What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
MartG said:
...from the X-1 which first broke the sound barrier
There's some contention over that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothar_Sieber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Welch_%28pilot...
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/dod...
A [small] sample of project failings to date....
In spite of the focused effort, the program was not able to
accomplish its goal of completing Block 2B flight testing by
the end of October.
- Slower than planned progress in mission systems, weapons
integration, and F-35B flight sciences testing delayed
the completion of the testing required for Block 2B fleet
release. The program now projects this to occur by the end
of January 2015, instead of the end of October 2014 as was
previously planned.
- Restrictions imposed on the test fleet as a result of the
engine failure in June reduced test point availability and
slowed progress in mission systems and flight sciences
testing from July through November. For example, the
effect on mission systems testing was approximately
17 percent loss of productivity in accomplishing test
points, from 210 points accomplished per month prior to
the engine restrictions to approximately 175 points per
month
- Discoveries of deficiencies continued to occur in later
versions of Block 2B software, further slowing progress.
For example, completion of weapons delivery accuracy
events lagged the plans for CY14 and was put on hold in
August when the program discovered a deficiency in the
F-35 navigation system.
Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E)
• The F-35 LFT&E program completed two major live fire test
series using an F-35B variant full-scale structural test article.
Preliminary evaluations are that the tests:
- Demonstrated the capabilities of multiple structural wing
load paths and aft boom structure to mitigate threat-induced
large scale structural failure.
- Confirmed the expected vulnerabilities of the fuel tank
structure.
- Demonstrated the expected cascading damage
vulnerability to fuel ingestion, fuel and hydraulic fire, and
hydrodynamic ram events
Engine live fire tests in FY13 and prior live fire test data
and analyses demonstrated vulnerability to engine fire,
either caused by cascading effects or direct damage to
engine fuel lines and fueldraulic components.
Additional details and analyses of the uncontained F135 fan blade
release and subsequent fuel fire in an F-35A at Eglin AFB
in June are needed to support and update the existing engine
vulnerability assessment.
- The program is working with the engine contractor to
develop a new redesigned seal for production engines. Plans
on a final design were not complete at the time of this report.
Managing weight growth for the F-35B will continue
to be a challenge in light of the small weight margin
available and the possibility for continued discovery
through the remaining SDD phase, which extends
two years past the delivery of the first Lot 7 aircraft, planned
for August 2015. The program will need to ensure actual
weights meet predictions. Known modifications and
retrofits for production aircraft in Lots 2 through 6 will
add weight to those aircraft, varying from 210 pounds for
the Lot 3 aircraft to 17 pounds for the Lot 6 aircraft.
To date, performance of 2BS5 software, which began flight
testing in June, has shown improvement in startup and
inflight stability compared to earlier versions. However,
fusion of information from own-ship sensors, as well
as fusion of information from off-board sensors is still
deficient. The Distributed Aperture System continues
to exhibit high false-alarm rates and false target tracks,
and poor stability performance, even in later versions of
software
And the list of failures continue in the report.
Positives? well plenty if you are a shareholder in any of the stakeholder companies...
In these times of crippling austerity how much more will we squander on this project?
A [small] sample of project failings to date....
In spite of the focused effort, the program was not able to
accomplish its goal of completing Block 2B flight testing by
the end of October.
- Slower than planned progress in mission systems, weapons
integration, and F-35B flight sciences testing delayed
the completion of the testing required for Block 2B fleet
release. The program now projects this to occur by the end
of January 2015, instead of the end of October 2014 as was
previously planned.
- Restrictions imposed on the test fleet as a result of the
engine failure in June reduced test point availability and
slowed progress in mission systems and flight sciences
testing from July through November. For example, the
effect on mission systems testing was approximately
17 percent loss of productivity in accomplishing test
points, from 210 points accomplished per month prior to
the engine restrictions to approximately 175 points per
month
- Discoveries of deficiencies continued to occur in later
versions of Block 2B software, further slowing progress.
For example, completion of weapons delivery accuracy
events lagged the plans for CY14 and was put on hold in
August when the program discovered a deficiency in the
F-35 navigation system.
Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E)
• The F-35 LFT&E program completed two major live fire test
series using an F-35B variant full-scale structural test article.
Preliminary evaluations are that the tests:
- Demonstrated the capabilities of multiple structural wing
load paths and aft boom structure to mitigate threat-induced
large scale structural failure.
- Confirmed the expected vulnerabilities of the fuel tank
structure.
- Demonstrated the expected cascading damage
vulnerability to fuel ingestion, fuel and hydraulic fire, and
hydrodynamic ram events
Engine live fire tests in FY13 and prior live fire test data
and analyses demonstrated vulnerability to engine fire,
either caused by cascading effects or direct damage to
engine fuel lines and fueldraulic components.
Additional details and analyses of the uncontained F135 fan blade
release and subsequent fuel fire in an F-35A at Eglin AFB
in June are needed to support and update the existing engine
vulnerability assessment.
- The program is working with the engine contractor to
develop a new redesigned seal for production engines. Plans
on a final design were not complete at the time of this report.
Managing weight growth for the F-35B will continue
to be a challenge in light of the small weight margin
available and the possibility for continued discovery
through the remaining SDD phase, which extends
two years past the delivery of the first Lot 7 aircraft, planned
for August 2015. The program will need to ensure actual
weights meet predictions. Known modifications and
retrofits for production aircraft in Lots 2 through 6 will
add weight to those aircraft, varying from 210 pounds for
the Lot 3 aircraft to 17 pounds for the Lot 6 aircraft.
To date, performance of 2BS5 software, which began flight
testing in June, has shown improvement in startup and
inflight stability compared to earlier versions. However,
fusion of information from own-ship sensors, as well
as fusion of information from off-board sensors is still
deficient. The Distributed Aperture System continues
to exhibit high false-alarm rates and false target tracks,
and poor stability performance, even in later versions of
software
And the list of failures continue in the report.
Positives? well plenty if you are a shareholder in any of the stakeholder companies...
In these times of crippling austerity how much more will we squander on this project?
Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 14th March 09:42
Dr Jekyll said:
Max_Torque said:
(for example, the B2 lost in the Feb 2008 Spirit of Kansas crash was a 1.4B dollar loss 
)
Not really, Northrop offered another 20 B2s at 600 million dollars each. The 1.4bn figure is based on dividing the entire program cost by the number of aircraft built. )(and even if it "only" cost $600M that's still rather a lot of money to loose in one accident / shoot down, especially if it gets taken down by a $3000 Hilux with a secondhand AA gun on it....)
Max_Torque said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Max_Torque said:
(for example, the B2 lost in the Feb 2008 Spirit of Kansas crash was a 1.4B dollar loss )
Not really, Northrop offered another 20 B2s at 600 million dollars each. The 1.4bn figure is based on dividing the entire program cost by the number of aircraft built. )
Mave said:
Max_Torque said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Max_Torque said:
(for example, the B2 lost in the Feb 2008 Spirit of Kansas crash was a 1.4B dollar loss )
Not really, Northrop offered another 20 B2s at 600 million dollars each. The 1.4bn figure is based on dividing the entire program cost by the number of aircraft built. )And as i said, who cares, if it's 1.2B or 0.8B or 2.1B or whatever, anyone of those numbers makes that one crash the single most expensive military incident in history!
telecat said:
Looking at it it's a shame that The "Super" Hornet was developed instead of the ASF-14. That would be a much more capable fighter and the need for Any F35 wouldn't be as great.
Hmmm, never knew about that.Looks like it could have been pretty impressive.
Using F22 engines, super-cruise of mach 2!
I assume with some stores that'd be reduced, but still...!
Plus it still looks amazing even now. I always thought the F18 looked a bit ugly.
Mr Whippy said:
telecat said:
Looking at it it's a shame that The "Super" Hornet was developed instead of the ASF-14. That would be a much more capable fighter and the need for Any F35 wouldn't be as great.
Hmmm, never knew about that.Looks like it could have been pretty impressive.
Using F22 engines, super-cruise of mach 2!
I assume with some stores that'd be reduced, but still...!
Plus it still looks amazing even now. I always thought the F18 looked a bit ugly.
SlipStream77 said:
MartG said:
...from the X-1 which first broke the sound barrier
There's some contention over that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothar_Sieber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Welch_%28pilot...
telecat said:
Turns out the "new build" costs of the F/A18 were rather high as well. Then it seems that the cost figures that the USN were working on were from Old F-14A's and that the F-14D's (New engines, digital avionics etc), were less than the Standard Hornet's. Seems Somebody just didn't like Grumman.
Yeah there always seems to be a political element coming down through the industries involved.Just look at the F35/carriers fiasco.
We can end up paying more for a worse product that would have been easily avoided.
Like I said some pages back, purposeful actions in this regard should be seen as treason. We shouldn't reduce our military advantage for the benefits of pocket lining or shareholders or someone's journey up the slippery pole of politics.
Dave
US Marines to "STAND UP" F35B in July...
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marin...
"...The US Marine Corps has decided to stand-up the first operational F-35B squadron in July with known software, structural and logistical deficiencies that must be fixed later, says Lt Gen Chris Bogdan, executive officer of the joint programme office.
That decision means the first F-35B unit will achieve its initial operational capability milestone on time in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2015, but with some operational restrictions, maintenance workarounds and the possibility of an internal redesign of a critical bulkhead, Bogdan says.
Meanwhile, Bogdan also says he is worried about the integrity of the F-35B’s aluminium 496 bulkhead, which bears critical structural loads where the trailing edge of the wing attaches to the aft fuselage. In 2004, programme officials reduced the weight of the F-35B by about 1,360kg (3,000lb). Those changes included switching the bulkhead material from titanium to lighter-weight aluminium.
The lighter bulkhead has since proved susceptible to structural cracking, requiring a series of “patches” all over the 496 bulkhead. There are now so many patches that programme officials are concerned it may be necessary to redesign the bulkhead for production aircraft, Bogdan says.
Finally, Lockheed’s autonomic logistics information system (ALIS) is not ready to support a growing fleet of operational and test aircraft, Bogdan says. It will take a few years to resolve the ALIS deficiencies, and until then F-35B maintainers must use workarounds to inspect and repair the aircraft."
So, the F35B weight is at criticality [I believe they have/had 350lb to play with] it would seem that the previous weapon carry out issues will no longer require solving and that the carriage of 208lb small diameter bomb [SDB II] will be restricted to 4 rather that the 8 agreed before.....which will save some $$$ as they come in at approx $230,000 each...
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marin...
"...The US Marine Corps has decided to stand-up the first operational F-35B squadron in July with known software, structural and logistical deficiencies that must be fixed later, says Lt Gen Chris Bogdan, executive officer of the joint programme office.
That decision means the first F-35B unit will achieve its initial operational capability milestone on time in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2015, but with some operational restrictions, maintenance workarounds and the possibility of an internal redesign of a critical bulkhead, Bogdan says.
Meanwhile, Bogdan also says he is worried about the integrity of the F-35B’s aluminium 496 bulkhead, which bears critical structural loads where the trailing edge of the wing attaches to the aft fuselage. In 2004, programme officials reduced the weight of the F-35B by about 1,360kg (3,000lb). Those changes included switching the bulkhead material from titanium to lighter-weight aluminium.
The lighter bulkhead has since proved susceptible to structural cracking, requiring a series of “patches” all over the 496 bulkhead. There are now so many patches that programme officials are concerned it may be necessary to redesign the bulkhead for production aircraft, Bogdan says.
Finally, Lockheed’s autonomic logistics information system (ALIS) is not ready to support a growing fleet of operational and test aircraft, Bogdan says. It will take a few years to resolve the ALIS deficiencies, and until then F-35B maintainers must use workarounds to inspect and repair the aircraft."
So, the F35B weight is at criticality [I believe they have/had 350lb to play with] it would seem that the previous weapon carry out issues will no longer require solving and that the carriage of 208lb small diameter bomb [SDB II] will be restricted to 4 rather that the 8 agreed before.....which will save some $$$ as they come in at approx $230,000 each...
Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 26th March 13:27
Mojocvh said:
US Marines to "STAND UP" F35B in July...
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marin...
...The US Marine Corps has decided to stand-up the first operational F-35B squadron in July with known software, structural and logistical deficiencies that must be fixed later, says Lt Gen Chris Bogdan, executive officer of the joint programme office.
That decision means the first F-35B unit will achieve its initial operational capability milestone on time in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2015, but with some operational restrictions, maintenance workarounds and the possibility of an internal redesign of a critical bulkhead, Bogdan says.
Hope to god they don't lose a pilot and airframe after that decision.http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marin...
...The US Marine Corps has decided to stand-up the first operational F-35B squadron in July with known software, structural and logistical deficiencies that must be fixed later, says Lt Gen Chris Bogdan, executive officer of the joint programme office.
That decision means the first F-35B unit will achieve its initial operational capability milestone on time in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2015, but with some operational restrictions, maintenance workarounds and the possibility of an internal redesign of a critical bulkhead, Bogdan says.
Mr Whippy said:
rhinochopig said:
Hope to god they don't lose a pilot and airframe after that decision.
It'd be bad for the pilot, but I'm sure in the bigger picture occasional losses are not too concerning.Just look at the F104s!
Yep it's a weird one.
Flying a combat aircraft then worrying about the rare likelihood of some bad bit of design costing you your life.
I wonder if the Lancaster crews worried about random potential faults. Or if they just thought that potential issues were just a fact of life.
I didn't realise the F22 had class action law stuff going on. Was that with the high altitude operation of the air system causing issues? I never read up fully about it at the time. Was it eventually resolved or still ongoing?
I don't know how I'd feel about it. I'd probably be happier flying an F35 or F22 than an F104 though
Flying a combat aircraft then worrying about the rare likelihood of some bad bit of design costing you your life.
I wonder if the Lancaster crews worried about random potential faults. Or if they just thought that potential issues were just a fact of life.
I didn't realise the F22 had class action law stuff going on. Was that with the high altitude operation of the air system causing issues? I never read up fully about it at the time. Was it eventually resolved or still ongoing?
I don't know how I'd feel about it. I'd probably be happier flying an F35 or F22 than an F104 though
Mr Whippy said:
rhinochopig said:
Hope to god they don't lose a pilot and airframe after that decision.
It'd be bad for the pilot, but I'm sure in the bigger picture occasional losses are not too concerning.Just look at the F104s!
2. they cost peanuts compared to both the projected purchase and lifetime support F35B costs.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff