Home » Air » F-35s grounded after electrical system fault

F-35s grounded after electrical system fault

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011 5:45 pm
Posted in Air

F-35 Lightning II program officials have grounded all their jets while they investigate an electrical fault aboard one of the Air Force A-model birds, according to an announcement Wednesday. The grounding — the program’s third in the past year — was ordered after a power failure on Tuesday aboard the Air Force jet as it was running its engine while still on the ground, not during flight.

Here’s how the program office broke it down in its announcement:

Yesterday, at approximately 8:30 a.m. PDT during a standard ground maintenance engine run, aircraft AF-4’s Integrated Power Package (IPP) experienced a failure. Following standard operating procedures, the engine was immediately shut down and the jet was secured. No injuries to the pilot or ground crew occurred. The F-35’s IPP is a turbo-machine that provides power to start the engine and generates cooling for the aircraft.

The government and contractor engineering teams are reviewing the data from the incident to determine the root cause of the failure. Implementing a precautionary suspension of operations is the prudent action to take at this time until the F-35 engineering, technical and system safety teams fully understand the cause of the incident. Once the facts are understood, a determination will be made when to lift the suspension and begin ground and flight operations of the 20 F-35s currently in flying status. These aircraft are part of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) and Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) fleet.
Determinations of root cause and potential mitigating actions have the highest priority of the F-35 Team. Impact to SDD execution and production operations is being assessed. The program has built schedule margin into the test schedule to accommodate these kinds of incidents that occur in a development effort. Periodic updates concerning this situation will be released as warranted.

Well that would be awfully decent of them. Although service officials have responded to lawmakers’ and skeptics’ many criticisms of the F-35 by boasting about how well its test program is coming along, this will throw a monkey wrench into that until Lockheed and government program engineers can figure out what went wrong. There was no indication yet Wednesday how long the investigation could take.

If you’re keeping score at home, this also means that yes, as of right now, neither of America’s fifth-generation super-jets are allowed to fly — the F-22s are still grounded, too.

Join the Conversation

	Bronco46 August 3rd, 2011 at 6:16 pm As long as they’ve been developing new aircraft their have been failures during the testing phase. This is bound to be even more of an issue in planes this complex and so far out on the leading edge. The sad thing is that since we have a 24 hour a day news cycle; every problem gets national coverage. We need both these jets, and lots of them.
	mike j August 3rd, 2011 at 6:17 pm This is the same airframe (AF-4) that had in-flight dual-generator failure back in March. Doesn’t mean anything necessarily, just thought it should be noted.
	Oblat August 3rd, 2011 at 7:18 pm Any experienced program manager will tell you that the F-35 has all the hallmarks of a death-march. Repeated failures covered up because the testing is being rushed is a sure sign that priorities have shifted from engineering to keeping a failing project alive at any cost, including faking it. How does a major system fail repeatedly — it fails because it is a design failure and rather than fix it properly they are papering over it to get it through the tests. Remember while a grounding in test is annoying a grounding when you have 1000 production aircraft is a bonanza for the contractors. You can take your time fixing it and charge whatever you want. Lockheed is open in their claims to shareholders that the F-35 is going to be a big revenue stream in the future. They expect a lot of rework.
	BradM August 3rd, 2011 at 7:31 pm Perhaps we shouldn’t put all our marbles and treasure into the planes of one company? Maybe we should have bought 100–200 F-23s from Northrup/McDonnell Douglas as well?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23
	Oblat August 3rd, 2011 at 7:40 pm “The F-35 IS working & working BETTER than expected” — pcfem a day after the entire fleet was grounded with flight and ground operations canceled due to systemic electrical system failure.
	Weaponhead August 3rd, 2011 at 9:06 pm This is a good example of what you should find in EMD/SDD. It is also a good example of why you don’t buy “production” copy’s before finding and correcting these sorts of problems. Almost every fix adds cost, weight, and additional schedule delays and often additional drag and RCS hits. And this won’t be the last problem found, remember most of the flight test program is still to come. It will also be interesting to see how many foregn countries want to buy early block jets as they start to realize that these are really still experimental and not production jets. With the budget pressures that we are finally realizing are upon us, it would be smart to reduce the number of variants (how about just C models or just A models) to streamline the program before it fails completely. I vote for the C model because it has longer legs and the A model is already a truck anyway. Hmm when is that DAB again???
	Weaponhead August 3rd, 2011 at 9:11 pm One other note: With all of “GEN 5″ now grounded, which “GEN 5″ will return to flight staus 1st, F-3$ or F-22?
	Oblat August 3rd, 2011 at 11:59 pm There never where any operational 5th generation aircraft, just a lot of dysfunctional prototypes.
	F-15 Guy August 4th, 2011 at 12:04 am Feel safe, F-15s with their new radar and weapons will continue to rule the sky until these fleglings can get their flight wings. F-16s have some surprises for the bad guys too! And we’ll still be around for a while.
	pfcem August 4th, 2011 at 12:34 am Quite the opposite. Any experienced program manager with any knowledge of the program would tell you that with the exception of the prior parts supply issues (production has been ON SCHEDULE for almost a year now) that the program has been progressing very well for such a complex system. There have been no repeated major systems failures. In fact with more than 1000 test flights having been completed this is only the THIRD time the entire fleet has been grounded. The 1st was a software issue (FOUND IN A LAB TEST), the 2nd was a generator failure (which was found be be caused by overfilling of the generator oil), & now this (any bets it tunrs out NOT to be a design problem). THIS incident wouldn’t ground a fleet of 100 production aircraft & contrary to what you want everyone to believe, contractors LOSE money during grounding.
	pfcem August 4th, 2011 at 12:42 am Actually I posted that comment the day of the incident BEFORE it became public. Anyway THIS incident still does not change the fact that the aircraft are meeting or exceeding expectations. Take a wild guess how long the fleet will have to be grounded before if falls behind schedule…
	pfcem August 4th, 2011 at 12:53 am You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. NEITHER of the previous grounding problems added any cost or weight or drag or effected RCS or ANY OTHER EFFECT on the aircraft beyond the time lost during the routine precautionary grounding while the source of the problem & the fix was found. DAB will be when enough of the data which is NECESSARY for it to be of any falue is available. The program is in no danger of failure & the fact that the flight test program has completed over 1000 test flights with so few problems & that the production has been on schedule for almost a year demonstrates there is no need to streamline the program.
	pfcem August 4th, 2011 at 1:08 am Try joining the real world. The F-22 has been operational since Dec 2005. Thus far testers have found NO PROBLEMS with the OBOGS & in fact have been unable to duplicate the results. OBOGS issues are nothing new & NOT limited to the F-22.
	BradM August 4th, 2011 at 4:00 am Besides when will the PAK FA and the J-20 be deployed in significant numbers? Not until 2015 for the PAK FA and the J-20 who knows?
	STemplar August 4th, 2011 at 4:01 am I don’t think F1-8s an entire model of aircraft have ever been downed. Just saying. I’m pretty sure we know how much they cost too. Just saying, that’s all.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 4th, 2011 at 8:17 am As a long time tester, might I just add that a test program is instituted to FIND failures. While Id be a bit distressed if the power unit failure did not occur during a power unit test, at least it failed a.) during the test program, b.) when the aircraft could be safely shut down, and of course, c.) in a manner so that the failed unit can be thoroughly and completely assessed, diagnosed and then if warrenteed, fixed. While the sensationalists latch on to every failure and shrilly proclaim their doomsday visions, testers tend to be happy if they can just uncover these soft spots so that the end product is not cursed with long term issues. Take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard. Let the guys do their jobs.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 4th, 2011 at 8:26 am In an earlier thread I mentioned that Eagles did have a pretty decent batting average in A-A combat, and I might add that the Strike Eagles, F/A-18s, and F-16s also have a pretty fair record of ordnance on target. In A-G, of course, once the ordnance is released, it matters little what dropped it (F-35 or F-15E). There were F-4s credibly soldiering on for quit a while after the 1st TFW stood up Eagles! :-) There will be Eagles for a long time to come, even after the F-22s and F-35s get straightened out. The new fighters were designed and built to fight the fighters that would eventually be able to take out the Eagles, Hornets, and F-16s. There is time to get it right.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 4th, 2011 at 8:29 am If you have ever worked on an aircraft’s electrical system, Im sure you know that there can sometimes be very subtle “ripple effects” where one failure propagates and leads to another in a related system. Im betting that the guys investigating this one are all over that possiblity, if for no other reason than to totally eliminate any possible connection.
	Guest A August 4th, 2011 at 8:36 am Well said, it’s just another day on the job on a flight test program.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 4th, 2011 at 8:36 am Betting on an answer from an investigation is not a good idea. In the incident / accident investigation business, the most important thing is to keep a totally open mind and look at each of the possible root causes, eliminating each in turn until the only one left matches all of the hard data. Start assuming a finding and you will very often be very sadly surprised. Furthermore, other than for just plain “wear out” failures, most anything can be traced to a design issue, one way or another. Perhaps the “dip stick” on the generator was prone to provide false readings, perhaps that software “bug” was in the design and not just a typo in the code, perhaps.… . Anyway, get to the provable root cause before you start laying bets.
	jumper August 4th, 2011 at 9:06 am They’ve never really had to defend themselves either. Hitting ground targets with no surface to air defense isn’t the best test of an aircrafts survivability.
	jumper August 4th, 2011 at 9:07 am This is pretty trivial. Typical testing woes no matter what aircraft. JSF has had a history of electrical gremlins though… I wouldn’t want to have to chase sparks through that thing.
	Gregory Savage August 4th, 2011 at 9:21 am Damn your like a slithering snake of negativity. Always negative posts about the US. Post somewhere else where you have positive to say.
	Guest A August 4th, 2011 at 9:39 am V-22 was/is the same way, lots of little “ghosts” in the software. Most times it cannot be duplicated and you never see it again for a long time if at all per airframe. Usually after checking it, its A-799 and move on. I think they’re doing the right thing at this stage in the program.
	Cocidius August 4th, 2011 at 9:42 am A plane that’s at a minimum 5+ years late, billions over budget, and still is incapable of warfighting is not meeting anyone’s expectations and certainly not the many nations that are still waiting for a battle ready aircraft to be delivered to them SOMEDAY. For a plane that’s failed to stick to multiple SDD’s over the last 10 years of this program, falling behind is not a guess its a fact of life for the F-35.
	Cocidius August 4th, 2011 at 9:50 am BIG DEAL — 1000 test flights is roughly half what the F-22 had flown at this point in its development and it had already conducted high alpha flight testing and supersonic weapons releases. The JSF Program is a house of cards just waiting to get whacked by the bean counters looking to cut costs. Wake up and take a breath of reality.
	Cocidius August 4th, 2011 at 9:55 am Slithering snake of negativity, I like that! Can I quote that later on?
	Oblat August 4th, 2011 at 10:02 am “Actually I posted that comment the day of the incident BEFORE it became public.” Wrong the posts are timestamped, it was a day later, why do you lie about everything ?
	Engineer Economist August 4th, 2011 at 10:02 am YOU have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. DABs are process and schedule driven and support decision making. If what you contend is true, that there is not enough data for DAB to be of any value, then the program truly is screwed despite $70B sunk investment. The program already IS a failure, since its busted its baselines so badly. If leadership had listened to people who predicted F-35 would be a failure back in 2001, we could have done an AoA and pursued a much wiser course of action and gotten much better results. All you have to offer is “stay the course, trust us with more years and more billions.” Well, anyone can promise to deliver super capability with unlimited schedule and budget. Decision Theory 101 bro. And I don’t think you “have absolutely no clue”. I just wanted you to get a feel for what it is like to communicate with someone as rude as you. I DO think you are a duchebag.
	rhinorunner August 4th, 2011 at 10:18 am It’s not trivital if they ground all their aircraft. This is a significant impact to schedule no matter how you look at it. The announcement is light on what the details on the real failure either. It will be fairly easy to start flying the other aircraft but this aircraft may have significant damage and may be out of the test business for a while. F-35
	Oblat August 4th, 2011 at 10:49 am The lies of the Lockheed shills are getting more outrageous as the F-35 program flounders and the F-22 becomes an humiliating embarrassment. So for instance when the F-22 is grounded after 14 hypoxia incidents, and they cant find the problem because the F-22 is a mess inside that just means “there isn’t a problem”. So the F-22 sits forever on the tarmac while Lockheed collects development fees. Then we have the case of the F-35 test program — grounding the entire test fleet because the electrical system has failed for the 3rd time just means “the testing is going better than expected”. One wonders what was expected if major system failures is better than expected. Take a look at Lockheed’s business plan for the answer — the F-35 and the 30 years of rework and fixes it sees as a major revenue source. As the shills will openly tell you the facts are not important, they choose to believe whatever lies Lockheed puts out. When those are lacking they just make stuff up. The sad fact is that they do not have America’s security or the American peoples interests at heart they only serve themselves.
	momomimamo August 4th, 2011 at 11:13 am and some people continue to say: that’s the future, the best airplane…
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 4th, 2011 at 11:18 am Im with you, but the accountants would have had a communal aneurism! In WW-II we had two or three platforms for each mission, i.e. B-17s Fortresses and B-24s Liberators, P-47s Thunderbolts and P-51s Mustangs, in part because we needed to mobilize the full manufacturing capablity to supply the numbers, in part because each offered subtle differences in capability, and in part so that problems with any one particular element, i.e. the engines for P-47s (Wright R-2800) or P-51s (Rolls Royce Merlin), would not ground the whole fleet of long range fighters! Today it would be good to have a couple of wings of F-23s flying in tandem with the F-22s for exactly the same reasons, but…. we just dont have the spare change to pull it off.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 4th, 2011 at 11:22 am Could I just suggest that the problem you state, i.e. the fitful last 10 years of the F-35 program, is more an issue with the management of that program than with the aircraft, its design, or its implementation. Its just an airplane, and to paraphrase a saying, “Airplanes dont kill programs, people kill airplane programs!”. :-)
	Guest A August 4th, 2011 at 1:48 pm That is something to take note of. Some A/C are just finicky like that.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 4th, 2011 at 2:43 pm BUT until those unnamed fighters can actually take down well piloted, fully functional, constantly upgraded Eagles with some degree of regularity; which by the way, NOBODY has demonstrated in the no-holds-barred knife fight that is modern A-A combat; Im thinking that there is at least a little warm fuzzy feeling in Mudville. If nothing else, the enhancements onboard the aircraft and in terms of supporting systems over the last 40 years have made the F-15s, F/A-18s, and F-16s very different aircraft from the prototypes that rolled off the line in the 70s! You could almost see it to be that the next year’s team (F-22/F-35) is in spring training and the “A” team still owns the rest of the league! Dont minimze the fact that the “newest” fighter is not always the one that will be coming home to roost! :-)
	Delenda F-$$ ! August 4th, 2011 at 2:52 pm A near-catastrophical ELECTRICAL problem after 15 YEARS of multi-billionaire R & D ? Almost 1 trillion $ of taxpayer money saved, because some faulty LED or fuse worth 10 cents couldn’t wait until after take-off to blow? Couldn’t this problem at least be of some more esoteric nature than just “sparks” and “shocks” and “sizzles” (for example untested, exotic matériels, unstable ammunitions, electronics, software, the International Date Line, whatever), to make us feel less exasperated by the F-$$‘s present level of readiness? What next: Smothering oxygen masks, too?
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 4th, 2011 at 3:17 pm Might I suggest that you are doing a pretty good “chicken little” routine? Unless Im mistaken, this electrical problem was with the auxiliary power unit, i.e. the basic electrical system was just fine. The “catastrophy” could have happened ONLY if the APU was needed for an airstart (which I dont think that it is in most cases anyway). Yes, the underlying problem COULD be as simple as a bad circuit breaker, but we dont know that yet, and I think that your valuation of a single airframe (even assuming the absolutely worst case scenario) is a bit high. Slow, deep breathing usually works. Combined with a leisurely count to 100 before typing, its normally quite effective! LOL!
	STemplar August 4th, 2011 at 3:27 pm That’s how we’ll use the F35s, I mean they are a strike aircraft.
	mike j August 4th, 2011 at 4:41 pm Irrespective of your other points, the IPP is a little more complicated than an APU. It functions as a starter/ APU/ emergency power/ environmental control system all in one, kind of a critical flight item. Some people are also finding it weird that they bothered to mention “no injuries” in the announcement. Could be this accident was a little more spectacular than a popped breaker, but we’ll see.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 4th, 2011 at 5:48 pm OK, I was just speaking from the old F-16 or F/A-18 paradigm. As you explain it though that sounds like a LOT of single point failures, all jam packed into one component, sort of like welding all of the accessories into one mass on your car engine. If the A/C compressor fails, so does the alternator, the transmission, and the water pump. I know it probably makes all of those combined functions weigh less than separate components, but.… . . Hmmmmm.…. guess I would like to see the engineering trade study that said it made sense! LOL!
	William C. August 4th, 2011 at 6:19 pm Only 100–200? If you’re going to pay to turn the YF-23 into the F-23A, you ought to buy more than that!
	William C. August 4th, 2011 at 6:27 pm 2015 is unlikely too.
	William C. August 4th, 2011 at 6:42 pm As usual Oblatski you have no idea what you’re talking about. Lockheed isn’t being awarded contracts to fix components on the F-22, and they know the problem is somewhere with the OBOGS. Who knows how long it will take but this OBOGS issue will be corrected and the aircraft will be flying again. Meanwhile plans are going ahead for other modifications. Despite your crackpot conspiracy theories, Lockheed and all of the many subcontractors for the F-22 and F-35 rely on making and selling products for their revenue. They’d make far more profit building an additional 100 F-22s than whatever money being spent to fix these errors. Some of these costs may come out of their pocket plus it causes damage to their reputation. Hence they don’t like stuff like this. This is business 101 stuff Oblatski. Somebody who has constantly insulted American soldiers, saying that they shouldn’t be allowed back home, and cheering on the Chinese or any rival has no interest in the truth. You just want to see defense cut so more dollars go to your beloved Democrats. Maybe it means you can stay unemployed for that much longer.
	William C. August 4th, 2011 at 6:44 pm What Oblat wants to happen are shown through his posts like these. I honestly think he wants to see the US military gutted for some twisted reasoning.
	MM99 August 4th, 2011 at 6:53 pm As mentioned before, the IPP is a complex piece of equipment, developed to combine the functions of many legacy subsytems to reduce weight primarily. There were many engineering trade studies early in the program to justify its design along with prototype test hardware
	MM99 August 4th, 2011 at 6:57 pm I also would not call it systematic until it is found in multiple airframes — the grounding is on the side of safety of the aircrew, which we all want.
	MM99 August 4th, 2011 at 7:01 pm Just for my info, who (whom?) predicted back in 2001, when SDD was just starting, that the program would be a failure and in what way — cost, schedule, technical? Don’t remember a large out cry that the program was doomed back then.
	MM99 August 4th, 2011 at 7:05 pm Does anyone really know what the development schedule is for the PAK FA? Keep hearing that the PAK FA and J-20 will be in production “soon”. What does soon mean and do we know any quantities?
	Guest August 4th, 2011 at 11:55 pm F-15 Guy — Indeed, the F-15s with their new radar and weapons will continue to rule the sky. To me, I find the F-15 family the most survivable aircraft, easy to maintain, cheap and easy to produce than the JSF family. I wish the RAAF operates the Silent Eagle variant instead of just two narrow types Super Hornet/JSF. I’m a great fan of F-15s and truly one of my favourite aeroplanes of all time. Despite its age, she’s still a very potent jet with a formidable punch and certainly the Eagle has much better weapons load etc. Boeing could continue manufacturing variants of its F-15 Eagle — a fighter first flown in 27th July 1972 — extending the production line all the way until the 2020s, even though the Eagle may not be the newest bird in the sky, but new and existing customers can get a familiar fighter for predictable costs. A beautiful warplane to have for any Air Force.
	pfcem August 5th, 2011 at 12:48 am LOL… How you get “near-catastrophical ELECTRICAL problem” out of “Integrated Power Package (IPP) experienced a failure” truly demonstrates how out of reality you are.
	pfcem August 5th, 2011 at 12:52 am YOU are the one who is lying! THIS post was posted the evening of Thu Aug 04. My response above to your lie was posted the evening of Wed Aug 03. My post you are referring to was posted the evening of Tue Aug 02.
	pfcem August 5th, 2011 at 12:58 am Sorry but I believe what the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) has said about it over your nonsense.
	Klein312MI August 5th, 2011 at 1:32 am Care to give a link to a credible source to back that up?
	pfcem August 5th, 2011 at 1:42 am First flight of the PAK FA prototype was Jan 20, 2010. First flight of the J-20 prototype was Jan 11, 2011. Just to give an example… First flight of the Su-27 prototype was May 20, 1977. Deliveries of production airframes for trials & evelauation began in Dec 1984. Official type acceptance was August 23, 1990
	pfcem August 5th, 2011 at 1:55 am YOU are the one who is lying! They can’t find the problem because they have yet to be able to duplicate the results that would cause a problem (& they have been TRYING to). LM isn’t collecting any development fees on the OBOGS issue. Grounding the entire fleet for just about ANY problem is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE during SDD! The isn’t the 3rd time this failure has happened. What was expected was to have had MORE failures/problems then have occured so far (that there haven’t been as many as expected is one of the reason the flight test program is AHEAD of schedule). Join the real world, it is 30 years of production that is the major revenue source, rework & fixes generally COST the contractor money. What you just lied about program supports IS true of most most program naysayers.
	Oblat August 5th, 2011 at 4:03 am More tedious made up excuses from the contractor shills. For instance despite pcfems claims Lockheed was given another $50m just last May for F-22 rework. “Grounding the entire fleet for just about ANY problem is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE” Another howler.
	Oblat August 5th, 2011 at 4:04 am Does the DAB talk to you through your radio pfcem ?
	STemplar August 5th, 2011 at 4:16 am That actually is accurate, there were toxins found in pilot’s blood however. At any given time there are toxins in varying degrees in all of our blood. Having toxins show up in a blood test and whether the levels qualify as “poisoning” is different. The source though is the life support system, so that is an issue not to be downplayed, after all this is a piece of tech that is supposed to provide what should be very clean air.
	Oblat August 5th, 2011 at 4:31 am Just more weasel words by pfcem. I waiting for him to claim his sister didn’t tell him until tomorrow.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 5th, 2011 at 8:49 am Did not even imply that there were not trade studies to justify the merging of all of those eggs into one basket. Just wondering how those trade studies might look now with possibly “better” info? I have done MANY design trade studies and in many cases its assumptions, and unfortunately sometimes outside pressures, that drive the answers. There was a project at Naval Post-grad School many years ago on battle damage repair for F-4s. It discovered that the F-4 was essentially invulnerable to hits back between the engine tail feathers! There were no repairs whatsoever there, even though SEA was hot and heavy. It took an insightful observation from Prof. Ball to point out that the aluminum stab actuator was right under that little bit of skin.
	@7thwave August 5th, 2011 at 10:08 am Some people here are spewing anti-F35 propaganda left and right in several posts…nothing new and nothing constructive. Well, here is a different view.…. As with any new weapons systems, there are bugs and problems. I can remember the day when the F16 had its share of teething problems, found in production models…in particular the A model. The aircraft would have problems with its engine starving for air in high angle maneuvers, causing engine problems..which resulted in the air intake being modified…after a few crashes. And,unfortunately the F35 and F22 programs are no different. And in today’s crying over budgets and some morons on the hill wanting to cut defense to the point where the USA is no longer an effective fighting force, the problems effecting both programs have become targets for those same morons to want to cut the programs funding off, which is a huge mistake. I am no fan of the F35, as I think the later F16s can do as much if not the same things as the F35 can do better and cheaper. The F16 is a proven platform, and already in production with all problems fixed. How ever, as the same F16s are already in service and getting older by the day and the future holds for the current fleet of more groundings over maintenance issues, we need to proceed with the F35 program whether we may like it or not…and buy the panned numbers to replace the F16s in current service…because as we all know…we will never buy more F16s over a new, fancy shiny toy like the F35…which in in its own right has become a huge cash cow…and has yet to prove its self to which the F16 has become legendary in its own right.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 5th, 2011 at 10:33 am You can apply your own credibility filters but: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7193597 http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/07/defense…
	Engineer Economist August 5th, 2011 at 11:05 am examples of propaganda spewing: “in today’s crying over budgets and some morons on the hill wanting to cut defense to the point where the USA is no longer an effective fighting force, the problems effecting both programs have become targets for those same morons to want to cut the programs funding off, which is a huge mistake.” “we need to proceed with the F35 program whether we may like it or not”
	Engineer Economist August 5th, 2011 at 1:04 pm Most notably, Spinney. http://www.chaliventures.com/Links_to_Reports/Lin… I’m pretty confident there were plenty of people in the Services, OSD, GAO, CBO, media etc. who all saw this coming as well. So what do you think??
	BradM August 5th, 2011 at 1:30 pm Okay okay, 400 F-23As with about the same number of F-22As. Hows that? :) An Air Force squadron is 24 planes?
	MM99 August 5th, 2011 at 2:12 pm I have to admit, Spinney makes some good points, but I’m not sure comparing what happened in the Concept Demo Phase with the X-planes was a precursor to what was going to happen in SDD. I was associated with the program since 1996 thru CDA and SDD and I know initially many of the acq reform efforts were in place. If Spinney was in OSD, I guess his voice wasn’t listened too. As an aside, has the CBO ever stated that a program’s costs were overstated or that the GAO said a program schedule was perfect <VBG>
	Engineer Economist August 5th, 2011 at 2:41 pm thanks for the comments. agree with you on Spinney. I don’t agree with all the Reformers positions. I do see some of the value in revolutionary technologies (eg Predator). However, when I see the damage done by the dogged pursuit of technologists’ dreams, and the possible/likely industry corruption behind it, I think its terrible that objective voices are so arrogantly squashed. By the time the info flows up to the CBO, GAO level, there have been so many lies and confusion, that it is good for Congress to have objective ammo with which to ask tough questions. It’s sad that there is so much fallout and everyone suffers from the egregious failures, but it’s better than having too big to fail programs shoved down our throats, too h*ll with cost, schedule, readiness, and integrity.
	ldarkspark5 August 5th, 2011 at 4:07 pm yes we need to keep the biggest industry this country owns we are the best the war industry. what would this country be without it.
	TOM August 5th, 2011 at 5:02 pm LETS BRING BACK THE BEST PLANE IN THE NAVY THE 14 TOMCAT.
	Nestor Barragan August 5th, 2011 at 5:12 pm Notice how the numbers are going up and uP and UP! Just like the F-$16…F-$22…F-$35.….…… Why not just build a thousand P-51s (for the price of one F-$35) and be done with it. (You’ll also get a lot more pilots that way!).
	Guest August 5th, 2011 at 5:12 pm Bring back the F-4 Phantom. Best there ever was.
	Guest August 5th, 2011 at 5:16 pm F-4 Phantom. Now that was the best.
	BradM August 5th, 2011 at 5:16 pm Google “pak fa entered service” and articles come up saying 2015 to 2016.
	exusaf August 5th, 2011 at 6:40 pm This is the better/ less expensive than Boeing’s FX version? Seems Lockheed is not up to USAF high standards. Oxygen problems? What else is there that Lockheed is not telling us?
	BradM August 5th, 2011 at 8:41 pm The F-14 was retired because it was a maintenance hog. It required a lot more maintenance per flight hour than F-18s.
	William C. August 5th, 2011 at 9:22 pm Would work for me, but Thinking_ExUSAF is right about the accountants heads exploding over the thought.
	BadeyeBill August 5th, 2011 at 10:22 pm How far behind schedule and over budget are we going on this???????
	nogood57 August 5th, 2011 at 11:11 pm How about bringing back the F4U corsair
	pfcem August 6th, 2011 at 12:53 am And it is expected to cost MORE than $50 million to complete the rework. The contractors always bare a portion of the cost of such things. That $50 million represents a ~$15–25 million LOSS. And once again you demonstrate you have no clue what you are talking about.
	pfcem August 6th, 2011 at 12:54 am Key word being WAS.
	pfcem August 6th, 2011 at 12:57 am Try getting your facts correct. LM doesn’t make the OBOGS. OBOGS issues are nothing new & NOT limited to the F-22. Note that the OBOGS of the F-35 is made by a different company than the one of the F-22…
	pfcem August 6th, 2011 at 12:58 am FAR less than the naysayers want everyone to believe.
	pfcem August 6th, 2011 at 1:05 am An example that everyone SHOULD be familiar with. The recent PROJECTED 11–15% cost overrun of the F-35 Lot 1–3. LM is responsible for paying 30% of it.
	AirForcedad1952 August 6th, 2011 at 9:00 am Trillions of dollars in debt, our country continues to develop these totally unnecessary “super-fighters”, spending billions of dollars on each of them, only to keep the “congressman from Lockheed” re-elected. And, they want our next aerial tankers built by Airbus, a FRENCH company, because Airbus promised to build a plant in Alabama. Boeing has thousands of Americans laid off in Kansas and Washington state, along with plants already built sitting empty. And, there was a recent report of failures of current body armor being used by our ground troops.This is totally out of control government spending.
	AirForcedad1952 August 6th, 2011 at 9:02 am I agree there, but remember the old saying, “with enough fuel and thrust, a brick will fly”. That pretty well described the Phantom.
	AirForcedad1952 August 6th, 2011 at 9:04 am Well said.
	AirForcedad1952 August 6th, 2011 at 9:12 am Wait until some pilot has to pull the loud handle and it doesn’t work…
	AdeeDo August 6th, 2011 at 9:59 am Trillions in debt-gotta cut cost, so The” great pres.” is taking this opportunity to cut defense spending to the tune of 800–900 billion, right away thus setting us up for a weaker military so he can continue plans to have our troops become part of the UN team. What a laugh. As far as I know, not one new A/C has ever been put into service straight from production, testing was perfect, no budget overruns, no failed systems. Back int the days I worked at the old “Douglas A/C ” company and we were plagued with many problems in the electrical and structural integrity. as the fuselage and some other sections of the A-4 were under-sized for skin– thickness of the fuselage at the cockpit. There was huge concern over whether to replace the sections or stress test again for structural integrity before releasing them for flight. As with any new new complex system, there will be failure of many, before Hi-production models can be started. We must continue, at all cost with the F-35. Otherwise, we will be further weakened militarily. What happens if we don’t do anything?
	James Schnardthorst August 6th, 2011 at 12:42 pm That wouldn’t work, the wings are upside down!
	Richard A. Bielfelt August 6th, 2011 at 1:44 pm Having come from the OLD F100 Days, we pput a lot of $$$ in that machine over the yers and at 15–20 yrs we were trying to get rid of the J57 and replace it with the (as I understand it a)modified J75 from the F104. My buddy had one of those engines in his F100D —56–3210 and it wasa test uinit till it bacame a gate guard at the base in Indiana. It has now been replaced. We spent $$$ just to keep this plane in the air. I see no difference in the F22/ F35 programs of today. The F 16/17/18’s have had their day and have worked VERY WELL but like Old things its time to put them out to pasture. Hatted to see the F100 go but it cannn’t hold a candle to the new stuff being stelth and all. GOOD LUCK TO THE FOLKS MAKING AND KEEPING THENEW ONE UP AND FLYING. YAH! Thes programs are like a Booad in the water which is a hole in the water to which one throws money. The plane has an intake and does about the same thing , sucks money!. Gotta keep’em going folks just gotta keep’em going. Richard Bielfelt former USAF 1964–1968
	Denny Clements August 6th, 2011 at 2:20 pm Whoever wrote this article simply does not understand the development process of fighters that are truly cutting edge in capabilities. Testing is what Operational Testing and Evaluation (OTE) is all about. If you study the development of all great fighter aircraft, much is learned and fixed in OTE. The difference now is that much of the process is automated and simulated which results is a a very small historical aircraft loss rate in both OTE and future combat. And to AirForcedad1952, the F-22 and the F-35 are not “unnecessary Super Fighters”. How would Superdad think we’ll win a future air war? He needs to wake up an examine the fighters and drones that both Russia and the PRC are developing!
	onemadcooldadlex August 6th, 2011 at 6:14 pm you wont be happy until we’re overrun by our enemies.
	@James_Rubino August 6th, 2011 at 7:58 pm There is not race for our nation to maintain superiority in the air. We were already a generation and a half if not two generations of our next closest modern threat. The fiscal pressure is on to reign in spending but these types of weapons systems are not needed for modern conflicts. Is Russia really going to build 5th gen fighters in numbers capable of being a sovereign threat? Not without other buyers in my opinion. The most real threats are not that threatening to air weaponry of this nature and thus there is no fear factor to necessitate the proper quality control. Some say we lost the cold war by being able to outspend the Soviet Union, maybe.… but at this point we are losing to are ability to outspend ourselves.
	ONTIME August 6th, 2011 at 8:34 pm Give thanks it failed while on the ground, with all the techical inovations being employed in these new aircraft and all the data requied to maintenance these systems it is astonishing how well the aircraft perfom for such lengthy periods of time.…great maintenace service and kudos to the guys that do the work.
	Greg August 6th, 2011 at 10:04 pm The P-47s and P-51s were two rather different breeds. The P-47 had an air-cooled radial engine, with a large payload and a sturdy chassis, but low maneuverability, so it was very good at CAS. The P-51 had a fluid cooled engine, which is a lot better for high altitudes and speed, but isn’t very good for CAS missions, as it’s a fragile engine. These days, we don’t need that sort of role specialisation. Having F-23s and F-35s would result in increased costs as more different spare parts are required and more specialised training is required. As you said, you don’t have the money, but it’s also about efficiency. As it is, the USAF has too many aircraft types, they could learn a thing or two from the USN about multi-role aircraft, they really only have 2 types of fighter, the F/A-18E and the F-35C, only 1 type of patrol aircraft, and 4 types of helicopter. The USAF has 3 types of strategic bomber, 16 different transport and utility aircraft, 2 different ground attack craft, 3 different airborne C&C craft and 4 fighters.
	Mohammad Noman August 6th, 2011 at 10:29 pm This country certainly has the biggest industry but still they are losing in Afghanistan.
	Plane Guy August 6th, 2011 at 11:05 pm What a bunch of whiner s „ my over quarter century in civilian jets says tha t here in no such thing as and aircraft OR engine entering service without teething problems ‚they aint wheelbarrows .
	Rapax August 6th, 2011 at 11:08 pm Except that your enemies can’t be stopped with super expensive fighter jets. If anything your debt ridden country will collapse in itself before you get to fend off any kind of “Invasion USA” which I’m sure is what you’re secretly hoping for so you don’t look stupid for supporting the military-industrial complex all those years.
	lordteapot August 6th, 2011 at 11:12 pm agree, seems most of the people here just want to rant and ignore the reality that A Big War Will Come Again And cost-effective Single Shot Rifles Will Not Win It.
	Robert A. Fritts August 6th, 2011 at 11:18 pm Actually the Navy lost one on the 1st night of the 1991 Air offensive in Iraq to AAA. I cant remember the pilots name, but his body was recently recovered(since the 2003 invasion).
	Robert A. Fritts August 6th, 2011 at 11:20 pm Actually the F-16/15 were successful because we sent them to Israel to get all the bugs worked out. Israeli engineers were called in at the first sign of trouble. John Boyd took the Israeli feedback and ran with it. Funny how the 1st series of major upgrades occured about 18 months after the IAF got their hands on both aircraft. Why do you think there is such a rush to get 20 free F-35s to the IAF? IAF test pilots, planners and engineers have already inspected the entire aircraft. Their verdict? We are not worried about source codes, Radar performance or systems intergration, because we are going to have to rip out 95% of the electronics and replace them with IAI made equipment just to get a functional base line. I bet Lock-Mart and the whole F-35 program are hoping they will do that soon.
	CANT TOUCH THE US August 7th, 2011 at 1:14 am For those who think the US is going under. The United States of America Is in an economical downfall BUT, we Will pull out as we alwaus Have we will repay or debts and we Will fix our economy! We will enable our new Aircrafts and We will remain the worlds biggest Super Power and we are not lossing in afganistan! We have never lost a war and we will never loss a war we will never perish no foreign Enemies will touch American soil in the form of a foreign military. Terrorist may break through now and then but never enough to cause enough damage to touch THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!
	William C. August 7th, 2011 at 3:44 am I don’t know where you got these ideas, but neither John Boyd nor the Israelis “saved” the F-15. Most of the F-15’s early problems were engine related but these were worked out by P&W and McDonnell Douglas. The avionics didn’t need to be ripped out or anything like that. The problems with the few F-22s we produced will be worked out in time, as will any teething problems F-35s encounter. The electrical system of the F-35 is, by necessity, rather unique in comparison to previous designs so there were likely to be a few hiccups during development. Either way it’s best for this to be noticed and corrected on the ground than in the air.
	Oblat August 7th, 2011 at 4:18 am ha ha ha That is just a payment for 3 months. Before you start accusing people of not having a clue you should check your facts.
	Oblat August 7th, 2011 at 4:23 am A 30% discount on a fee that has been tripled is no hardship at all for Lockheed at all.
	Heather Wicks August 7th, 2011 at 8:15 am Capt Scott Speicher was the pilot shot down.
	shouldased August 7th, 2011 at 8:49 am All new airframes have bugs; fighters to airliners. 737’s had a famous grounding for shorts in the CB panel. Turned out to be chafing around a panel hinge. 767’s had problems trying to integrate fiberoptics into production. Military aircraft are constantly modified upgrading systems, getting latest new gadgets which means rewiring. When you have 1,000,000 wire terminations that’s a lot of chance for error. THAT’s why there’s testing and testing and more testing. Unfortunately, things like chafing or cold solder or a worn pin-lock, take varying times to rear their ugly heads. In other words: it’s the nature of the complex beast. If you add more test time to the proposal, the DoD will give the contract to someone else. The nature of dealing with DoD philosophy and new “efficiency programs” like six sigma is: we don’t have time to do it right, we’ll just have to do it over (try to sneak it into another budget.)
	DRH August 7th, 2011 at 9:03 am this type of thing happens in all R&D testing nothing new . This is how things are done to insure a reliable product. It also shows the percentage of failure rate of a item. or systems on board
	shouldased August 7th, 2011 at 9:11 am It is a travesty. At one time I worked for an airline in Denver and the Airbus was notorious for not wanting to fly in the summer. High altitude and hot weather, it just wouldn’t get off the ground. And lots of compressor stalls… anyway, the plane had 272 seats and had to be limited to 80 passengers and minimum fuel to get off the ground in July and August. Cheap wiring and stupid engineering flaws, such as all three GCU’s exposed and directly under the lavatory sink drain. We called them Scarebus. Finally dumped them and bought Boeing.
	Okla. Reb August 7th, 2011 at 9:58 am Damn right!!!
	jasonhad August 7th, 2011 at 11:49 am Yessir, we reaally need these hugely expensive state-of-the-art killing mchines. Why, just look at the threat from China, or India or that place that used to be a world power, Russia or whatever. All of them combined couldn’t field more than a few dozen aircraft capable of attacking the USA, they have fewer fighter jets than us by a factor of three or four, and who gives a rat’s butt about them threatening Europe? Let the Europeans defend themselves for a change! There is absolutely no excuse for us to buy hundreds of $100 million airplanes in which to let young pilots flit about on the very slim chance that they might actually have to use them in combat — more likely to intercept an 85 year old lady piloting a 80-mph monoplane 50 miles from where the King has a fund-raiser, and completely unable to match her speed. Stop this insane spending!
	Frank Pelteson August 7th, 2011 at 12:34 pm If the Insiders want this plane for the NEW WORLD ORDER and for nation-building purposes, they will spend an unlimited amount of money and exert an unswerving commitment to get this aircraft into full operational status. Similar commitments were applied to the C-117, the F-111, and the B-1, all of which had programmatic failures during their gestation periods. If this goal and commitment doesn’t exist, the program will be canceled and the remaining money will be wasted on welfare programs.
	William C. August 7th, 2011 at 12:36 pm So we ought to be flying the same aircraft for the next 50 years? Brilliant thinking. This isn’t insane spending, all of this relates to the need to modernize our aircraft fleet.
	Guest August 7th, 2011 at 2:02 pm Hmmm…I can’t help but wonder if you guys have truly looked at the issue here. While you’re correct Bronco, that there are always issues during the testing phase (and rightfully so…better to discover them here than in live combat) and that the plane is one of the most complex aircraft around. Do we really need lots of them? What is their real mission/purpose (can they truly do something that the F-15 or F16 can’t currently do)? I submit that the real issue is timing and money. These aircraft are grounded during an early phase of their existence (again, rightfully so…look at the history of the F-16). So it’s awesome that we’re finding out these problems…just give it time and the aircraft will be truly unbeatable! With budgets tight as they are however, yes we may need these aircraft…but do we necessarily need them now (did they lend a hand in Iraq or Afghanistan) and do we need lots of them? If I had a hand in this program, the real concern would be money where to put it and when to sustain these programs.
	Guest August 7th, 2011 at 2:08 pm Mohammed, not sure what your point is here, because F-35 and F-22 weren’t used in Afgahnistan. And I wouldn’t necessarily say “they are losing in Afghanistan”. Recall that Afghanistan operations are still going on. When Afghanistan has several nations in it’s backyard because of something that happened 10 years ago…I wouldn’t be calling victory or defeat just yet.
	Guest August 7th, 2011 at 2:10 pm Though I don’t agree with what you have to say…you do have sound logic, Rapax.
	Guest August 7th, 2011 at 2:11 pm Amen brother! I get to chat with an ABM guy quite a bit.
	Guest August 7th, 2011 at 2:14 pm Sir…the F4U while a credible threat in it’s day would only serve well during airshows…which isn’t a bad gig.
	Shiri August 7th, 2011 at 2:22 pm Take your time checking and testing an aircraft, don’t do an ’ OH-UASWTPIAYPFI ’ ( Obama hurry-Up And See What The Problem Is After You Pay For It )..
	Oblat August 7th, 2011 at 2:50 pm Bill wants to spend another 50 years throwing money away on useless equipments. You just have to hear him wax lyrical on how every failed and canceled defense disaster should have been put into production. With the F-35 that is exactly what is happening.
	Oblat August 7th, 2011 at 2:55 pm Why would anyone listen to a Lockheed shill who says having the entire fleet grounded for a year is normal. Bil wants disarmament just through contractor greed and incompetence.
	MM99 August 7th, 2011 at 3:16 pm Sure, the trade studies might get different results based upon all the data accummulated to date but I guess hindsight is always 20–20.
	Glenn398 August 7th, 2011 at 3:30 pm You call Viet Nam or the Korean war a victory, I sure don’t
	Lou Klar August 7th, 2011 at 3:50 pm I see things a little different as an old fart. I remember going through this with the F-111 and to a lesser extent the F4 Phantom. A vailid point is that it is the most technologically advanced aircraft in history. with severe governmental budget issues there is no way that Lockheed can turn this into a cash cow. I have seen also in the past projects like this shut down and eliminated overnight. Don’t ver think for a moment that could not happen.….
	Bertram Workum August 7th, 2011 at 5:32 pm Why not go back to bows and arrows, or just tossing rocks?
	Bertram Workum August 7th, 2011 at 6:08 pm Why not just bring back bows and arrows…even better, go back to tossing rocks? Friends, we gotta keep up-to-dat; “they” certainly will!
	Seeker August 7th, 2011 at 6:11 pm Early stages? The F-22 has been active for almost 10 years. Not sure where you all are coming up with “New”? Not a victory or defeat. Sounds like Vietnam…
	Galen August 7th, 2011 at 6:38 pm Loosing? BS.
	Galen August 7th, 2011 at 6:42 pm Very few other countries report errors or failures. It makes the US look bad because we do not hide our dirty laundry,
	Jeffery Fisk August 7th, 2011 at 8:30 pm Why, Why do we need them, who is the bogey man now? The Soviet Union is toast and as of yesterday No one in the world can down our aged but efficient fleets that are bought and paid for. No these two aircraft are going to be the next generation B1B’s, You remember the super sonic nightmare that cost the US billions of dollars while they quietly sat on the ground collecting dust. The only people that need these are the ones who are afraid because you make them that way. Other major players invest in the US, attacking us would be very counter productive to their markets, The world is grown up, you need to do so as well.
	Jeffery Fisk August 7th, 2011 at 8:45 pm The 1st half of your argument is deplorable and counter to your second argument which is in all essence the proper path to take. Look we have the F35 and F22’s through the engineering phases, So if the world becomes hostile we have one leg up on a future of war, but as of now it’s pouring money down the rabbit hole with no end in sight. I’m with you on the F16, however, and most are bought and paid for. I won’t even argue about bringing some new variants on board at a later date. But the 30 year outlook for the F35 is something like 1.5 Trillion dollars in this plane alone. We really can’t afford it until we find the Leprechauns pot of gold..
	ex flight test August 7th, 2011 at 8:48 pm Because it wouldn’t survive in the current environment idiot. We have had a procurement problem for decades. Crap gets signed off on, then it takes decades to get it to fly. Look at the Osprey. A lot of problems when they’re designed in can’t be fixed.
	ex flight test August 7th, 2011 at 8:49 pm Outdated. Get a life.
	Jeffery Fisk August 7th, 2011 at 8:50 pm Agreed, No one on the planet can take on the US as of 2011 and it doesn’t look like anyone is trying, their a little too busy building infrastructures and the tallest buildings on the planet, all were building is future flower pots just like the B1B. There is absolutely no reason to invest damn near a trillion bucks that does nothing but suck up JP5 while pursuing the bogeyman that doesn’t exist.
	ex flight test August 7th, 2011 at 8:51 pm You can blame Cheney when he was SecDef and when all the merger and acquisitions in all the defense contractors in the 90s. Add in the MBA mentality the USAF has bought into, its a cluster444444.
	ex flight test August 7th, 2011 at 8:52 pm There are tons of bloat to cut, mainly in management. And its not only too many perfumed general officers, lots of GS whatevers who think they’re paid to play golf and come in for lunch. Add in the inability to AUDIT the DoD, there is a massive problem. Homeland Security is the other agency that’s such a mess they can’t audit the funds. Which doesn’t help the US credit rating either.
	ex flight test August 7th, 2011 at 8:55 pm The F-22 was selected 20+ years ago, that means the R&D is even older. It was a waste of taxpayer money back then. Northrup would have been a better buy. Even if it took 10 years, would be better than this POS. F-15s and F-16s are ancient. F-15s are a 40 year old design. Consider, going to WWII with the Wright Flyer.
	Jeffery Fisk August 7th, 2011 at 8:56 pm Full of false fallacy and without merit, no where has the president cut your blood money. He doesn’t cut anything he just passes what the house and senate send him. I think the teadumbkins were the cutters in this mad game weren’t they?
	ex flight test August 7th, 2011 at 8:57 pm F^cker has to successfully taxi and fly to get to Israel, good luck on that one.
	Jeffery Fisk August 7th, 2011 at 8:57 pm The total cost, they want that to be sticker shock!
	Jeffery Fisk August 7th, 2011 at 8:58 pm The rabbit hole goes on and on and on and on.….….….….….….…
	Joe August 7th, 2011 at 9:05 pm Not really true — Brand new F-14Ds (early 90’s) ran about 25 mmh/fh when deployed, which was about the same as the Lot-13 FA-18Cs in the airwing. The same was true in the Tomcat’s dying days when the final 3–4 squadrons had all the spare parts they ever wanted. Flight hours are always a huge driver of the mmh/fh equation. A hangar queen waiting on a part will have a mmh/fh number in the hundreds. Also, just like an old car, you can buy a lot of repairs for the cost of a $500 a month car payment. A $70M new fighter buys you 3500 flight hours at 20K/hr in your old jet.
	Old Salt August 7th, 2011 at 9:19 pm According to an interview with one of the designer engineers of the F-16 and A-10 aircraft, the “F”-22 and “F”-35 do not have the proper wing/body ratio to dogfight or dodge missiles. They obviously are more like the F-100( I believe it was called the “Thud”):great for speed and going straight ahead, in other words, interceptors. Both the F-22 and F-35 have a very small bomb load, so are no better than the “F”-117 as a bomber. They are far to fast, with little hover time to do the air/ground mission. It’s questionable whether stealth is very useful in the interceptor roll. You can purchase a large number of F-16s or F-18s for one of the 22/35s. But once the Generals and Admirals get a program rolling, they won’t stop it for fear of losing authorization monies. Plus, their large egos are on line. Also, they might lose the big VP jobs due after retirement. Welfare, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have far less cost than some believe. Our current debt is at least 75% military costs. Yes, I realize we are at war, but it all started with Reagan, and simply kept increasing. Check the facts. The Houston Chronicle had a graph showing that in the beginning of August. Thirty– two years in the Military– ended up as O-6.
	Rah-rah Sisboombah August 7th, 2011 at 9:22 pm failures during the testing phase… Yeah but how many did we “buy before we fly?” Not even testing… bought and paid and paid and paid…
	Old Salt August 7th, 2011 at 9:24 pm To see the interview of the designer/engineer, see the U-tube video,: use F-35 to find it.
	Rocky Clayton August 7th, 2011 at 9:33 pm Buy the Boing next time.
	joe August 7th, 2011 at 9:36 pm For those who argue that all new planes had these growing pains — you are correct, but the magnitude is quite different. Our previous generation “teen fighters” were developed much more quickly. F-14 — contract award — 69, IOC 74 F-15 — contract award — 69, IOC 76 F-16 — Wins LWF competition — 75 — IOC, 1980 FA-18 — After losing LWF, Navy renames YF-17 to F-18 1977, IOC — 83 Sure there was a lot of background development, but nothing that even comes close to the 20 years of the F-22 and what the F-35 probably will be. And to be sure the F-22 and F-35 are more complex aircraft, but the teen fighters were just as cutting edge for their time, incorporating digital computers for the first time. Your iPad is more complex than your 1970 IBM selectric typewriter but that’s expected, not an excuse.
	William C. August 7th, 2011 at 9:58 pm In Oblatski’s opinion any sort of military equipment is worthless. He probably wants our troops to buy their own gear.
	William C. August 7th, 2011 at 10:00 pm Don’t forget that the F-22 was impacted very heavily by Clinton’s “procurement holiday”. The EMD phase was stretched out, etc.
	William C. August 7th, 2011 at 10:03 pm Why would anybody listen to an internet troglodyte who says American soldiers shouldn’t be allowed home? Care to cite a source claiming the F-22s would be grounded for an entire year? Or is this more of the usual trademarked Oblatski BS?
	Robert A. Fritts August 8th, 2011 at 12:08 am Thank you for the most level headed, sensible comment on this board. I’m a ground pounder and as a general rule not a big fan of American Fast movers(that whole CAS from way too hig and way too fast thing). If I have to have a US made fast jet doing my CAS, then I want a Strike Eagle. The fighter has been on duty for over 3 decades and has years of service ahead it. Plus it is a strikingly beautiful Aircraft.
	Robert A. Fritts August 8th, 2011 at 12:11 am Why not 100% If they got no more money and still had to get it done, I suspect it would get done right quickly.
	Robert A. Fritts August 8th, 2011 at 12:23 am Have actually seen my soldiers in Wardak throw rocks at insurgents due to m4 jams. Not as much fun as one might think. I wonder how many thousands or tens of thousands of Soldiers and Marines we could equip with solid, reliable, powerful and easy to maintain personal weapons and bodyarmor for just the PR budget being spent on this aircraft.
	starfighter33 August 8th, 2011 at 1:16 am When I was active duty I saw the 1st OBOGS system roll off the line, & I thought this is great, no more carrying heavy LOX bottles to our jets. I believe after all the problems with OBOGS, the LOX system to be the better system. I think the primary reason is proven combat effectiveness, followed by having an isolated system, thereby protecting the aircrew from NBC.
	pfcem August 8th, 2011 at 1:28 am Zero. The basic concept & proof of the ability to fly was done with the X-35.
	pfcem August 8th, 2011 at 1:47 am No, paying 30% of the PROJECTED 11–15% over contract cost. And related to that LM was awarded only $7 million out of a possible $35 million award fees for milestones reached. Not only do defense contractors make orders of magnitude more profit PRODUCING weapons systems than they do developing them, they make MORE profit if development is on time &/or on budget than the do if development is not on time &/or on budget.
	Paul Orand August 8th, 2011 at 1:54 am I remember that about the F-16 AOA intake problem. The F-14 program had at least one loss, almost shutting the program down. I think the best part of the F-22 program is the motor. There is no faster, fuel efficient turbine on the planet. I’m not a proponet of stealth, too much time & money, too easy to defeat with a good pilot like Giora Epstein or Dale Snodgrass. Pilot training & tactics count, coupled with exemplary ground technicians. Good job on that F-22 motor, Pratt & Whitney. Seeing the YF-22 in our hanger was like being in the presence of a higher power. I think stealth has it’s applications, but I believe they should be extremely limited due to cost constraints & fallibility. Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/03/f-35s-grounded-… DoDBuzz.com
	pfcem August 8th, 2011 at 2:13 am Our previous generation “teen fighters” were developed under MUCH less restrictive regulations — MUCH less government involvement/hinderance all around. For example (& it is worse now), the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (which was ‘supposed’ to be a relatively inexpensive & low risk advanced version of the F/A-18C/D Hornet) took 9 years from signing of the EMD contract (Dec 1992) & IOC (Sep 2001)…
	Mac Leahy August 8th, 2011 at 2:18 am “Is Russia really going to build 5th gen fighters in numbers capable of being a sovereign threat?” Sukhoi PAK FA, which both Russia and India will operate, is being built in significant numbers. Like Russia’s gen4/4.5 fighters, it’s extremely agile, its thrust-to-weight ratio is second-to-none, it can pull major g’s, and is lighter and cheaper than the competition. We could learn a thing or two (or three) from Sukhoi, that’s for sure. As a Canadian, I’d hate to see PM Harper’s proposed F-35 purchase go through; Canada can’t afford to buy 85 (@ 150 Million each!) of these goverweight, under-performing, problem-ridden pigs, not to mention the fact that the projected price keeps going up. We’d be better off with Su PAK FA’s; if it holds true to previous Sukhoi models, doing so would drive unit costs DOWN! Not only would we get a much hotter aircraft, we could also make $$ leasing them to you guys for D-ACM ;-)
	Paul Orand August 8th, 2011 at 2:18 am The only good thing to come from the F-22 is the Pratt & Whitney engine. It’s the fastest most fuel efficient turbine on the planet. All this overpriced steath can easily be defeated with good aircrews like Dale Snodgrass & Giora Epstein. Seeing the YF-22, in our hanger, for the first time was a spiritual experience!
	starfighter33 August 8th, 2011 at 3:20 am He’s talking about ‚the aircraft fleet, as a whole, not a single aircraft loss. I was there the aricraft was lost off the Saratoga. I don’t recall the whole fleet of F/A-18’s being downed due to design flaws. Safety stand-down when one dropped a bomb on 1 of our own ships, this wasn’t during the war.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 8th, 2011 at 3:33 am Make sure that you differentiate between “peacetime efficiency” and “wartime efficiency”. Admittedly, most weapon system exist for most of their life cycle in the peacetime mode, but the reason that they exist at all is for their wartime mode. We put armor on some aircraft (A-10s for example), even though it adds weight and significantly decreases “peacetime efficiency”. We add redundant systems even though it adds weight and cost, because when needed it saves cost. Bottom line, redundancy in terms of dual/independent F-4 stab actuators or two aircraft to do virtually the same mission costs money, and if the trade studies are “cooked” for economy of budget vs combat effectiveness, you always get the cheap answer.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 8th, 2011 at 3:55 am Small point of correction.….I believe that the F-104s had a J-79 with just a few differences from the J-79s used in F-4s and about 16000 lbs of thrust. A J75 is the 26000 lbs thrust turbine used in F-105s and F-106s, and probably weighed a very sizable percentage of the F-100s GTW! An F-100 with a J-79 would have gained about 1000 lbs of thrust over the J-57 variant; with a J-75 it would have been a space launch vehicle! LOL!
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 8th, 2011 at 8:05 am The useful part of the after action review might be to go back on those “trade studies” at some point, apply the new results, check the new answers and THEN look at the deltas in the inputs as well as the outputs. If the “lessons learned” were corrections on honest mistakes or wrong assumptions, OK, that happens press ahead with the best answers. If the “lessons learned” were corrections against non-analytical inputs, i.e. political decrees or personal preferences, then that fact needs to be highlighted. Otherwise, you get to learn the same lessons over and over and over.… hey, isnt that what so many people are talking about here? 20–20 hindsight is only useful if the sharpened view is used constructively! :-)
	Rah-rah Sisboombah August 8th, 2011 at 10:01 am Haveing a manufacturing team on call to baby a platform during proof of concept phases is a lot differant than a production run model. Totaly differant pfcem.
	fizzle f35 August 8th, 2011 at 10:03 am ok ok ok the module for the f35 is not the problem, you have look deeper. ie.…. lockhe.… price project and money , i build the module for the back-up system and i just happen to know what i’m doing \
	Norman Lewis Baldwin Jr. August 8th, 2011 at 3:03 pm I couldn’t agree with you more. The fact is these are both very complex of next generation technology so there are going to be bugs in the systems but with both of these jets in suitable quanities we can deter any adversary.
	BistroBaron August 8th, 2011 at 3:08 pm Bring back the Fokker…
	Bat August 8th, 2011 at 3:35 pm Can’t wait to see them perform in airshow ! That might be as good as they get !
	Engineer Economist August 9th, 2011 at 10:47 am Ahh — the contractor & PM’s ever-present scapegoat to whine about — too much regulations. What a bunch of crybabies. Instead of crying and complaining when your wet dream programs crash and burn, why doesn’t DoD & its contractors put together realistic programs that have a snowball’ chance in hell of surviving the oversight process? Leave your advanced technophile dreams for DARPA and ACTDs — where the technology can properly mature — rather than try to ramrod it through the MDAP process, where it will take decade long schedule overruns and 100+ multi-billion dollar cost overruns before the taxpayers can realize how full of S*IT DoD and its contractors are.
	Engineer Economist August 9th, 2011 at 10:50 am Those darn naysayers! A $771M overrun on an LRIP contract, for a program that doesn’t even deserve to be in LRIP, is NOTHING to worry about! Don’t believe the naysayers, keep your head in the F-35 kool-aid flavored sand!
	DrScroggins August 9th, 2011 at 6:29 pm I recently watched an excellent history on the development of the F-14. Several Planes were lost and yes, there were casulties. However the weapon system was developed and served our country well. I glad our test programs are safer than in our recent history. The engineers will find the problem, correct it, and the program continue. We need these jets and we need them badly.
	onel38 August 9th, 2011 at 9:40 pm Remember the problems attached to the AV-8 Harrier in the beginning? I do besause I worked on the electroniscs and stabalization system of that aircraft. onel38
	John August 9th, 2011 at 10:24 pm To funny bring back a non stealthy smokey fuel guzzling relic of the 50–60’s thinking into todays combat world yeah great idea. Lets see F-4’s kill ratio was a sad 2.5 to 1 against older tech migs while the long in the tooth F-15 is so far 95 to zero air to air kills and about 4 lost to triple a and sams. Phantoms oh my god sam bait.
	John August 9th, 2011 at 10:30 pm A huge part of the Raptor issue is it was used as a political pawn during its development program. It was designed in the 80’s (I was part of the engine program) canceled,reinstated, delayed reduced funding over and over so in a way its issueshould have and would have been fixed if it had been funded like the f-18 program which was not used as a political tool. The Raptor was adversly affected by the politicians looking to make a name for themselves or funding thier pet projects like Obama care.
	John August 9th, 2011 at 10:41 pm Okay sure the Eagle is still holding its own but the last fighter version rolled off the line in the 90’s with only the ground attack model being made and it too is winding down. Silent Eagle may extend its life but not in our inventory. So more or less the newest Eagle in service is aproaching it’s 18th birthday with many Eagles being nearly 30 years old in service. So let me ask you this would you climb in a fighter 30 years old and expect it to perform like a 5th gen or even a late 4 th gen? So far we’ve been lucky as it boils down to pilot skill a lot but that may change real soon with ucav’s
	Eddy James August 9th, 2011 at 11:51 pm Not as much as the price is going up, the dollar is going down,down,down. That $20 coin in 1933 in now $1750.
	Joe August 10th, 2011 at 7:00 am Well that’s annoying
	Pamela Brummond August 10th, 2011 at 10:27 am Well put Eagle guy.……Cheers; Pamela
	MW80 August 10th, 2011 at 4:58 pm Mr. Cheney did a wonderful job of ripping the heart and soul of our aircraft fleet right out– the scrapping and selling off of the F-14. Just as the B-52 is still flying high, so too could have the Tomcat, and again saved more money than expensive 5th generation fighters that are, grounded!?
	Tim W. August 10th, 2011 at 5:35 pm I’m sure someone has the blue prints for the A6, F14 and A10 still in their safe.….they are proven aircraft and to build them today with just a few mods during manufacture.…..we would have the best of the best once again ! Sh*t canning great aircraft before a well proven aircraft replacement is here is the problem ! Also I see no reason for a entire stealth airforce.…Navy or AirForce. IMHO !
	howe August 10th, 2011 at 7:00 pm The F-35 has capabilities far beyond the F-16 and yes we do need to maintain air superiority to remain the strongest nation on earth. Our air superiority is being challenged by the Russians and the French, we are also losing the fight for the most advanced Navy in the world, by the Chinese, which should be no surprise. So what does that tell us. When there is a new state of the art aircraft, there will always be problems associated with pushing the technological envelope. This F-35 stealth fighter has the most advanced avionics in the world and can takeoff and land from a helicopter pad, not to mention it has a weapontry array suitable for the Marines, Navy and Air Force missions, that has neer been achieved before which means huge cost reductions for spare aircraft and spare parts. Just remember that FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. That does not mean Aircraft companies should not be frugal with contract funds to meet schedules, but we should rely on experts to make the production decisions.
	Randall Furlough August 10th, 2011 at 8:29 pm Gentlemen; speaking as a AF vet who spent many hours(22yrs 10mos 15 days) on cold flight lines,hangars and many countries; let me assure you the tech rep will solve the problem, at least its not the missy panels of the F4 which by the way was a McDonnel Douglas work horse of which was on my right hip for 17 years. War’d together and slept together..how many of you remember when the F-16 came to the WolfPack, some good times then,had General Dynamics living at Kunsan, been everywhere done it and seen it all! I’m glad some of the other generation is interested in aerospace.Just fix it=make it happen.
	Randall August 10th, 2011 at 8:40 pm yeah I read about boeing wanting to open a plant for commercial aircraft because of a large contract from Delta I think, and heard they were told to take it overseas because of union problems. NO, the Gov needs to butt out,we need the jobs here. Just like that deal they gave Honda to put that plant in Marysville Ohio, the employees pay all the taxes for the Japanese so they can have jobs. Airbus ain’t too hot, seems they are experiencing technical difficulties with flight capability.
	Brandon August 11th, 2011 at 12:18 pm Should Just Have Upgraded a Model of The F15.. F22s were Crap. Why waste money building the F35 when the 22 Isnt Even Flying
	Sheepdog August 11th, 2011 at 1:05 pm because., according to SMSgt Mac, who is smarter than all of us put together, stealth is the price of admission to the battlefield and if we built more of the old kind of jets they’d just be targets. You have to keep paying that price over and over again, even though we already paid it with F-117, B-2, F-22…
	arcantlon August 11th, 2011 at 3:53 pm The system which failed is used to power systems on the ground, like starting the aircrafts engines & providing electrical power & hydraulic power on the ground.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 11th, 2011 at 4:16 pm Among other things.… Check out: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/unique-in…
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 11th, 2011 at 4:22 pm Obsfucation is, according to the dictionary, “To totally obscure with non-germane information in a verbose manner, with the intent to provide a non-answer, and provide total befuddlement.” You, sir, are good at obsfucation. Stealthiness has NOTHING to do with the F-35’s IPP failiure. Not sure its a marketable talent or even worthy of “creds”.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 11th, 2011 at 4:35 pm Aside from the financial issues with stringing out programs through “bureaucratic process”, reviews, and politics, consider the viability of the program itself. Imagine that you were an Italian or German Design Team working on the fighter to take on the Gloster Gladiator or a Brewster Buffalo in 1935. Tack on 9 years of dwaddling and your brand new Axis fighter would have been running up against a Gloster Meteor or a P-80! OOOOOPS! No matter how much gold you were allowed to drag from the treasury, that probably would not be a happy story of procurement success. Technology as a whole moves much faster today than in the 1930s and 40s, both for us and the threat!
	Sheepdog August 11th, 2011 at 4:44 pm first, no one was talking to you. second, we weren’t talking about the electrical system… third, i was making a sarcastic joke reductio ad absurdum.. which might seem like obfuscation to you because you just don’t get it. fourth, it’s ironic you would accuse me of obfuscation. i have years of experience cleaning up the damage caused by others obfuscation through creation of clarity. sixth, nice cheap shot at the end. every paycheck i’ll have to remind myself of my non-marketability. seventh, f off dbag.
	Surakij August 14th, 2011 at 3:52 pm And should add 3 of CIWS on the front and 1 on the back with micro missiles hub for anti-missiles (3 barrels of closed in weapon systems (30 mils — 40 mils of supersonic armor piercing anti-tank shells HE dual proposed) for anti-missiles & anti-direct fire & anti-mortar (like Phalange & Sherif system) with infared pint point (non-visible wavelenge) & radar guided & electrooptical scaning guinded with eyed caption & touch screen function for more intrend like I-pads) replace fixed machine guns too. With reducing diameter of powerplant 15–20% but make it 2 but not in the middle but seperate them. (I know & understand about “midshift” but I thought something more epic. Ex..To have space for backward CIWS & micro-missiles hub for anti-missiles instead of using flare & shaft.)
	Surakij August 14th, 2011 at 3:55 pm And I thought about some websites that limited letters while I show opinions quite inconvenience too.. Because professional working,(or sometime,a puppy love of a mad scienctist) sometime inevitable about massive of detials ‚am I correct???
	Edward Nieblas August 16th, 2011 at 1:08 am I think we need these planes but right now we can get all the glitches out and make a better aircraft… It’s going to be a while for other countries to get their programs running (Russian PakFa and Chinese J-20) but nonetheless we have to prepare ourselves for that time, if we dont fight either of those contries we might fight a country that can buy those 5g jets

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

F-35s grounded after electrical system fault

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments