F-35 boss: We’re getting it right, just give us time

F-35 boss: We’re getting it right, just give us time

There’s nothing wrong with the F-35 Lightning II that old fashioned engineering can’t fix, its program boss told Senate lawmakers on Tuesday — the only question is how long it’ll take.

In a genial session with three members of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s air-land panel, Vice Adm. David Venlet said “technical and cost issues certainly exist” with Lockheed Martin’s jet of tomorrow, the largest defense program in history.

They include the pilot’s helmet continuing to fall short of spec; problems with the tailhook on the Navy’s C version; electronic warfare “antenna quality;” and “buffet loads in flight,” Venlet said.


But — “Every issue we have in view today is very much in the category of normal development for fighters — tactical aircraft. Good old fashioned engineering is going to take care of every one of those and we will work on those hard enough that they’re deemed good enough by the fleet.”

See? Nothing to worry about. So when can the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy expect their As, Bs and Cs to reach initial operational capability?

Still no word on that.

Venlet said he’s heard from the services that they were pleased with the year the program had in 2011 — which included the B’s debut at sea and other milestones — but even they, by his own account, are holding out to see whether Lockheed and the Joint Program Office can keep it up.

“They would say ‘Dave, we’d like you to be more than a one-year wonder — string a couple of years of performance together and we’ll declare IOC.’”

No rush! In the meantime, the Air Force is just going to go ahead and extend the lives of 300 of its F-16s; the Navy will extend the lives of 150 of its F/A-18 Hornets; and the Marines are going to plan to keep flying their AV-8B Harriers until 2030. Australia, a charter member of Club F-35, may delay its purchase by another two years, even as the U.K. and Canada keep up their Hamlet routines about what kind of jets they want or even whether they want them. But the Fellowship is basically solid and new members could even be around the corner — Venlet said program officials are getting ready to play in South Korea’s pending fighter competition.

Lockheed officials jumped in ahead of Venlet’s optimistic assessment with another announcement Tuesday detailing the F-35’s progress so far this year. The F-35 fleet is flying up a storm, said spokeswoman Laurie Quincy: Air Force As have flown 164 times. The Marines’ Bs aircraft have completed 122 flights, 114 of which began with a short takeoff, and Bs have conducted 49 vertical landings. (The B can land conventionally or vertically.) Navy Cs have flown 87 times.

“[T]he … fleet surpassed the 15,000 total test point threshold, completing approximately 25 percent of the program’s entire requirement of more than 59,000 test points,” Quincy said. “Overall the F-35 test program remains ahead of the 2012 flight test plan, which calls for the accumulation of 1,001 test flights and 7,873 baseline test points as well as additional points beyond the original plan.”

Plus the jets have demonstrated their speed, agility, and ability to carry some payloads, though they haven’t released any live weapons yet.

Still, there were many cracks in Tuesday’s happy facade. Venlet acknowledged that the F-35’s software — both for the jet itself and the offboard system that will help manage its logistics — remains a big challenge. (“You can’t ever take your eye off the software,” he said.) He said the Air Force’s Aeronautical Systems Center and Naval Air Systems Command both would be playing a bigger role in helping wrestle that down, the latest admission that service systems expertise has been lacking from the joint program.

And another witness, Vice Adm. Walter Skinner, a senior Navy Department weapons-buyer, said there’s still of lot of work ahead figuring out what’s wrong with the C’s tailhook. Although Venlet has said before that the hook problem was just one of those things you discover when you’re developing an airplane,  engineers don’t quite know what they’re in for, Skinner said.

“The hook not engaging has happened to other aircraft besides the F-35,” he said. “We’ve gone through initial fault trees for that occurance, we’re still in analysis, we’ll have a preliminary design review at end of next month, at which time we’ll be able to ascertain the scope of the fix, the cost, and if there will be a schedule penalty associated with implementation.”

So there are still many hurdles, but the bottom line, said Venlet, is that the F-35 has until fiscal year 2016 to continue with its tests. “If it all stays within the family of normal fighter development,” he said, “we have ability to stay on schedule and on cost.”

If it doesn’t, DoD may delay buying more airplanes to punish Lockheed, but the overall program will continue as it always has.

 

Join the Conversation

I can’t imagine how much would be lost if one of these crashed… Just saying…

” “If it all stays within the family of normal fighter development,” he said, “we have ability to stay on schedule and on cost.””

In normal fighter development, do you buy a hundred copies before the testing program is completed?

Hopefully the Ejection Works, so we wouldn’t lose a good pilot.

Usually you would buy a “Completed Model” to see if it meets your requirements.

Yeah for real!

Yes Sir, we’ll give you time… just please give us some loaner F-16s and hornets to cover the extended gap in the meanwhile. Oh, and please get the Price right too while you’re at it. Cough.

I am not a fly boy but an ex grunt from Nam. I hope the folks in charge do a better job than they did with the
M-16 they gave me in 1967. It didn’ t work the way it was suppose to either. And it cost my fellow Marines their lives in the real world.

A finely written, balanced article, Phil, with just the right amount of satire — one of the best antidotes for the “a total indifference to what is real” elements in Dave Venlet’s testimony.

Though Dave cites one the three pillars he embraced when he joined the JSF Program as ” a firm grasp on reality”, he continues to shield his gaze from the herd of really big pachyderms in the room while closing one eye and squinting the other when it comes to the two standing over in the corner — O&S Costs and software.

Ask Sylvester Davis about that last big, grey hairy muther.

I way yes there nothing wrong with the F-35 of what it made for a F-16 replacement and for light attack and fighter roles. The B model and congress is making this thing bloated and complex. All the money the GOP is pouring into the program will fill the bureaucracy they made for this program. Let the military run it and keep capital hill OUT of this program.

In a way there is nothing wrong with the F-35A/C for what its made for a Falcon and Hornet replacement for a light fighter light attack plane. The B and congress meddling in the program is what making this a head ach. All the money the GOP is adding to its failed budget will cover most of there interference with program. Time to have the Congress out of military programs and let the Air Force run this program.

Lance:

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Firstly, the F-35A was specified and has been designed to have comparable performance to the Falcon and Hornet when these aircraft are loaded up to the gunnals with external weapons and external fuel tanks — the latter to provide what was considered a comparable fuel load. However, someone forgot to read the memo about how these aircraft jettison their external fuel tanks when entering the engagement phase of the mission profiles.

Secondly, the dominant baseline design is that of the B which has had inappropriate and, in some cases, quite bizarre influences on the designs of the other two JSF variants.

Combining these two aspects of the program provides the point where the rot started and explains why it continues to this very day.

As much as some would like to believe otherwise, this version of “concurrency”, that is, concurrent design with the STOVL as the dominant baseline design, means “concurrency” is not and, therefore, should not be thought of as a “transient”.
..

More time, more money, more time, more money…

Where have I heard this song before? How long has Lockheed been playing it?

Holy snapping duck poop!

Is there somewhere in the LM Aircraft Design Manual that says fasteners torqued up to less than 100 inch pounds are most unlikely to work themselves loose, especially in the high aero-acoustic and mechanical vibration environment of an engine inlet door — alternate or otherwise?

Just curious since you bring it up… has the F-35 successfully jettisoned external fuel tanks yet in testing? Or is it still a hopeful block IV requirement for the 2020s?

Hardly lightning pace progress towards operational capability. Let’s hope that the Aussies, Canadians and varous Euro nations don’t get too jittery on final unit cost and start bailing out. Game changing warplane employing cutting edge technology saved by old fashioned engineering and F16s.

Hello, is this Peter Goon from the Head of Test and Evaluation, Associate Editor, Co-Founder, Air Power Australia.

I totally agree that the F-35 JSF is a wrong aircraft and totally incapable of facing high end threats which will never be able to cement any air force and navy’s requirements etc.

Indeed the F-35 has inferior acceleration, poor manoeuvrability, short range with no loiter time and very limited weapons payload that is unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence and totally unsuited for air superiority role when compared against Sukhoi family of aircraft and upcoming J-20 Mighty Dragon.

To Peter Goon

The F-35’s fuselage is too thinned skinned. Lockheed Martin has done very little with major safety precautions on the Joint Strike Fighter to protect against fire. As an close air support which the F-35 is suppose to be (when it attempts to discriminate tanks, convoys, SAMs and AAAs) its totally incapable, the aircraft will be an very easy target to shoot down, because it’s such a delicate aeroplane which means the aircraft has a huge F135-PW-100 turbofan engine surrounded by fuel wrapped around entirely in the engine and to the fuselage. Very little they can do because the .22 Rifle or any form of gunfire can very easily penetrate the skin on the airframe and causes it to catch on fire like a “blow torch”. Lockheed Martin has dropped the safety precautions on the aircraft in order to save weight. Which I find this aircraft very vulnerable etc etc.

I’m just like you guys I don’t like the JSF at all.

Underpowered and with high wing loading, “good old fashioned engineering” would say start again this design is a failure.

Your argument is unfounded. The F-15E and F-16 also have thin-skins that can be penetrated by small-arms fire, but are still used for CAS. At standard weapons-release altitudes for bombs, small-arms projectiles don’t have much energy to penetrate anyway. The whole “using bullets fired from handguns to set gas on fire” is a myth perpetuated by Hollywood. Try shooting a can of gasoline.… it won’t catch on fire. Neither will JP-8 (the fuel that the Air Force uses); you can drop a lit match into a puddle of JP-8 and it won’t catch on fire. JP-4 is a different story, but that’s why the Air Force doesn’t use it anymore. I’m sure it’s the same for the Navy’s JP-5.

Aircraft cannons and anti-aircraft cannons utilize incendiary ammunition of some form to achieve the ignition effect for onboard jet fuel such as high explosive incendiary (HEI), armor piercing incendiary (API), or semi-armor piercing incendiary (SAPHEI).

However, I will say that I’m not a fan of the F-35 myself.

Correction: semi-armor piercing high explosive incendiary (SAPHEI)

Unfortunately, there is more that is wrong than is right with the JSF aircraft designs and the JSF Program itself.

A lot of time and effort and money has been put into pulling together the wherewithall to build the air combat capability for a lot of nations. The only problem is they are building the wrong aircraft.

Why not use all that wherewithall to build the right aircraft?

… totally incapable of facing high end threats…
This is an incredibly important point that will render this aircraft useless under our most important OPLANs.

Lockheed should be throwing in free F16s to the USAF to carry them over…a good company takes care of its customer. Starbucks gives me free drink coupons when they mess up an order…hell, they even comp a drink if I have to wait for coffee to be brewed. A few F16s would be a nice gesture from LM.

…define existing or soon to be existing high end threats that the F35 could not defeat? Threats for which an F/A type aircraft would be intended to confront.

Keep in mind that federal acquisition law was written by congress, approved by congress to ensure all defense contractors get lots of money for their constituents. This isn’t a case of GOP or Dem — it’s both parties and House and Senate — since it takes approval of both chambers to approve and appropriate funding.

An interesting perspective from someone else…

F-35 Reality Check Ten Years On — Part 1: ‘Fifth-Generation’ and Other Myths
http://​www​.defense​-aerospace​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​-​v​i​e​w​/​fea

Perhaps, under the veil of all its secrecy, the burning bush called F-35 is in all actuality little more than a flickering ember, only existing as a blazing fire in folks’ imaginations, because they have nothing else to center their faith in?

Jets crash during flight test all the time. It’s part of the learning process. They learn from it and move on. Everything is not a catastrophy like some people want you to believe.

Hi Trophy

My argument is not unfounded. Although the F-15E and F-16 have thin-skins that can be penetrated by small-arms fire, only at lower altitudes, yes they are still used for CAS. At standard weapons-release at high altitudes for bombs, small-arms projectiles do have much energy to penetrate at lower altitudes. The A-10C is designed for that mission (which is why the Warthog was developed), which supersonic fighters are not really effective in CAS is because they have fuel wrapped around the engine which any gunfire can penetrate the fuselage that can create fire. Supersonic fighters are very effective for ground attack duties as well as stand-off.

If you watch the A-10 Thunderbolt documentary, Pierre Sprey will explain that.

@ Trophy

Also because supersonic fighters are not equipped with the hefty 30mm (1.18 in) cannon to effectively attack the tanks.

To be declassified in 25 years…
OR
To be know soon after the first engagement

Let there be glory and superiority breathed into this angelic machine we call F-35, created to faithfully assume the throne as the finest fighter ever flown and as it will reign supreme for the next 4 decades… Amen.

There is no reason or precedent to believe anything Lockheed or the F-35 PM would say in this matter. Friends this is how defense acquisitions is supposed to work. Before DoD can commit us the taxpayer to paying for billions in development & procurement costs, they must first prove that they have generated sufficient knowledge & planning with which they can execute a program within an estimated budget. This is known as Milestone B, where things like the cost & schedule baseline are to be established. With F-35 we are years & years past Milestone B, and the schedule is nowhere close to stabilized. They are producing aircraft that have not even come close to passing adequate testing. This is nonsense. At stake is the integrity of the entire defense program, for if F-35 gets away with shoddy planning & estimating, every other program manager will look at the situation and come to the conclusion as to why they should be honest about their planning, scheduling, and cost estimating.

We need full scale accountability & Congressional hearings to get to the bottom of this, no matter how painful. There are many people in DoD & the F-35 community who may have real answers to the F-35’s problems or know that it is a hopeleess cause, inw hich case the sooner we egress from it and develop alternatives, the better. These people must not be suppressed by fear of reprisal.

Just give us unlimited time and unlimited money and eventually an decent aircraft will exists, maybe.

Why is it everyone assumes that these incredible have barely flown Russian and Chinese jets aren’t going to have major issues in development too? Those of you spouting off regarding these planes apparently buy the propoganda being pushed by these nations and are making huge broad leaping assumptions.

Not saying the F-35 isn’t flawed as is…but the idea that other nations are going magically come up with a super 5th generation fighter that’s better than anything we have is even more flawed.

Actually they bought over 200 F-16s before they completed testing, so yes, it is not unheard of.

Congress established by statute the very acquisition process that you’re bemoaning. The truth is they don’t want to know the real cost of a program up front because if they did, no one would ever fund it. They intentionally underfund programs and DOD leaders demand aggressive unachievable schedules so that they can play the funding shell game year to year.

Don’t expect the very people who set up this problem to be the ones to fix it because frankly I believe they want it this way.

The F-35C cannot land on a carrier because of a major design flaw. That is a BIG problem.

They will bail, Australia has fulfilled it’s contract to buy 2 F-35’s for testing and has now decided to wait “2 Years ” to decide ( how many more problems pop up and how much more $$$ it will cost them ) if they want any more F-35’s. As for Canada it looks like there is going to be real ” Competition ” between different Aircraft, or if they still go with the JSF they won’t be able to buy the number they originally wanted because they are being held to their original price quote of 9 Billion and not at penny more. Their price was based on between $60–7– Million, not today’s price of $172 Million.

PAK-50’s, SU-35’s, J-20’s not counting the upgraded SU-30 Series aircraft to name a few.

JSF won’t be able to preform in the Air Superiority role with the new PAK-50’s, SU-35’s and J-20’s coming at it, to do High G turns in a dog fight with the advanced dedicated Air Superiority fighters of it’s most probable adversaries. It’s not going to be pretty, and won’t last long, unlike the F-22 which is a true Stealth fighter ( All Aspect Stealth) the F-35 is only Stealthy from the front and with the advanced ” L Band Radars ” in the PAK-50’s & SU-35’s and their IRST systems, plus their “Thrust Vectoring” engines. The F-35 will be seen, then shot.

LLC here is the thing you and so many others arent getting. This isnt a light fighter.….this isn’t a secondary aircraft we have a replacment for.….…THIS IS THE ENTIRE FUTURE FORCE OF THE US AIRFLEET IN BOTH NAVY AND AIRFORCE.

The plane is broken. The concept was broken. Whether they can get it to work or not is irrelevent.

The plane will never cost less than 160mil for the A which is by far the cheapest version. Thats conservatively. Flyaway cost dont include R&D. We cannot afford 160+ mil dollar low combat capability fighters.

Whats more the shear insane cost IS EATING THE ENTIRE DoD budget.

Its about dang time to end this abortion of a program.

BZZZZT! wrong, sir. It is not the acquisition process that is the problem. The problem is DoD commits itself to unexcutable concepts in the first place (expectations of technology & contractors ability to deliver waaaay too high) and follows that up with poor execution of the program. The intentional underfunding of programs is by no means limited to Congress. DoD senior leaders commit those blunders prior to the budget even being submitted to Congress. The answer is what people have been trying to tell DoD for years: lower the appetite for advanced technology for what is realistically achievable. DoD can pursue high risk exotic tech to its heart’s content through labs, DARPA, etc. Just don’t expect to be able to integrate that into a major defense program until it has matured properly through competetive, operational prototyping & T&E environment.

“Don’t expect”.. no way. They are the only ones with the authority to fix it. That’s why we need more and more public hearings, auditing, and whistle blowers to come forward (just like those courageous F-22 pilots). DoD, the industry, and Congressional whole leadership culture needs to be changed. In order for it to be changed, it first needs to be exposed for how rotten it is. People will not go see a doctor until they realize how sick they are.

The F-35 has the performance of a F-105 it cant outfight any modern fighter. It would have problems against a Mig-21

And replace it with what, Belesari? More 4th generation fighters that won’t be able to compete with other nations’ 5th gen fighters? I see a lot of people claiming it’s broke, it won’t work, etc. but not offering real solutions.

Buy more F-22’s which are Officially cheaper than the F-35A by around $30 Million a piece. Plus some F-15SE’s
for the Air Force and more F-18 Super Hornets for the Navy till a Carrier version of the F-22 can be produced which can’t take any longer to do than the current F-35C with all it’s structural defects for Carrier landings ( No tail hook, 4% of Mission Software written etc, etc )
F-22 = $140 Million
F-35A = $172 Million

If LM was getting right how many Squadrons of F-35’s have been Deployed according to the Original schedule of 2010 ? How many Combat Ready F-35’s are in the inventory today? When is it now scheduled to be Combat Ready 2017 or is 2019 ??? Exactly what have they gotten right so far? Except they had a great year in the stock market with lots of profits and they brag on their website of more profits to come this year.
http://​www​.lockheedmartin​.com/​u​s​/​n​e​w​s​/​p​r​e​s​s​-​r​e​lea

I watched the F-22 fly it’s acceptance flight over Atlanta in the early 90’s, then I watched as Bill Clinton cancelled the initial production run and closed down our Skunk Works at Lockheed at Carswell. By the time George Bush was able to untangle all the presidential proclamations done the last day on tBill Clinton’s job and get the F-22 flying again its 15 year basic service life as a first string fighter was over. The first aircraft had to be upgraded to Block 5! You can’t run an airline like that, rather than being top of the line it was obsolete when introduced. Thank you Mr. Clinton.

I’m not experienced in jets only military reciprocating engines from the 50’s but from these discussions I would think it advisable to scrap the JSF-35 and get back to building more F-22 Raptors without the faulty oxygen supply. It just needs the right people speaking up with authority, or am I too naive? Military lives are the most important issue here but this factor seems to be overlooked at Lockheed Martin and in Washington, as usual.

43,000 lbs of thrust is “underpowered”? News to me and the test pilots who’ve actually flown the thing.

Are those the APUC or the life cycle cost numbers?

The F-22 isn’t built for the missions that the F-35 is. It’s too big to land on a carrier and can’t provide the ground fire (though I still think it’s a huge error to get rid of the A-10 and replace it with the faster and not as durable F-35).

LLC,
Thanks for that update. I’ve seen other earlier comments similar to mine posted so felt assured it wasn’t out of line. That’s small excuse for not looking further into difference of aircraft. I will now put my foot on the deck and take a deep breath.
Regards

Boyd was right…

dang straight. he was right on the F-15, F-16, and A-10… So what did USAF leadership decide on how to follow up on his successes? Go right back to ladening up jets with excessive technology, resulting in overweight, over cost, and over schedule programs.

definitely not LCC… APUCs or maybe RPUCs…

It is one thing to get the aircraft right. However, cost containment is one thing they haven’t got right.

FWIW, the F-22’s cost listed represents about the Flyaway cost from FY09.

The F-35A’s cost listed above represents a figure similar to the FY13 unit Gross Weapon System cost (not including initial spares).

So two different prices.

Standard weapons-release altitude for the F-15E is around 3,000 feet for 500 lbs bombs. I don’t recall the F-16’s weapons-release altitude for the same class of bomb, but I’m sure it’s not much different.

Small arms such as 7.62mm and 5.56mm don’t have the energy to penetrate at those altitudes. Note that there’s virtually no incendiary munitions available for these calibers (while armor piercing does exist). The threat of a fighter have it’s onboard jet fuel ignited from small arms fire is practically nil. While there have been some documented instances of F-15E’s dipping below 100 feet AGL (without weapons-release, obviously), the real threat here from small arms fire would be directly hitting the crew station.

Vehicle mounted weapons and heavy fixed weapons, such as the .50 cal, do have the energy to be effective at those ranges (the .50 BMG is effective out to 1,800 meters). Many such weapons of like caliber have munitions available that would be effective against aircraft, such as API, HEIAP, APEI, et al.

The 5 Stages of JSF:
1.Acceptance – This thing is great, it’s 5th Gen’ which is 1 more than 4th Gen, and it is so affordable, nothing comes close.
2.Bargaining – Sure it’s expensive and problem riddled now but it will be affordable when we buy them, and stuff will work by then.
3.Denial and Isolation – It costs how much? It won’t hit IOC until when? O&S costs are higher than legacy?
4.Anger – We have no options, who thought it was a good idea to buy “production” test aircraft, this thing is a pig…
5.Depression – My old aircraft are dying and F-35s will bankrupt me if they ever complete development…Start SLEPing and SLAPing

How about just collecting all the Northrup F-5s that are still flying instead? We know they STILL work. Light fighter attack plane? The A-10 and Harrier can carry Sidewinders. Light attack? What the **** was the average mission duration in Iraq and Afghanistan? From Japan to Korea to Japan is how far? The AF had 15 years to argue about this. At this point, the problems are so bizarre it takes a real pilot– like McCain– to understand what’s really going on. And insofar as “letting the Air Force run this program”, could we throw in the stipulation that it’s a career officer instead of a politico with stars looking for a job as an Aircraft Industry spokesmodel? The AF got rid of the fighter mafia so they could perpetrate messes like this on their own country.

In the spirit of the current MI complex pricing schedule, 36 free F-16s would only cost about 1.8 billion.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

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