Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

F-35 looking more like white elephant
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35_20110113153609

Posted on 01/13/2011 11:28:42 AM PST by too_cool_for_skool

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The F-35 fighter jet, set to replace a large part of the US warplane fleet, has become the most expensive weapons program ever, drawing increased scrutiny at a time of tight public finances.

Following a series of cost overruns and delays, the program is now expected to cost a whopping 382 billion dollars, for 2,443 aircraft.

...

Defense officials say the original cost estimates have now doubled to make each plane's price tag reach some 92 million dollars.

At the same time, the contract awarded in 2001 had been planned to last 10 years, but has been extended to 2016 because of testing and design issues.

...

Private analysts say the whole F-35 program is becoming a money pit.

"The incredibly unfortunate phrase 'too big to fail' applies to this aircraft more than any other defense program," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst with the Teal Group.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; defense; f35; lockheed; missinglink; navair; sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Lockheed Martin playing the American taxpayer like a fiddle. Business as usual.
1 posted on 01/13/2011 11:28:43 AM PST by too_cool_for_skool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

Kelly Johnson is spinning in his grave.


2 posted on 01/13/2011 11:31:28 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim (Jubtabulously We Thrive!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool; All

Unlike the welfare bums who took more money???


3 posted on 01/13/2011 11:32:14 AM PST by KevinDavis (If you buy a car from GM, you are supporting Obama..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

“Lockheed Martin playing the American taxpayer like a fiddle. Business as usual.”

I don’t know how to assess this. You could find a million articles about the Bradley that read exactly like this. They turned out to be (1) liberal attempts to hurt defense or (2) political crap within the DoD. The Bradley has been a magnificent vehicle for the armed forces.

Why should I give all the F-35 articles any more credence than the Bradley articles were entitled to?


4 posted on 01/13/2011 11:33:06 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

I would bet anything that part of the cost overruns and delays is caused by requirements to make the fighter jets “green”.


5 posted on 01/13/2011 11:33:17 AM PST by Lancey Howard ("Diversity is our strength" lol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

When they cut the F-22 program last year and I objected, what did I tell folks here?

Folks fell all over themselves to assure me the F-22 was a terrible aircraft and we just had to stop the program. The F-35 could handle everything, and besides it was cheaper.

I predicted that as soon as the F-22 program was destroyed, the F-35 would be next.

Here we are folks. We’re about ten years from our air force not having a fleet of state of the art fighters.

Welcome to exactly what I predicted.


6 posted on 01/13/2011 11:41:17 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I predicted that as soon as the F-22 program was destroyed, the F-35 would be next.

One by one, disarming America's Armed Forces. Considering our current national "leaders" think America is a grossly arrogant bully, this comes as no surprise. We are at the 2-year point of 0bama's occupation of the White House. Six more years of him and our military will barely rival that of Liechtenstein.

7 posted on 01/13/2011 11:44:30 AM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

Really?

Has the government changed any of the design or performance requirements since the original award?

Try that with your building contractor and see if the price doesn’t go up and completion schedule get delayed!


8 posted on 01/13/2011 11:45:04 AM PST by G Larry (When you're right, avoid compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Exactly right IMO.


9 posted on 01/13/2011 11:48:07 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
The Bradley has been a magnificent vehicle for the armed forces.

Same exact thing with the B-1B. It is THE aircraft that has really carried the weight in Afghanistan for the last 10 years, a gift to all of us from Ronald Reagan.
10 posted on 01/13/2011 11:57:27 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

If they decided to build 75 more F-22s the unit cost would be $70 million.....would we not be better off doing that?


11 posted on 01/13/2011 11:57:44 AM PST by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

Hey ! You can pick up a flown-only-once J20 at Wal-Mart for only $999.95 (6,600 yuan),cash and taxi [ caution: product may contain lead or hormones from cows]


12 posted on 01/13/2011 11:58:05 AM PST by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

“I don’t know how to assess this. You could find a million articles about the Bradley that read exactly like this.”

I remember the Bradley articles as well. I was a tanker; but, I got to play around on a Bradley a little. I also spent alot of time on the piece of equipment it was meant to replace - the M113.

Bradley - Fast, fires a missile, has a moving turret, powerful gun, and advanced fire control system.

M113 - Slow, giant box, and you can mount a machine gun to it.

I remember being shocked at how good a vehicle the Bradley was, after growing up and seeing countless bad stories about it.

Another piece of equipment I remember getting bad press was the kevlar helmet. 60 minutes did an almost sarcastic piece about it, and how wasteful it was to develop it. I can’t begin to explain how big an improvement it was over the ‘steel pot’....both in comfort and safety.

And my favorite - the M1 tank. The media whined about its cost of course. But, they also were fixated on its range (100 miles..ish). They went on and on and on about this. They never mentioned some of the amazing features that made it without a doubt the best tank in the world at the time, and most likely it still holds that title, although some will argue with me.

I know nothing about this airplane; but, I have a healthy (yet civil of course) skepticism about this article.


13 posted on 01/13/2011 12:03:19 PM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

“Same exact thing with the B-1B. It is THE aircraft that has really carried the weight in Afghanistan for the last 10 years, a gift to all of us from Ronald Reagan.”

Didn’t Carter hold up the AWACS? Another aircraft that is now indespensible.


14 posted on 01/13/2011 12:04:44 PM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

Tri-service aircraft = FAIL.

F-111 (McNamara’s switchblade) Navy gave up and built the F-14.

What will cut next? the Osprey?


15 posted on 01/13/2011 12:08:32 PM PST by ASOC (What are you doing now that Mexico has become OUR Chechnya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Back when I was a field service engineer I used to try to carry as few heavy tools as possible.
For this reason I had a pair of pliers that would do several jobs, but it didn’t do any of them well.
Unfortunately our procurement of fighter aircraft follows the same logic as my pliers. We make one aircraft, with modifications, that fills the needs of all of the branches of the military, but it doesn’t do it very well.

We should go back to having aircraft with designated roles, interceptor, fighter-bomber, close air support, etc.


16 posted on 01/13/2011 12:08:56 PM PST by Ed Condon (Give 'em a heading, an altitude, and a reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool
IMO manned aircraft should have as much weight in strategic air doctrine as a bi-plane. Drones can be safer, faster, more deadly and far cheaper. Keep the pilots on the ground. I don't want the man out of the cockpit, but I do want the cockpit firmly planted, well guarded, and safe. I think it would make us a better force, and take the swagger out of the pilots that have run the Air Force into the ground for the last 20 years.

These daredevils pick toys over boots every time. We're running out of boots and the ones left are doing triple duty, not to mention having to deal with the mountain of regulations, and paperwork, power points, and useless classwork. Time for the former pilots in those brand new glass building learn what they have been doing to the rest of the force.

17 posted on 01/13/2011 12:10:12 PM PST by McCloud-Strife ( USA 1776-2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

“I done seen ‘bout ev’rything
“When I see an elephant fly!”


18 posted on 01/13/2011 12:10:38 PM PST by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool; Pukin Dog

If this program had been stopped per pukin’s early info we would hopefully have continued production of the F-22 Raptor. These do all aircraft have a lousy history of cost over-runs and limited efficiency.


19 posted on 01/13/2011 12:13:27 PM PST by mcshot (So this is how it feels like to be flushed. The "that's impossible" days are here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

I think the real problem comes down to one simple thing.

They tried to pack way too many roles into a single design which creates serious compromises on performance.


20 posted on 01/13/2011 12:17:50 PM PST by Proud_USA_Republican ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

I don’t know of any military aircraft that didn’t have the same type of stories about it. The longer they delay production and the more changes they make to the design, the more expensive the final product becomes.


21 posted on 01/13/2011 12:22:26 PM PST by mbynack (Retired USAF SMSgt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Condon

totally agree.


22 posted on 01/13/2011 12:23:10 PM PST by mcshot (So this is how it feels to be flushed. The "that's impossible" days are upon us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

F-22....great platform, could be converted to navy use with some degree of compromise on stealth...

F-23, not as good as F-22, but could be modified on the drawing board to be the navy and jarheads new fighter.(instead, the chinese have miraculously copied the F-23)

Instead of these scenario’s, lets just put together an aircraft cobbled out of the harrier, f-16 and a little bit of f-14 for good measure....

The f-35 was destined to be a failure from the start, and the good old boys of GW Bush started this whole affair....similar to the whiz kids of kennedy...dump the whole damn project, get the f-23 modifed for carrier use, and build a whole bunch more of the f-22...( I know, this makes too much sense, which means it will never happen )

just sayin’.


23 posted on 01/13/2011 12:26:28 PM PST by joe fonebone (The House has oversight of the Judiciary...why are the rogue judges not being impeached?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vroomfondel; SC Swamp Fox; Fred Hayek; NY Attitude; P3_Acoustic; investigateworld; lowbuck; ...
SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

24 posted on 01/13/2011 12:27:35 PM PST by magslinger (Samuel Colt, feminist. Making women equal to men for over 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McCloud-Strife; All

BS... We will always need pilots..


25 posted on 01/13/2011 12:30:52 PM PST by KevinDavis (If you buy a car from GM, you are supporting Obama..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

Same with the Osprey. Wow. That program got hammered in the press.


26 posted on 01/13/2011 12:33:04 PM PST by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

Any attempt to accomplish anything for the government is going to take longer and cost mroe than initial estimates, period. Changing priorities and requirements, shifting political priorities, etc etc etc..

I don’t think you can find 1 single solitary large scale project in the last 30 years that involved government in any way shape or form in oversight that didn’t take longer and cost more than originally planned.

Question isn’t is it overbudget, it is, what has changed since the original RFQs.

Imagine doing anything by committee? Now imagine that committee is a bunch or has to answer to politicians, and tell me exactly how on time and on budget anything is going to be.


27 posted on 01/13/2011 12:33:48 PM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Proud_USA_Republican
They tried to pack way too many roles into a single design which creates serious compromises on performance.

I know people who are doing serious research on complexity management for the systems on the F-35. That either says that they're pushing the state of the art or are trying to do WAY too much (or both).

The F-22 avionics had similar problems (esp. the radar), but to their credit, a lot of clever folks are still finding new things they can do with it, so I'd say it was a great design (although you have to wonder if it was worth taking 10+ years to do).

Hopefully, the F-35 will be a similar win.
28 posted on 01/13/2011 12:35:19 PM PST by BikerJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: McCloud-Strife

Nice theory, but one problem... Jam or interrupt or compromise the radio signal and you have ZERO ability to have ANY THING IN THE AIR AT ALL...

Remote controlled drones are nice, but you cannot escape a fundamental reality of needing manned aircraft.


29 posted on 01/13/2011 12:36:52 PM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

The old Pukin Dog predicted all this.

I still miss him.


30 posted on 01/13/2011 12:38:29 PM PST by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

we will always need pilots, they don’t need to be flying around and killing themselves pulling 10 g’s or getting shot down with nothing more than toenail clippings to send back to the family.
There are ways to get over jamming signals, we got smart folks, I imagine it’s surmountable.


31 posted on 01/13/2011 1:01:32 PM PST by McCloud-Strife ( USA 1776-2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BikerJoe

The truth here is both the F-22 and F-35 are truly outstanding aircraft tailored to different defense jobs in the future. The Airforce wants to reinvent their winning F-15 and F-16 one two punch for the 21st Century.

Cost drivers are the development of the electronics. What needs to be done is a fusion of the electronic systems to allow the F22 to be retrofitted with a higher performance system bus and allow the F-35 to piggy back on some of the unique capabilites of the F-22.

The F-22 digital bus is largely 1980/90s computer technology which is way out of date. It can do amazing things but it could do even more amazing things with better computers which the F-35 has and be much more supportable going into the future

The F-35 could potentially by streamlined by using some F-22 technology. This is complicated because the F-35 technology is intentionally dumbed down, with a lot of re inventing the wheel to keep F-22 technology from getting transfered to other countries.

I would argue that it is far more important for the USA to re invent it’s world beating F15/F-16 hi-low mix concept in the F-35 and F-22 and deploy enough of them to make a difference than it is to keep secret a lot of technology that our adversaries probably have already have gotten in far greater detail from espionage.

You cannot hold the wind in todays internet driven world so we should not try to do the impossible. In todays world you simply have to out run your competition so we need to get our hardware deployed as quickly as possible and provide a solid foundation for future upgrades to always keep our qualitative edge as great as possible.

A certain degree of cross platform compatability and integration would allow for this without giving away a store which probably already resides in the hard drives of number of our adversaries.


32 posted on 01/13/2011 1:03:35 PM PST by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

It may not be the answer to the new Chi-Com J-20. Also known as the “Slick Willie” stealth fighter.


33 posted on 01/13/2011 1:09:28 PM PST by screaminsunshine (Surfers Rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

...deja vu


To: magslinger

So Gates & The Boyz are laying the groundwork for final cancellation of the F-35 and cover it with a Brand New Bomber.

Be still my beating heart.

The last time I saw that much crap in one place was walking through the feedlot.

I’m one of the B-1Alpha guys, saw exactly the same type of people making exactly the same statements about a year before they finished changing specs for the bird by the minute and pulled the plug on the project. (I was long gone by that time, along with every jig and fixture the El Segundo plant could get their hands on and mothball out in the desert until some grownups showed up inside the Beltway again.)

Point One: There is no bomber project. Period. End of quote. Oh, there’s studies, articles and speeches galore, but neither Boeing or Grumman is pushing so much as a conceptual drawing, the Skonkworks is closed and neither Aviation Week or Tamiya has put out the detailed specs on any Black Project to build one.

Point Two: F-35? Tie some crepe on it. Final cancellation of the whole damn project is probably going to be announced before summer.

Those pigs in Washington need the money for their next election campaign.

31 posted on Friday, January 07, 2011 6:59:43 AM by Unrepentant VN Vet (743 and a wakeup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


After further review, if there was a Dead Pool for Defense projects, I wouldn’t take any numbers on the F-35 project higher than 60 days.

Too many piggies to feed......


34 posted on 01/13/2011 1:10:44 PM PST by Unrepentant VN Vet (737 and a wakeup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

Ding, Ding, you nailed the bigger problem. This is what most people not familiar with the ins and outs of the defense industry don’t understand. Having worked in the industry myself, I don’t know of a single contract or program that ever came in on the date and budget originally agreed to in the original contract proposal. The military, of which I am a huge supporter, is notorious for constantly changing specs, expectations, systems, and timelines due to the constantly changing nature of the battlefield, which in turn changes their needs and requirements. This is especially visible in ‘long-term R&D contracts’ (ie. projects slatted to take 5+ years to develop). By the time the producer closes in on the completion date, the entire scope of the system could have changed.


35 posted on 01/13/2011 1:34:11 PM PST by LoneStarGI (Vegetarian: Old Indian word for "BAD HUNTER.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Unrepentant VN Vet
1: Aircraft usually take about three models before the goals are met. Remember the P-51. Took the dog model to achieve ultimate goal.

2: Having been on both sides of USAF program offices Chasing the latest capability is a rat hole for $$$. One Army program went on for a dozen years and was canceled. Never fielded a single item.

36 posted on 01/13/2011 1:50:32 PM PST by Eaglefixer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LoneStarGI

Exactly.

Presidential Helicopter program anyone? The Navy killed that because they just couldn’t leave it alone.

Withheld some and added new requirements after initial designs were completed. Required intensive amounts of re-design work which costs a lot of money.

Added more and more capability requirements until the thing was just too damn heavy to fly anymore and was subsequently cancelled.

Sometimes, if not most of the time, the Pentagon is their own worst enemy.


37 posted on 01/13/2011 1:50:59 PM PST by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ontap

What we really need is an export version of the F-22. I fully understand that there are elements of this aircraft that are too secret to allow out of American hands but with Russia and India collaborating on one fifth generation fighter and China producing another, our allies need this aircraft as well.

Japan certainly does. Australia probably does. In Europe, selling the F-22 to Germany would give European defense a solid counterweight. The more you make, the less expensive the production is per copy.


38 posted on 01/13/2011 1:54:09 PM PST by Ronin ("Dismantle the TSA and send the screeners back to Wal-Mart.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
And you have to consider all of the ECP’s that get generated to add the new stuff, or fix design problems on the old stuff, like; “It won't fit”. (ECP=Engineering Change Proposal).
39 posted on 01/13/2011 2:24:26 PM PST by ANGGAPO (Layte Gulf Beach Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eaglefixer
1: Aircraft usually take about three models before the goals are met. Remember the P-51. Took the dog model to achieve ultimate goal.

Tends to be true, although with the Mustang a lot of very good pilots (including Bud Anderson) said that they nailed it with the Malcolm Hood B/C model.

Lots of people like to cite the F-111 as such a problem child. Yet for the USAF it left service as a superior aircraft to the replacing it (F-15E). In it's USN role the original specs (high speed missile barge for the AIM-54 - which it WOULD have been good at) changed so much (due to the Vietnam air combat experience, which stressed ACM) that a whole new ground-up design was required. And I like to argue that the F-111B would've been an exceptional replacement for the A-6 Intruder.

I don't think it's time to give up on the F-35 yet. Any potential new-design replacement would require a decade and a half to two to get to IOC. In the meantime the USN NEEDS stealth at sea capability, and the F-35C is the only game in town. The USN needs a replacement fixed-wing STOVL CAS platform, and the F-35B is the only game in town (ok, I guess the Marines COULD by the RAF's Harrier GR.9s as a stopgap to augment their aging and attrition-prone AV-8B fleet).
40 posted on 01/13/2011 2:25:34 PM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool
I was in the Air Force when McNamara foisted the F-111 on us. Having both AF and Navy use the same airplane would "save a billion dollars." (How quaint that sounds now. Then, a billion was big money. Now it's a rounding error in ObamaCare.)

While I was a student at the Air War College, our guest speaker one day was one of the "Whiz Kids." During the question period following his talk, when my turn came, I challenged him on the phony "systems analysis" that went into the F-111 decision. I still remember the round of applause I got from the several hundred of my fellow officers in the auditorium. (Having a PhD in mathematics helps immensely in situations like that.)

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the F-35 is "deja vu all over again."

41 posted on 01/13/2011 2:34:22 PM PST by JoeFromSidney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I work in the aerospace defense industry so I’m not naive to how government bumbling and shifting requirements can drive up costs. But the contractor is often just as at fault through poor program management and shoddy engineering. Yet there is little financial penalty since most of these programs are cost-plus - the contractor continues bumbling along while the government pays for it.

Lockheed has maneuvered itself into a good position. Program costs have exploded (+100%) and the schedule has slipped another 6 years (+60%). But they’ll get rather rewarded for their efforts because this program is “critical” to national security and must be funded. Despite a terrible track record with the F-22 and F-35, they will win future programs as well since the USAF in its myopia awarded all of the 5th-Generation fighter jets to Lockheed, effectively squeezing out Northrop and Boeing and leaving Lockheed with a monopoly on jet fighters.

You want to fix the national budget? Get defense contractors under control.


42 posted on 01/13/2011 3:47:27 PM PST by too_cool_for_skool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
Tri-service aircraft = FAIL.

History contradicts your inept assertion.


43 posted on 01/13/2011 3:55:14 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool
Yahoo
44 posted on 01/13/2011 3:56:37 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
F-22....great platform, could be converted to navy use with some degree of compromise on stealth...

You fail to mention the extensive engineering and money involved; neither of which would be minor, to navalize the Raptor.

and the good old boys of GW Bush started this whole affair

The JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996.

45 posted on 01/13/2011 4:07:21 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: McCloud-Strife
I imagine it’s surmountable.

Easy conclusion for a keyboard warrior.

46 posted on 01/13/2011 4:09:22 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool
F-35 looking more like white elephant

Seems that people soon forget the long and at times troubled development of just about every great weapon system. The much vaunted F-22 went through just about the same cost overruns and delays that the F-35 is experiencing. The C-17 was another example of an aircraft that the hand-wringers yelling "cancel" because it was costing too much to develop. The F-14 had its own problems in development, yet I still read here on FR how much that aircraft is missed.

There are other opinions on the F-35, especially the B model:

Marine F-35 Problems Are Fixable

Author:Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
Date:Thursday, January 13, 2011

Last week, the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, announced that he had placed the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on “double secret probation.” The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, has two years to fix problems with the air frame and engine. It is noteworthy that the Secretary said that the other two parts of the F-35 program for the Air Force and Navy are proceeding satisfactorily.

Building a STOVL aircraft is an extraordinarily challenging undertaking. The aircraft has to be able to operate in both vertical and horizontal dimensions, have a useful operational range and carry a meaningful payload. The same power plant engine must be used to power the aircraft in both flight modes. Only two STOVL systems have ever been deployed, the Harrier and the Yak-38 Forger, and the latter was a failure. The former was a notable success particularly in the Falklands war and Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the Harrier is based on 1960s technology. The Harrier production line closed in 1997 and remanufacture of older versions into the current Harrier II Plus configuration ended in 2003.

A new STOVL aircraft is needed. But to meet emerging threats and new mission requirements, it must have stealth characteristics, a supersonic speed and the kind of advanced avionics that can cope with the modern battlefield. This is particularly difficult when one is building a plane that can also land like a helicopter. This further complicates aircraft design. A hinge flap on an inlet door had to be redesigned when it compromised the F-35B’s stealth characteristics.

What exactly are the F-35B’s current problems? As the Secretary noted, they include both structural and engine issues. Apparently, a bulkhead cracked during testing. While it has been redesigned, additional testing of other structural elements to ensure against a repeat of the problem is ongoing. Lockheed has said that resolving structural issues will not require replacement of the aluminum structures, a move that could add cost and weight.

The engine problems are more challenging, which is to be expected given the nature of the power plant required by a STOVL aircraft. In vertical flight mode some of the components of the lifting portion of the power system have not operated as expected, creating mechanical and heating issues. These are not fundamental technical problems but questions of component design and subsystem integration. The engine manufacturer asserts that it can fix these problems without adding weight or cost.

It is likely that the Lockheed team will be able to resolve the issues that have delayed the STOVL portion of the F-35 program. The challenge is to do it while the clock is ticking.


47 posted on 01/13/2011 4:46:32 PM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

F-111 was indeed superior in many rspects to the F-15E and now the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is inferior in most performance categories to the F-14D that it replaced.


48 posted on 01/13/2011 5:29:12 PM PST by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

The JSF will go down as the greatest failure and boondoggle in the history of aviation. The TFX program will be a model of success and good judgement in comparison. And the only reason Lockheed execs shouldn’t be sent to prison for fraud and bilking the taxpayers is that much of Congress would have to share cells with them. This is what happens when defense programs become more important as jobs pork than as military weapons.


49 posted on 01/13/2011 7:53:01 PM PST by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

The F4 Phantom II became a tri-service aircraft due to its performance. It was designed solely as a navy interceptor.


50 posted on 01/13/2011 8:37:49 PM PST by rmlew (You want change? Vote for the most conservative electable in your state or district.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson