most of all, problems with high angles of attack during takeoff. Later engine controls and other changes helped eliminate most of the problems. The F-4 had it’s own problems as well. One I remember was connector potting compound running out of the connectors. Corrosion and electrical problems were the result. When I was in school in St. Louis, F-4 production was in high gear. One of the factory mechanics managed to set off the ejection seat inside a hanger. Unfortunately, there was a steel beam in the path of the mechanic and the ejection seat. Changes to the seat arming scheme followed.
	Charlie March 16th, 2011 at 2:47 am Alternate Sources are actually the rule, rather than the exception. DOD has fought bitter battles over the years about this very matter. Seems that Mfrs included copyrighted/patented design and parts on systems and end items that were required to have more than one source. There were lawsuits, and the results were mixed.
	Charlie March 16th, 2011 at 2:50 am What really scares me about aircraft power system problems is that modern fighters and large commercial airliners are “fly by wire”. No electricity, no control of the aircraft.
	timbob March 16th, 2011 at 8:27 am The great engine war between the F100 and F110 back in the ’80’s. There are entire books written on the subject, climb out from under your rock and read one.
	Josh March 16th, 2011 at 9:06 am I totally agree with engine competition, as I said. BEFORE the aircraft enters production a RFP should be sent out, competing companies submit their engine designs, and the winning engine is used on the jet. That didn’t happen here. Pratt was just picked, then GE wanted a peice of the big JSF pie.
	just curiious March 16th, 2011 at 9:18 am If competition saves money, why is the engine the only part that needs competition? The avionic cost the same amount — why aren’t we talking about a second radar supplier?
	BreakTheCycle March 16th, 2011 at 9:30 am careful now.. you’re starting to speak so logically that JSF program, Alternative Engine, and the Congressional representation’s brains might explode.
	jetdoc March 16th, 2011 at 10:11 am The great engine war saved “tons” of money… that is rubbish… you are just ignorant as many are of the true costs… in terms of dollars the split Component Improvement.Program for both programs cost in the billions add to that the retro fit costs of having to.keep 2 systems up.to Director of Propulsion standards and youbhave far exceeded any benefits we recieved during the initial procurement of the engines… I.also.believe u must be ignorant of the SOS procurement process or u would know that they require an “open” book on.the OEMs costs for process reasonableness.
	jetdoc March 16th, 2011 at 10:22 am DOD PROCESS.. not sos… though that might be appropriate in these days of 14 trillion dollar deficits. BTW the other issue that is not considered on the great engine war was the number of engines/aircraft that were lost due to the splitting of the dollars to.fix 2 propulsion systems that would have been averted had they been able to.devote full.resources to.one program.
	Taxpayer March 16th, 2011 at 10:22 am A major reason for the GE engine still being alive is Ted Kennedy, ex-Senator from MA. And GE has a major presence in Lynn, MA. It’s not about saving money. It’s about politics.
	Formula March 16th, 2011 at 10:29 am hrntphxtr.….follow timbob’s advice. Also, get a hold of the GAO report on F136.com and see for yourself the “IMPARTIAL” GAO claim for the savings. Its all documented. Use some common sense here, why would P&W spend so much money on lobbiests to get rid of the F136? Do you think they are considerate of saving the tax payer dollars?.…NOPE. They are 3B over budget today and they are asking for another 1B to finsih their program…does that sound like a company interested in saving the US taxpayer any money?
	Formula March 16th, 2011 at 10:29 am CONTINUED: On the other hand, the F136 Program has been provided only 80% of its required budget for the past four years and yet the F136 Program has met ALL of its objectives, has been declared a “MODEL PROGRAM” has received accollades from the USG and JPO for being able to meet its objectives under SDD with a reduced budget. The F135 Program can not even get close to a claim such as this. There is a reason GE and RR are #1 and 2 respectively, they build a superior product, are customer focused and stay within their assigned budgets. Its time our administration and the public realize just how critical the F136 engine is and will be to the “Global” success of the F35.
	William C. March 16th, 2011 at 12:17 pm The F-16 didn’t have the option of the GE F110 until several years after it entered service. Lets see if the F-35 enters service (in large number) and proves itself before we worry about the F136.
	William C. March 16th, 2011 at 12:20 pm Because the government always gets their specifications correct… right…
	Oblat March 16th, 2011 at 1:13 pm Yea lets give one manufacturer a monopoly and then the other — sort of alternate until they are so full of pork they cant roll over. What is wrong with this economic model folks ?
	sferrin March 16th, 2011 at 1:51 pm Wrong. Get your story straight. The F-104’s nickname had zero to do with the engine.
	William C. March 16th, 2011 at 2:02 pm So if P&W builds the F135 for the first batches of production F-35s they magically gain a monopoly on the aircraft engine market? Who knew it was so simple. Of course shouldn’t the fact that GE makes all of the engines for the F/A-18 family should mean GE has a monopoly on the whole market, right? Those like Oblat say “there is no way 3,000 F-35s will be built” but then demand an alternate engine despite going on how we are going to only end up with 500 or so F-35s. It makes no damned sense.
	Dfens March 16th, 2011 at 2:05 pm If there are any aerospace engineers reading these responses, I hope you are paying attention to what your reputation is in the real world. There is a price to be paid for not standing up to a system as screwed up as we all know the defense acquisition system is. You may think you’re not going to have to pay it, but the fact is you’re already paying it.
	William C. March 16th, 2011 at 2:12 pm Oblat hates the soldiers, the engineers, the technicians, and everybody involved in the military or defense industry. Just ask. Or maybe he just hates Americans in general. You can never tell with such loons.
	Dfens March 16th, 2011 at 2:22 pm The Egyptian pyramids were not constructed by slaves, as was once thought, but by teams of citizens called into service for their nation. These teams would compete to see which one could produce, transport, or place the most high quality stone blocks for the pyramid. I’m sure we are so much more sophisticated now that such a system would never work for us.
	Dfens March 16th, 2011 at 2:30 pm When I first started in aerospace, people for the most part looked at me like I was some sort of super-brilliant engineer to be associated with the design and production of space and aircraft. A couple of years ago I was talking to a fireman about what I did. His pay was quite a bit less than mine and that made it hard for he and his family to get by, but he was quite proud of his occupation and at one point when I mentioned how my job was not what it once was, he actually seemed genuinely sorry for me in the profession I was in. F that! I kick ass as an engineer. It’s way past time people got a chance to see what I can do. It is a shame more engineers in aerospace don’t feel the same.
	DensityDuck March 16th, 2011 at 2:39 pm Indeed, if “single supplier” is always bad, then why do we only have one AIRFRAME supplier? Why aren’t we having Boeing build a whole bunch of F-32?
	DensityDuck March 16th, 2011 at 2:43 pm Sorry to hear that you hang around with jerks. Next time a house burns to the ground, make sure you ask your fireman buddy why he wasn’t there putting the fire out with his bare hands after saving three children, their mom, and two kittens. If you don’t feel pride in what you do, then you need to find another career. I’m sorry that you didn’t get to work on the Super Buck Rogers NASA Deep Space Exploration Program, the way you thought you would, but if you can’t find enjoyment or interest in what you’ve got then you need to be somewhere else. Like, NOW. The last thing I’d want on a program is some dumb bunny who figures that he’s Just Working Here.
	irtusk March 16th, 2011 at 6:29 pm > I.also.believe u must be ignorant of the SOS procurement process or u would know that they require an “open” book on.the OEMs costs for process reasonableness. I guess you call the GAO ignorant too?
	irtusk March 16th, 2011 at 6:44 pm http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09711t.pdf ““Beginning in 1983, the Air Force initiated a competition that Air Force documentation suggests resulted in significant cost savings in the program. In the first 4 years of the competition, when actual costs are compared to the program’s baseline estimate, results included (1) nearly 30 percent cumulative savings for acquisition costs, (2) roughly 16 percent cumulative savings for operations and support costs; and (3) total savings of about 21 percent in overall life cycle costs.” those are facts you can’t rebut because you have no facts (besides what you pull out of your rear)
	William C. March 16th, 2011 at 6:50 pm Yet by this stage, the F-16 was entering service in number and everything was going to plan. I find it downright insane that so many can be against the F-35 program as a whole but support the F136. Lets worry about the F136 once the F-35 itself is back on track.
	hrntphxr March 16th, 2011 at 8:06 pm http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06717r.pdf Read the entire report and come back with your facts… If you read the WHOLE document including the DoD response, you will see that the GAO is speculation and in suffecient fact finding as they claim the DoD did in their decison to cancel the alternate engine. Yet DoD cames back with a rebuttal, but for some reason no follow-on is provided by GAO to support their CLAIMs, not fact. They SUGGEST a wo savings could be realized on an non-specific number. GET the FACTS, there is NO real savings.
	Dfens March 16th, 2011 at 10:20 pm In the early stages of JSF it was widely believed that the F135 would never be sufficient to power the VTOL airplane. Even now I doubt the VTOL variant can take off vertically with a decent weapons load and have enough fuel to do anything but hit a tanker right away. It would be pretty damn stupid to have VTOL and stealth and need to have a KC-10 circling overhead to go anywhere.
	William C. March 16th, 2011 at 10:58 pm You’ve got some 42,000 lbs of thrust for vertical takeoff. If that isn’t enough for STOVL operations I think the problem is with the aircraft being too heavy, not the propulsion system. I don’t think there are any plans to develop a version of the F136 for the STOVL variant anyway.
	Taxpayer March 17th, 2011 at 12:20 am In the 1980’s the Pentagon competed the major weapon system and the major component (like engines), then provided the major component as government-furnished-equipment (GFE) to the prime contractor for inetgration. Having competition at two levels within each program saved billions of dollars. So, I agree. If the Navy wants to compete the LCS, why not a combat jet engine that will number about 3 times the initial number of aircraft. As to the laws of physics, costs go down in dual source competitions because monopoly pricing is inflated to start with. Competition drives out the contractor’s excessive pricing and brings a sense of fiscal discipline to a company that wants to maximize its profits, not minimize the government’s costs. BTW, the “Taxpayer” comment above was not me!
	DensityDuck March 17th, 2011 at 2:16 am “Even now I doubt the VTOL variant can take off vertically with a decent weapons load…” Well, seeing as how there IS no “VTOL variant”, I suppose that’s true. There IS a STOVL variant, which CAN do a short take-off with a decent weapons load and plenty of fuel.
	halcyon March 17th, 2011 at 9:36 am Waiting for the F-35 to prove itself before we start upgrading it makes sense from a money perspective. At that point let PW take over if it is shown that GE hasn’t provided the best option or let each service decide which engine they want or if they even want the F-35. If the aircraft can’t prove itself in from a maintenance or technology stand point then it is time to think about dropping the F-35 and try something completely new sans LM. If it get’s to that point then a new engine isn’t needed. By not building two engines it limits the arguments of the supporters if the F-35 doesn’t work and it saves money– among other things. IF the F-35 proves itself a great aircraft (I have my doubts) all of us who oppose it should change our position and support an upgraded engine by a company that seems to be able to deliver on budget.
	Formula March 17th, 2011 at 11:27 am William C, the F136 is compatible for each of the three variants. In fact, the F136 is better suited for the STOVL variant than the F135. The growth margin for the F136 makes it a much more suitable candidate for the STOVL. The F135 is running too hot, a fully loaded STOVL will cause major issues for the current F135 design. The F136 could be plugged in today as designed and perform exceptionally in the STOVL variant.
	irtusk March 17th, 2011 at 4:15 pm > Read the entire report and come back with your facts… Read the thread so you have some clue what you’re talking about. I was responding to jetdoc’s comment “The great engine war saved “tons” of money… that is rubbish” The FACTS are that he’s wrong and you can’t read. Now how the FACTS of the ‘great engine war’ savings apply to the F135/F136 is subject to a certain amount of guesstimation. Maybe it will save, maybe it won’t, it’s impossible to precisely predict the future. Why is why your claim ‘GET the FACTS, there is NO real savings.’ is just as false as jetdoc’s At best you can claim that cost savings are ‘unprovable’, but to categorically claim that that cost saving are impossible is just being ignorantly pigheaded.
	Deuce March 17th, 2011 at 4:54 pm Didn’t the F35 get competed against Boeing?
	Matt1951 March 17th, 2011 at 7:55 pm Both the F135 and F136 can provide far more than enough hp. The Lift Fan is the limiting hardware. You can’t fit a larger diameter fan in the airframe. If weight of B variant increases, it is dead.
	jetdoc March 17th, 2011 at 9:49 pm irtusk.. I read the report… an if you have been involved in politics and the DOD you know that specific words have great meaning.. the word you need to read again is the word “suggests”… as in Air Force documents “suggests” there was savings… that is about as concrete as mud in “political speak”… and yuo are going to stand on that comment… and I stand by my comments.. that if the “true” story was really flushed out… you would find out that Billions of dollars were not recouped by the competition when the engines were first procured.… (the F110 SLEP) is more then half a Billion dollars alone — and the F100 has gone through just as many TCTOs) … take off the GE glasses…
	pfcem March 17th, 2011 at 10:05 pm Because the ‘dirty little secret’ is that it is not about “competition” at all. The reality is that that are REAL cost-saving reasons why the JSF is replacing multiple platforms rather than as the “competition & alternatives saves money” want you to believe every legacy platform being replaced by multiple new ones (with every component have multiple suppliers).
	irtusk March 18th, 2011 at 12:31 am > that if the “true” story was really flushed out well then by all means post the ‘true’ story and back it up with documentation until you can post FACTS of your own, you’re just pulling it out of your rear
	jetdoc March 18th, 2011 at 3:13 am I have tried to explain it… but you would have to lay off the koolaid for a while before you could ever understand it… . so I will just settle with letting the USAF speak for itself.. . key into the comments made about the alternate engine… how it would pull dollars away from the program and how the sole source risk is manageable… wonder what information they were basing that on.. certainly not the “suggestion” in the GAO report… http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/se…
	Matt1951 March 18th, 2011 at 8:31 am If, as the GE and RR engineers claim– the F136 was deliberately made larger than the F135. Then, it is heavier. Which is why the F136 will never be used on the STOVL. The LIft Fan diameter limits the thrust available for lift. A larger heavier engine is just added dead weight. So maybe DOD knows what they are doing in ending the alternate engine. If we assume the engineers knew what they were doing when they designed the Lift Fan, the blades are tip speed limited. So you can’t get more lift thrust by spinning faster. You have to go to a larger diameter, which is not possible.
	irtusk March 18th, 2011 at 12:29 pm > so I will just settle with letting the USAF speak for itself the USAF isn’t speaking for itself, it is speaking for Gates the last secretary who dared oppose Gates on this issue didn’t last long enough to repeat his mistake REGARDLESS, your link does NOTHING to show ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the great engine war did anything but save the taxpayers a ton of money so again I say PUT OR SHUT UP about your claims regarding the great engine war i have shown my sources now show yours or just admit that you have none and you’re just a PW weenie desperately trying to distract people from a historical FACT
	Mr Miller March 18th, 2011 at 6:41 pm Jetdoc, Puff, puff, and pass Why would you want to give a contract like this on sole source to the #3 engine maker? Pratt’s technology is extremely dated, I speak from experience, and I worked on them. You are either a Pratt employee or from Connecticut, because your views are distorted. You should want the best for the American troops, not an over budget object that falls short of contract requirements. This should have been fixed priced with picking up the cost of the poor design intent. The Pratt over runs would pay for the F136 development. By the way, the engine of choice was the GE for the F-15.
	DaveK March 19th, 2011 at 5:46 pm ^ GE shill. So, GE boy, how bad has GE been RAPING DoD on the F-18 and T700 SOLE SOURCE engine buys. See, I can use CAPS LOCK, too. Woohoo!
	Deuce March 19th, 2011 at 5:52 pm Doesn’t a larger engine mean you can still send the required horsepower to the Lift Fan on a hot day, with a deteriorated engine?
	Dog Face Liberal March 19th, 2011 at 11:24 pm Short answer: NO. For a longer explanation read Matt’s post above.
	Deuce March 20th, 2011 at 7:40 am The longer explanation above doesn’t answer my question as it doesn’t consider margin on the engine. Surely a larger engine will be operating at a lower rating; so if the lift system needs a fixed amount of power, then a larger engine will be operating at a lower rating to deliver it? For helicopter engines, a larger turboshaft gives you more hot / high / deterioration margin for a specific gearbox / rotor combination; why doesn’t the same apply to the Lift Fan?
	Dog Face Liberal March 20th, 2011 at 1:18 pm But what you gain from a larger engine is offset by the need for a stronger (heavier) gearbox and larger rotor system to take advantage of that additional power in helicopters. That is why ‘Hawks and Apaches use a 701D instead of the Chinook’s T55. There is also the higher rate of fuel consumption to take into account. What you end up with is a more powerful engine needing to move a much heavier aircraft when you should have gone lighter and more efficient from the start. The lift fan size and maximum speed are a set constant in the F-35B so the maximum lift generated by the fan will also be a constant. So any addition power the F136 engine may be able to produce over the smaller F135 would be wasted. If both engine are able to move the lift fan system at it’s maximum speed the obvious choice would be to choose the smaller and lighter engine for maximum efficiency.
	Deuce March 20th, 2011 at 3:41 pm OK, but I’m not talking about making more power for the Lift Fan. Lets say it needs 10,000 SHP. What I’m saying is that a small engine will struggle to make that 10,000 SHP when it is high, hot, and deteriorated, whereas a larger engine will make the 10,000 SHP with ease. Carrying a bit of extra engine weight may be worth it if it means you can operate in those conditions, or have more weapons bring back capability.….
	Dog Face Liberal March 20th, 2011 at 5:00 pm I cannot predict the altitude for every possible airfield the Marines might want to vertically land a F-35B on over the coming decades so there is some weight (no pun intended) to your argument. There is certain to be an instance where the USMC will have to improvise, adapt and overcome but I have faith in them. However I am fairly certain that most LHA/LHD operate at sea level so the problems you are concerned about with high and hot should be minimized.
	Deuce March 21st, 2011 at 3:53 pm You’re right to have faith that operations will continue, but historically operations in hot conditions, even at sea level, have sometimes been limited (eg operating with lighter weapons loads) so that additional sorties are needed for a given objective :(

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

HASC Presses Hard on F136

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments