Amos steps back F-35 scrutiny

Amos steps back F-35 scrutiny

When U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Jim Amos took command in 2011 the career pilot said the services needed to “reclaim ownership” over major acquisition programs. The first on his list was the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter.

Amos set a goal to meet with the F-35 Joint Program Office every month to check on its status at a time when the program was mired in test delays and rising costs.

A year later, Amos said he’s taken a relative step back from the program only meeting with the program office on a quarterly basis now that he’s spun up on its progress. He’s not any less concerned about the F-35’s success, but Amos said he doesn’t need monthly briefings since he understands the program’s metrics. The four-star has them posted behind his desk.


“Last year I felt like I had to be more hands on, and on things like decisions in regards to if there is any trade space here in how the airplane is being developed,” Amos said. “Are there any decisions I can make right now which will ease the burden on the airplane as it’s going through.”

Amos highlighted his focus on the F-35B’s weight this past year. In May 2011, Amos said “you can’t put a pound of weight on that program that I don’t know about.” He proudly pointed to the aircraft’s decrease in weight over the past year.

“We only had less than 140 pounds of margin between the max weight the airplane could be and come back and do a vertical landing in the worst conditions,” Amos said. “We are sitting at well over 300 pounds now. You do that a pound at a time. So I’ve been tracking that like a bird dog.”

Keeping a close eye on the test flight schedule, Amos has taken notice of the ground Lockheed Martin has made up this past year in the flight schedules. A F-35B released a weapon in flight for the first time on Aug. 8 when it dropped a 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) over the Atlantic Ocean flying 400 knots at 4,200 feet after taking off from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

Amos did not address the June report from the Government Accountability Office that found the F-35 program’s baseline acquisition costs have grown to $395.7 billion, an increase of $117.2 billion, or 42 percent since 2007.

“I think the airplane is progressing well. Looking at all the test flights, the points and where it’s supposed to be and where it’s supposed to be as it relates to projections. We’re either on, or ahead of schedule. It’s really, really doing well,” Amos said.

Join the Conversation

Another victory for Amos and the United States Marketing Corps.

Given the USMC’s top leadership faith-based-F-35 program management efforts. Taking the below Inside Defense article about an Osprey mishap and substituting the F-35… we have a possible future that has legs when you currently have an woefully under-tested F-35 with a limited flight envelop… over 10 years from when LM won the contract:

F-35 Crash Report Cites Pilot Error, Wind And Flight Manual

A fatal F-35 Joint Strike Fighter crash in Florida this past fall was due largely to mistakes made by the pilot, but wind was also a key factor, according to a Marine Corps investigation report. The report also recommends the aircraft’s flight manual had inadequate guidance for the circumstances involved.

Conjecture.

Red herring time. Back up what you originally said.

No red herring definition here. History of continuous program management incompetence and not faith-based arguments presented by PowerPoint are what counts. None of it easily waved away by an anonymous internet troll’s comment of “conjecture.”

Then why link the F-35 crash to Osprey mishaps, unless you are insinuating that somehow the accident was caused by something other than pilot error.

Do you have proof instead of spinning innuendo?

And your personal metric of mission accomplished is ‘lawn mowed ?

This plane has been progressing horribly through its test phase. The only reason it is “on or ahead” of schedule is because they had to change the schedule every time it missed its deadlines so that they can make such claims. What’s even more shameful is how fast the Russian PAK-FA is progressing in comparison. The Russian Air Force will get their first fully operational jets in 2015–2016, where as the F-35 is scheduled to complete testing in 2019. The F-35 is an overly expensive total flop and fail. The F-35B is the worst model in these terms.

Not to defend the f-35, but I’ll believe the russians when I see the PAK-FA in full production.

People can think what they like but if the US economy doesnt do better than 2% annual growth, an pretty quick, all the services are going to have to scale back procurement timelines.

Hands on is when you get monthly updates ? you just have to laugh.

Not to defend the Russian, but they seems to be more capable to manage the complexity of their project. A simple look at development cost say long about it. I am not saying that cost overrun and delay won’t happen, it’s done already.

On paper Lockheed got the capability to create better with less money, but with such approach it’s just impossible.

Back to the topics, I am not sure there is something to conclude, excepted that there is some form of progress –It had to happen a day or another– that is more positive than negative. I am still not impressed by this post-30K $/hour operating cost for a use-it-for-everything fighter jet.

There are alternatives to the F-35 program and a stronger USAF for less money could be the result. Restart production of an upgraded F-22 and purchase new F-16s and more F-18SHs and limit the F-35 buy. Focus on production of better AAMs maybe in partnership with MBDA and/or Rafael.

Hold the presses. Huge surprise, Gen. Amos thinks F-35 is doing great.

Of couse the Marines have said that throughout the 11 years of SDD despite all the schedule slips, despite all of the costs increases and my guess is that they secretly hope that the hook problem is permanent so they never have to land a Marine F-35 on a CVN.

A semi positive article on DoD Buzz on the F-35? Was there a coup?

See when a pilot dies its time to wollow in self pity for the contractor shills. Bottom line is that crashes make money for the contractors thats why they shed a few crocodile tears while claiming they are ok

No just a dead cat bounce they will continue on thier profitable downward spiral

For a General? Yes, that’s hands on. While important he also has a million other things to track.

Personally I don’t even like the concept of a “one size fits all” aircraft just like I don’t like software tools that try to do everything or hand tools that try to do everything. I don’t own a multi purpose knife because they don’t do any 1 function well. The same problem happens with analagous attempts in software. I don’t claim to know enough about aircraft to state that the F-35 won’t be a success but I have my share of doubts.

Correct me if Im wrong but I believe this article is unintentionally misleading. To my knowledge the August 8th test was the dropping of a weapon shape, not an actual weapon. This marketing driven reporting leads people to believe that the F-35 is capable of dropping a weapon and thats simply not true. The weapon shape was released by a jerry rigged system just for this test, so the only milestone that has been reached is that we now know that the F-35s weapons bay is big enough to allow something to fall out in optimal conditions.

Another waste of taxpayer dollars. This thing is going to turn out like the AAAV did…crappy product that never hits the streets while these weapons contactors extract billions in taxpayer dollars. A shame

I’m looking at the level of progress. The PAK-FA has progressed much much faster than the F-35 in a much shorter amount of time. They’re already preparing testing the radar’s targeting capabilities in simulated combat environments.

You’re going to have to show me proof of those cracks you speak of because I haven’t heard anything. Also, the only major technical difficulty the Russians have had with the PAK-FA that are damaging enough for the jet to not work are the engines malfunctioning. One of them blew out at the Paris Air Show demonstration. The Russians said they fixed it an so far as I know they haven’t had the same problem since. The F-35 on the other hand can’t land on a carrier, can’t sustain vertical flight without breaking apart, has a helmet display that blurs whenever the pilot turns his head fast, and has several other technical problems.

Want some cheese with that whine?

That’s great. Would you mind looking up the IOT&E & IOC Dates and letting us know you find? http://​www​.scribd​.com/​d​o​c​/​8​8​3​0​5​9​3​7​/​S​e​l​e​c​t​e​d​-​A​c​qui
BTW you can never “ensure” anything with a single test. This is the problem with F-35 supporters. They suck at engineering. They are very persistent marketeers, however.

This is just a replay of the Harrier fiasco. A toy for the Corps!

Again, where are you getting the information on the structural fatigue issues? Post a link or something.

I don’t know why you’re acting as if developing a fighter jet with so many problems that it takes 18 years and $400 billion dollars to acquire is normal. That is not normal at all. They’ve had proposed fixes for all of their flaws, but they’ve failed several times. They make new proposed fixes, but that’s all they are: ideas. Until the C-model actually traps a wire and the B-model can accumulate at least 100 hours in vertical flight without falling apart, then it’s useless. You can’t tell me that the problems with the helmet aren’t insurmountable because you don’t really know.

What is wrong with the claim that this was a jerry-rigged set up? As you yourself have said “the physical weapons testing has to start somewhere.” The purpose of my post was simply to provide a reality check. I truly believe that we should all be honest about where this program is at. Opening the weapons bay doors of a test bed aircraft with one command and then using a hot wired button to drop an inert weapons shape is a useful test for certain things, and doing that test makes sense. However we should not conflate that limited test into the impression that the F-35 is at the point in development where a pilot can give a single command for the F-35s computers systems where they will open the bay doors, arm a live weapon, release it, and guide it.

For the record I was not pointing out any factual errors in the story. I was merely pointing out that the wording can be misleading. Of particular offense is the constant over use of the term JDAM seeing as how what makes a JDAM a household name is the fact that it is a guided bomb, and the F-35 can not yet drop actual bombs (the things that go boom) or play any role in the guidance of that bomb. None of what I have said is actually any criticism of the F-35, but rather an attempt to make sure we are all on the same page about where this fighter is in its development. Making these assessments should be a natural starting point for any critiques of the F-35, be they positive or negative. After all your the one who is using the projected deployment date as an argument for the F-35.

Also, sense you seem to invest some energy in defending the F-35 in discussion you might want to actually communicate with the other side of the argument, because as far as I can tell the F-35 critics start there criticisms by questioning the foundational requirements of the F-35 program, so by asking them to offer an alternative that meets the very requirements that they are disputing is at best rather thick headed if not utterly dishonest.

Sorry if any of this seems personal, I am trying to be civil but in mature discussion honesty is at least as importance as civility and I just don’t feel like there is much emphasis on honesty (beyond the technicalities) in your replies.

Saying that problem aren’t insurmountable is using a very stretchy term. One could say that brute-forcing an AES 256 bit encryption key is not insurmountable, because it will take X thousands of years to break it up, and that hardware of the future will make it faster than ever.

>Perhaps that idea was flawed, but then again would there be the political will for
two or three separate fighter programs?

Can you explain how this would make the project better managed or handled than the Russian? Are you hinting that it was just the DoD hacking the political system, to suck up the desired money? It’s funny that this seems to be the case in Canada right now, but is it what is going on here? More complex or not, any good manager have to deal with it. The fact that Lockheed did it so poorly simply show how well the project have been handled. Do you think that the Russian would initially ask for a not too stealthy aircraft? I think that they seen that they could not make it within the constraint (i.e. time, budget) or it would suck or both so they change it to what we have right now. I call that smart management. Should Lockheed have realized how complex it is BEFORE any cost explosion, they would have made the greatest service to their country they could ever do.

I said it and I will say it again. I don’t blame the engineer whom his modeling failed, but rather the management for not handling the risk appropriately. When cost explode exponentially it only show that the project is not properly managed. And for that the Russian with the T-50 did better than Lockheed with the f-35.

Winslow Wheeler has dubbed both the F-35 B and C variants as “FLYING PIANOS”.
That’s enough for me. When is the Pentagon going to wake up and admit that those variants are a HUGE waste of money and NO amount of R & D will change that fact.

It always amazes me when I come on line that so many post as brain trusts and have all of the answers. If all of you are so smart and know so much about the programs why are you not employed as project managers or direct advisors to the CMC or USAF. Who am I a retired 21 year gunny, 20 year A&P, served as course manager for F/A 18 enlisted powerplants and fuels systems (USMC/USN). I also worked on setting up the super hornet training for the school house. never was a pilot but been there and done that for program development at China Lake etc. V-22 is doing the job, F-35 will do the job any new platform will have issues, and sad to say when testing new concepts and platforms people will get hurt and some die. If you know so much provide a resume to the test programs office at NAVAIR HQCMC or shut your pie holes! If there are probelms with any aircraft or platform you can send a direct e-mail or Navmess. to CMC and NAVAIR expressing the concern and they look into a fix. i have personally done it with the F/A 18 fuel systems and they responded and pubs and procedures were changed. I have seen pilots and aircrews do it to.

Let me ask it again. Why does the USMC need a fixed wing aviation element in the first place?

For shooting bad people.

your judgment is poor. considering the test completion date, as well as all the future weapon system life cycle dates are TBD, your claim that alternative solutions cannot be in service prior to the F-35 is foundationless. i wouldnt measure value to national security via a discrete “clean sheet design?” variable. pretty sure a warfighter (ie COCOM) would be more interested in variables like generated sorties, rane, payload, speed, reliability, and hopefully cost.

Want to bet that the russians test program is not even close to what we put our aircraft through?

it’s already a failure, unless a miracle happens. whatever utility it may demonstrate throughout its operational life needs to be fairly compared with the $170B in other defense reqts that could have been funded with its cost overrun alone ($230/$400B+ baseline and still no valid IOC date). add in the political damage to reputation and increase in internal friction & dysfunction at the Pentagon, and it’s impossible to claim the F-35 as a success by any fair evaluation standard.

>I doubt some latency issues with the F-35’s HMD make that system a dead-end.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2012–07-06

There is much more than a latency issue with the helmet. The helmet is also compromised by jitter, another gift from a flawed design There is a paradigm in IT about this kind of issue. One might say that the software is not able to use the hardware, another might argue that the hardware is misadapted to the software, one might argue that the hardware is not performing as expected because of the manufacturing process, and the fab in turn will return the fault to the architect for not having designed the chip correctly.

I am convinced that in the case of the f-35 the software issue is acting as a scapegoat for all the other problems. Since the modeling tools have failed, the modeling on the software side is likely to be misadapted as well, and need re-work, and very likely to require workaround.

Once again, the software being late may be due to poor strategic decision, sometime I wonder if the helmet is relying on Intel graphics. One way to greatly simplify, improve efficiency and reliability of the software is to use more capable hardware or a co-desing to get the hardware directly computing complex operation; like stabilizing the image with or without software interaction, though I strongly believe in software-hardware approach for such problem. Of course designing specialized hardware is expensive, changes are difficult or impossible without a new chips, but it have advantage, providing much more consistent performance, and where delay can be much more tightly controlled, sometimes at a lower cost than a full software approach. A more simple and efficient code is easier to validate too.

There is a saying that I read in comp.arch that amazingly fit the situation, about x86 success –do I need to say that it didn’t worked well for Itanium? :-)

“with enough trust, even pig can fly”

No doubt that what they are trying to do with the f-35.

Correction: the exact saying was:

“with sufficient thrust, even pigs can fly.”

nice

Roger Gunny, these Pukes who think they know so much are merely blowing smoke to hide there lack of real aviation knowledge and workings of Nav Air. Take care, Semper Fi.

><snip>who think they know so much are merely blowing smoke to hide there lack of real aviation knowledge.…

Who are you talking about exactly? As an effort to stay polite, I am dismayed to see people rushing to conclusion about my speculation or analysis, while I am well aware of the limits of my knowledge, while I am always keeping a place. You must be unfamiliar with the concept of reasoning with incomplete information, don’t you? And I insist that most of us have already acknowledged the limits of our own knowledge, like the fact that no classified information is involved while posting comments.

Take a look in a mirror.

>Roger Gunny, these Pukes

Who’s gonna provide the CAS for the beachheads and other troop landings, St. G? Choppers can’t be the exclusive landing vehicle.

The USAF (except for the T-Birds) only gets down low in the traffic pattern. The Navy has ships to protect. The Army doesn’t fly fixed wing combat birds.

Someone who understands USMC ground tactics and integrates well with the grunts has to do the job, ergo, USMC fixed wing folks. No, you cannot use choppers or MV-22’s! F-18’s, AV-8’s and, presumably at some point, F-35’s do this job quite well.

Was your question really serious?

This is a great addition to the corps. This will only help the cause of freedom. The first in with close air support.

subjective opinion? all or nothing thinking? got proof?

More bullcrap. You might have a point IF the DoD bought replacement aircraft on a one for one basis but they generally do not. In most modern platform programs, the program has “attrition spares” built into the procurement numbers and when there is a loss, the service moves in a replacement from the spares.
Point of fact, please tell us all how much Northrop Grumman made on a replacement for the B-2 that crashed. For that matter, how much did Lockheed Martin make from the government for the replacement F-117 that they bought after one was lost over Bosnia?

Dead on correct there.
Russian aircraft are not designed, built or tested to the levels that are required in the US. Want some evidence? Look into the number of MIGs that India has lost to crashes in the past 20 yrs.

We don’t need two naval air forces. Keep the Marines in rotary wing primarily and make the Navy support the Marines ashore

When I retired in 1993 I had witnessed the first Supersonic cruise flight of the F-22 and we were set to go into production on the first lot with AF Contracting Office to take over after year 1 and the remaining aircraft scheduled to be delivered over the following 4 years. President Clinton put a halt to that and when it ws finally available it was already at it’s 15 year service life point, the F-35 was already well into development and would have been ready when the F-22 was phased in to replace it. President Clinton was successful at saving money during his time as President, but that was achieved by letting the military fall woefully behind in everything. That is what made the Iraq War so expensive, everything from bulets to bombs and missiles had to be procured in a very quick fashion to even be able to start the first attack. Our procurement and resupply momney was going to more people’s welfare benefits at the cost of a Defense-ready America. Sounds familiar to the situation today.

cause the Air Force is too afraid to do close in combat ground support… that is why the Marine Corps got their own fixed wings to begin with.

You clearly don’t understand what the Marine Corps is and the service it provides. The USMC is a combined arms, expeditionary, force in readiness. What that means is that at the lowest level (i,e, MEU) the Marines provide the president the option to fight a enemy, from land, sea, and air for 30 days. This is important and necessary because the president can commit troops for up to 90 days without congressional approval. Essentially the Marines are the president 911 force and must be fully equiped to provide that mission. Also, the USMC is the only true combined arms force in the world, with their warfighting doctrine fully written, and all tactics executed to that end.

I never had a USAF pilot turn down a CAS mission when requested by our CTAP. I’ve have been grateful for CAS from all branches and many other countries(the Dutch and French are actually at the top of my list). Your statement is about the USAF is a bunch of hockey pucks. I get interservice rivalry, but am just concerned (now as the Dad of a 0311 Marine and 18E Soldier) that who ever is bringing the heat is competent. After a decade plus of war, in which I deployed 6 times to Iraq & Afghanistan, the USMC has not shown itself to be superior to USAF, USN or Army Aviation in the Air or the Army on the ground. All major Marine ops in both areas were covered almost exclusively by Army Apaches, so using your logic I could assume many things about the USMC, but I just like call it TEAM WORK!

Because those Navy CVNs are not capable of sailing in the same oceans as the Gator Navy’s LHAs. Horse Feathers! I call bullshit. With 12 carriers soon to be online, there is no reason that every MEU(or larger unit) floating around the world, can’t have a CVN with Air Wing tailing it. You will hear statements that the Navy or USAF doesn’t do what Marines do. No they just don’t routinely practice with the USMC. Given the mission the USN will do just fine. The Marines should keep their Helos and V-22s, but the rest of their air assets are just nice to have. They also cost a bundle because they are different. Funny how the Brits, Dutch and US Army have had no problem operating Apaches from ships while the Marines continue to slop $millions to continue the developement of the inferior Cobra. Marines have to always be slightly different in all equipment. The USMC is most afraid of NOT being different, then they would just be Soldiers with really cool 8 point covers.

*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.