F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Actually, it's "Winslow Wheeler Edits and Releases Old Report." The guy is a well known *old-granny* who would have the Infantry using crossbows if he got his way and once made a career complaining about every major weapons program until his big mouth finally got his ass fired from the GAO. So much white noise.
He didn't have anything to do with the report. This is from DOT&E to SecDef on F-35's test evaluation. Your comments are white noise trying to divert the fact your 5th gen fighter is no where near prime-time.
 

lookieloo

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
468
Likes
264
This is from DOT&E to SecDef on F-35's test evaluation.
Ah yes. Surprise, surprise... the government-funded testers want to do more testing and have written a report to make themselves seem as important as possible. Interesting how almost every major weapons program has gone to sh!t since the DOT&E was created in 1983. That organization = completely unneccesary layer of mandrins that is useless as tits on a boar-hog.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WMD

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Ah yes. Surprise, surprise... the government-funded testers want to do more testing and have written a report to make themselves seem as important as possible. Interesting how almost every major weapons program has gone to sh!t since the DOT&E was created in 1983. That organization = completely unneccesary layer of mandrins that is useless as tits on a boar-hog.
Agreed... F-35 has gone to shit but it was long before T&E got to it.
 

lookieloo

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
468
Likes
264
Agreed... F-35 has gone to shit but it was long before T&E got to it.
Wrong. The program went to shit because of bureaucratic bozos like the DOT&E. The more these idiots can be shut out of a program, the smoother it goes. Dr. Gilmore is organizational empire builder (along with many others) who is only interested in marking his territory on a widely publicized project. Seeing as the DOT&E and GAO have already proven utterly incompetent at their jobs, I'm inclined to ignore their reports now that the F-35 is finally digging its way out of the hole they put it in. I get the distinct impression that they're only upset because things have been moving faster without their input.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Wrong. The program went to shit because of bureaucratic bozos like the DOT&E. The more these idiots can be shut out of a program, the smoother it goes. Dr. Gilmore is organizational empire builder (along with many others) who is only interested in marking his territory on a widely publicized project. Seeing as the DOT&E and GAO have already proven utterly incompetent at their jobs, I'm inclined to ignore their reports now that the F-35 is finally digging its way out of the hole they put it in. I get the distinct impression that they're only upset because things have been moving faster without their input.
Bureaucrats and analysts have nothing to do with the problems F-35 is facing. Funny how you argue for transparency, but you are objecting to the said transparency when it suits you.

F-35 wouldn't be seeing deterioration in performance parameters had it been for bureaucrats.

Even in India, people blame bureaucrats and economists for the problems in military programs, especially in programs like LCA, Arjun etc when the actual problem lies in insurmountable deficiencies in the technical aspects of the programs.

Anyway, you can show your spite for GAO. We have something similar called CAG. But without DOT&E's approval the F-35 will never be operationalized.

DOT&E was not incompetent. LM with their F-35 was incompetent.

If you have any respect for your previous posts in transparency and what not, you need to accept DOT&E as gospel.

Our Indian CEMILAC also did the same for LCA. Threw the project back at ADA with a demand for major design modifications.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
It is time to stop useless baseless RANT against LCA in places where it is purely not relevant. It seems that some people have a lifetime duty to denigrate the program seeing phantoms where non exists.

It seems some people won't get to digest the food they eat , and won't get to sleep at night if they don't write post some crap on Tejas on a daily basis on threads upon threads with no evidence to support.

What CEMILAC suggested was some improvements, which can be suggested to any other fighter. For example a US agency could have thrown the F-22 back saying you have no Helmet mounted targeting system at close range , and your planes are way too costly to maintain and stealth is usable only for strike roles which can be done better by cruise missiles.

A French agency could have thrown back the RAFALE saying you have a smaller radar than TYPHOON, and lower top speeds than TYPHOON,and not as good as TYPHOON in air to air specs.

A European agency could have thrown the TYPHOON back to it's makers saying it's strike role isn't finished yet , so no use in buying this hugely expensive plane for pure to air to air role, and faulty manufacturing process has limited your top speeds to 80 percent of it's specs due to unexplained vibrations.

If you have sent any SOVIET mig relic that is flying with IAF it would have threw back each and every one saying " ENDANGERING THE LIFE OF PILOTS EVEN IN PEACE TIME". and it would have thrown the SUKHOI-30 MKI out with"beset with engine shaft problems and faulty FCS"

They haven't done so means there is something more to the plane than the words of any agency.

I have said many times and saying it again, What CEMILAC suggested was inprovements to reach the top supersonic NUMBER of TEJAS at sea leve i.e mach 1.2.

Since tejas has already achieved the same top speed of SUKHOIs and MIG-29 at sea level in Indian tropical conditions in flutter tests in the skies of GOA this suggestion is no longer a gospel of truth.

Flutter test procedure is as follows.

Tejas reached 4 km in altitude and SWITCHED OFF it's engines and took a dive and evaluated the performance of fighter in powerless dive.

And then while reaching sea level it re ignited it's engines and WENT PAST the same top speed of SUKHOIs and MIG-29 at sea level in Indian tropical conditions.

So it is not as if the TEJAS unable to overcome the non existent drag took a POWERED DIVE from 4km to go supersonic at sea level as some clueless posters are insisting.It is these clueless guys who are spreading the falsehood that as commented in CEMILAC report Tejas was unable to achieve it's top speed in sea level at and had to do a POWERED DIVE to achieve this. Truth points to the other direction.


CEMILAC report never faults ADA for decreasing the cross section from 4 to 5 meters in length along the fuselage(which would have violated the WHITCOMB's rule)

Consequently it is wrongly insinuated that this cross section smoothening problem was undoable in MK-1 and postponed to MK-2(another wishful thinking).
The length increase in MK-2 is to store some extra fuel to maintain the range to cater for the extra weight of engine and in Naval Mk-2's case some extra weight of strengthened landing gear.

Smoothening a fuselage cross section without increasing the length of the plane is no science fiction. Some guys even proclaimed there is no empirical evidence for this.

Even without knowing the proper meaning of the term Empirical evidence.Empirical refers to values of some constants that are used in design many mechanical components that have no clear validation using any other equation.

So we use certain constant number factors in fixing some design parameters of mechanical components in some equation that are perfected in practice over the years without any proof of defining formulas.

The guys who were proclaiming there is no empirical evidence should give their empirical evidence for various cross sections of Tejas fuselage at various lengths from the along the fuselage. Sure they are shooting their mouth without even an iota of ACTUAL EVIDENCE pointing to non existent issues.
 
Last edited:

SajeevJino

Long walk
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,017
Likes
3,364
Country flag
Second F-35 For The Netherlands Rolls Out Of F-35 Production Facility

The second Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II for the Netherlands rolled out of the F-35 production facility on March 2. This is the latest step in the production process leading to its eventual assignment to Eglin AFB, Fla., later this summer. The Netherlands is planning to use this conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) jet, known as AN-2, for training and operational tests for pilots and maintainers. AN-2 will undergo functional fuel system checks before being transported to the flight line for ground and flight tests later this year.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 120,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products, and services. The Corporation's net sales for 2012 were $47.2 billion.


Lockheed Martin · Second F-35 For The Netherlands Rolls Out Of F-35 Production Facility
 

lookieloo

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
468
Likes
264
Second F-35 For The Netherlands Rolls Out Of F-35 Production Facility
It should probably read "Second F-35 for Israel..." seeing as the Dutch will probably bail and sell the things to a buyer that's in more of a rush.
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
I spent a good deal of time in the USSR including visiting their technical and engineering schools, they were about 20 or 30 years behind the USA in most technology. I doubt if they have improved all that much considering the degeneration of the soviert union.
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
I spent a good deal of time in the USSR including visiting their technical and engineering schools, they were about 20 or 30 years behind the USA in most technology. I doubt if they have improved all that much considering the degeneration of the soviert union.
I doubt you can even name those technologies in which you claim USSR was behind USA.
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
Over the last two decades, the world has seen the emergence of two major powers on the international technology markets — China and India. The two nations started from extremely backward technological situations but came a long way after adopting similar measures.

The success has been achieved despite a lack of infrastructure. In scores of Indian engineering colleges, electricity is rationed, and many had not even seen a computer until the late '80s. But despite the hurdles, Indians dot every single silicon valley company today, and the smell of curry is more prevalent in computer rooms than the aroma of burgers and fries.

Russia, on the other hand, has failed to establish itself as a major player on the international technology markets, despite a massive infrastructure and a highly developed education system that has produced the best engineers and scientists in the world. Russian programmers, famed for their exploits at home, are virtually unknown in the worldwide software industry.

The latest technological applications are simply absent from production and management processes, while Russian markets remain open to the latest goods produced through these innovations. One of the world's most technologically advanced nations has not been able to turn its knowledge to its own advantage, and has become a dumping ground for consumer goods from around the world.

India and China have reached a critical stage in development and can make a giant leap forward as the distance between them and the Western markets is plugged through the revolution in information technology. While they trailed behind the rest of the world by 30 to 50 years for most of last century, they are set to close the gap in technological standards.

The spread of technical education in the private sector and the lack of a language barrier (English is the official language of India and the medium for technical education) played an important role in the emergence of India on the world technology market. The Chinese, meanwhile, used their huge buying power and diaspora to maximum advantage. They constantly insisted on adding local content to finished goods and encouraged manufacturers to site assembly and then production processes on the mainland.

For anyone familiar with this miracle in India and China, the Russian government's refusal to take some basic action is baffling. While endless debates seem to go on about macro-economic models in Russia, few seem to realize that some very simple measures within the existing system could make a huge difference.

True, there were huge mistakes in India and China, and things that could have been done two decades ago were postponed and endlessly debated by bureaucrats. In the end, the whole process can be simplified to some tried and tested steps that produce dramatic direct and indirect development. These steps would result in establishing Russia as a competitive nation on international markets and would substantially address the many economic and social problems that no Russian government has been able to tackle in the last 10 years:

1. Create "technology parks" across the nation, in every town, city and capital. The federal government should focus on creating zones of development to become the development engines for Russia. The notion of a technology park in Russia is conventionally associated with real estate development of business, office or factory complexes. But in reality, a technology park can be created overnight in a university, an institute, a community center or even on the production floor of an existing, rotting bankrupt factory. The essential elements of a technology park are as follows:




"¢The entrepreneurs or companies that start business in these technology parks must deal with all local, revenue, customs, regional and federal organs through one designated office. It is important that companies and entrepreneurs engaged in technology-related business do not waste time on administrative, bookkeeping and bureaucratic measures. Freeing the companies from bureaucracy is the first priority. One way of achieving this is to register technology parks as private companies that can then sell shares to tenants, and all accounting/audit and administrative work can be done by the owner/entrepreneur that buys the license to operate the park.

"¢The next hurdle to creating a successful business is the lack of reliable and constructive practical consultation, information and training. Business models can be developed in a short time in collaboration with international agencies and companies. A visitor to a technology park should, if he or she finds a suitable business plan, be able to start running the business within a period of seven days.

"¢A major federal/local or private investment in these parks will have to be connectivity. The spread of the Internet makes this cheaper and easier than ever before. Connectivity will lead to cheaper and faster consultation, competitiveness, distance learning, collaborations and creation of opportunity. This might be the only infrastructure investment required in a technology park.

"¢The government should use tax rebates to encourage banks and financial institutions to extend micro loans and venture capital for technology park businesses. Soon, these startups will be a part of the international technology business circuit. They will find well paid jobs, or get offshore development contracts, join larger companies, do freelance work or sell their products. Either way, well-qualified professors, engineers, army officers and even fresh graduates would qualify for these loans. Russia could create a whole new class of technologically rich entrepreneurs overnight — just like millions of traders were created overnight through opening the markets.

"¢An essential part of the business development would have to be a three- to five-year tax holiday for any company starting up in a technology park. This would have to include exemption from local and federal taxes. Import of technology park infrastructure should be made free of customs duties unless traded or sold outside of the designated zones.

2. A parallel effort must be made to attract international technology companies to the Russian market. Mass production of technology-based products and research and development in related areas are absolutely critical if Russia does not wish to lose all its advantages to developed countries. This amounts to creating conditions for multinational companies to move in for onshore development and production in Russia for internal and export markets. Creating a single window clearance and contact system will have to be the first and most essential part of any such program. All applications for investment in high technology should be cleared within 30 days by a government commission comprising the presidential, federal and regional administrations.

"¢All investments that employ more than 10 Russian citizens with high degrees should be given a two-year tax holiday and tax rebates for five years.

"¢The same commission should collect, develop and market information on potential sites for technology- related businesses.

"¢Specific technology trade zones must be identified in each city and region and marketed by the government. The starting point of any such effort will have to be zero effort solutions; i.e. foreign companies should be able to move in with their equipment and start business operations within 30-60 days.

3. The government must encourage development and growth of smaller, private technology schools and institutes. Distance learning facilities at state-run schools and institutes can bridge that gap considerably. These schools should focus on business-oriented programming skills and technical training.

4. Lack of practical, commercial knowledge is the only other hurdle in the way of development. The government should encourage the development of a technological and commercial online databank for all Russian citizens. The "country gateways" project proposed by the World Bank is an ideal candidate for such collaboration. A knowledge bank would close the gap in knowledge and experience within years, if not months.

The direct and indirect benefits of these actions are not open to debate. These measures have already produced enormous benefits for millions of people. While other governments reached these conclusions after years of hesitation and experiment, Russia cannot afford that luxury or laxity.

A draft law on creation of technology parks and promoting foreign investment in Russia should be prepared with urgency. Once the law is passed, it should be left to the private sector to develop the parks. By staying out of the way and helping the businesses through minimal control, the government would have done its job. The rewards would be enormous, with the potential to change the face of the Russian economy.

(Ajay Goyal is president of Norasco Publishing, which publishes The Russia Journal.)
Russia falling behind in technology | The Russia Journal
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
true only few years ago you guys asked for Russian help for space station and even now are dependent on them for supplies to space station.
I understand fully what is happening, its the change from space being a goverment enterprise under NASA to private enterprise. If you want to compare technology compare the US putting a man on the moon over 30 years ago, or a one ton operating vehicle on Mars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sob

SajeevJino

Long walk
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,017
Likes
3,364
Country flag
It should probably read "Second F-35 for Israel..." seeing as the Dutch will probably bail and sell the things to a buyer that's in more of a rush.
Netherland Is not need this JSF on this Time ..You're Correct Probably This may goes to the Jewish State
 

Ash

New Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
527
Likes
530
Country flag
Pentagon: F-35 won't have a chance in real combat

Fatal flaws within the cockpit of the US military's most expensive fighter jet ever are causing further problems with the Pentagon's dubious F-35 program.

Just weeks after a fleet of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters was grounded for reasons unrelated, a new report from the Pentagon warns that any pilot that boards the pricey aircraft places himself in danger without even going into combat.


In a leaked memo from the Defense Department's director of the Operational Test and Evaluation Directorate to the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon official prefaces a report on the F-35 by cautioning that even training missions cannot be safely performed on board the aircraft at this time.


"The training management system lags in development compared to the rest of the Integrated Training Center and does not yet have all planned functionality," the report reads in part.


In other sections of the lengthy DoD analysis, Operational Test and Evaluation Directorate Director J. Michael Gilmore outlines a number of flaws that jeopardize the safety of any pilot that enters the aircraft.


"The out-of-cockpit visibility in the F-35A is less than other Air Force fighter aircraft," one excerpt reads.


Elsewhere, Gilmore includes quotes from pilots commenting after test missions onboard the aircraft: "The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements," said one. "Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned [down] every time" in dogfights, remarked another.


"Aft visibility could turn out to be a significant problem for all F-35 pilots in the future," the Pentagon admits.


In one chart included in the report, the Pentagon says there are eight crucial flaws with the aircraft that have raises serious red flags within the Department of Defense. The plane's lack of maturity, reduced pilot situational awareness during an emergency and the risk of the aircraft's fuel barriers catching fire are also cited, as is the likelihood of a pilot in distress becoming unable to escape his aircraft during an emergency — or perhaps drowning in event of an evacuation over water.


The Pilot Vehicle Interface, or PVI, is also listed as not up to snuff. Documented deficiencies regarding the F-35 pilot's helmet-mounted display and other aspects of the PVI are named, and the result could mean grave consequences.


"There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely," the report reads.


The latest news regarding the F-35s comes less than one month after a separate incident forced the Department of Defense to ground their entire arsenal of the fighter jets. In February, jet makers Lockheed Martin issued a statement acknowledging that a routine inspection on a test plane at Edwards Air Force Base in California turned up cracked turbine blade.


"Safety is always our first consideration, and the joint inspection team is focused on ensuring the integrity of the engines across the entire fleet so the F-35s can safely return to flight as soon as possible," the manufacture told the media. In response, Joint Program Office spokeswoman Kyra Hawn confirmed that all F-35 flight operations were suspended as a precautionary measure "until the investigation is complete and the cause of the blade crack is fully understood." Just weeks later, though, a new report is already causing fresh problems for the F-35 program.


Each F-35 fighter jet is valued at $238 million and, according to recent estimates, the entire operation will cost the country $1 trillion in order to keep the jets up and running through 2050.

source RT
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
F-35 JSF - too big to fail

At EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — With an ear-ringing roar, the matte-gray fighter jet streaked down Runway 12 and sliced into a cloudless afternoon sky over the Florida Panhandle. To those watching on the ground, the sleek, bat-winged fuselage soon shrank into a speck, and then nothing at all, as Marine Capt. Brendan Walsh arced northward in America's newest warplane, the F-35 Lightning II.

The F-35 has features that make pilots drool. It is shaped to avoid detection by enemy radar. It can accelerate to supersonic speeds. One model can take off and land vertically. Onboard electronic sensors and computers provide a 360-degree view of the battlefield on flat-panel screens, allowing pilots to quickly identify targets and threats.

But its greatest strength has nothing to do with those attributes. The Defense Department and Lockheed Martin, the giant contractor hired to design and build the plane, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, have constructed what amounts to a budgetary force field around the nearly $400 billion program.

Although it is the costliest weapons system in U.S. history and the single most expensive item in the 2013 Pentagon budget, it will face only a glancing blow from the sequester this year. And as the White House and Congress contemplate future budgets, those pushing for additional cuts may find it difficult to trim more than a fraction of the Pentagon's proposed fleet, even though the program is years behind schedule and 70 percent over its initial price tag.

The reasons for the F-35's relative immunity are a stark illustration of why it is so difficult to cut the country's defense spending. Lockheed Martin has spread the work across 45 states — critics call it "political engineering" — which in turn has generated broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Any reduction in the planned U.S. purchase risks antagonizing the eight other nations that have committed to buying the aircraft by increasing their per-plane costs. And senior military leaders warn that the stealthy, technologically sophisticated F-35 is essential to confront Iran, China and other potential adversaries that may employ advanced anti-aircraft defenses.

The biggest barrier to cutting the F-35 program, however, is rooted in the way in which it was developed: The fighter jet is being mass-produced and placed in the hands of military aviators such as Walsh, who are not test pilots, while the aircraft remains a work in progress. Millions more lines of software code have to be written, vital parts need to be redesigned, and the plane has yet to complete 80 percent of its required flight tests. By the time all that is finished — in 2017, by the Pentagon's estimates — it will be too late to pull the plug. The military will own 365 of them.

By then, "we're already pregnant," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who oversees F-35 development for the Pentagon.

When the F-35 finishes testing, "there will be no yes-or-no, up-or-down decision point," said Pierre Sprey, who was a chief architect of the Air Force's F-16 Fighting Falcon. "That's totally deliberate. It was all in the name of ensuring it couldn't be canceled."

The Pentagon has long permitted equipment to be produced while it is still being tested, with the intent of getting cutting-edge gear to warriors more quickly, but senior military officials said the F-35 takes the approach to new extremes. Doing so has served as more than a hedge against cuts — it has also driven up the overall price. The 65 aircraft that already have been built, and those that will be assembled over the next few years, will require substantial retrofits that could cost as much as $4 billion as problems are uncovered during testing, the officials said.

Initial tests already have yielded serious problems that are forcing significant engineering modifications. The entire fleet was grounded earlier this year because of a crack in the fan blade in one jet's engine. The Marine Corps' version has been prohibited from its signature maneuver — taking off and landing vertically — because of a design flaw. And the Navy model has not been able to land on an aircraft carrier because its tailhook, an essential feature to alight aboard a ship, needs to be redesigned. The Pentagon's top weapons tester issued a scathing report on the F-35 this year that questioned the plane's reliability and warned of a "lack of maturity" in performance.

When the F-35 program was first approved by the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin said it could develop and manufacture 2,852 planes for $233 billion. The Pentagon now estimates the total price tag at $397.1 billion. And that is for 409 fewer planes.

The overall program is almost four times more costly than any other weapons system under development. Taxpayers have already spent $84 billion on the plane's design and initial production. By contrast, the production of 18,000 B-24 bombers during World War II cost less than $60 billion, in inflation-adjusted dollars.

To the plane's backers, including senior leaders of the Air Force and Marine Corps, the benefit is worth the cost. Unlike the infantry, which still accepts battlefield casualties as part of war, military aviators have grown accustomed to a different risk calculus since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when U.S. warplanes quickly established air superiority over Iraq with minimal losses: They want to ensure that, whatever the future conflict, their planes are packed with enough offensive and defensive measures to accomplish the mission and avoid getting shot down.

"This aircraft reinforces the way Americans go to war. ."‰."‰.We don't want to win 51-49. We want to win 99 to nothing," said Lt. Gen. Frank Gornec, the assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force. He said he is convinced the F-35 "will become a superstar in the arsenal of the United States."

Many independent defense analysts do not share that conviction. To them, the plane's political engineering and buy-before-you-fly procurement mask deep problems with performance and affordability.

"It was a bait-and-switch operation; we were overpromised benefits and under-promised costs," said Chuck Spinney, a former Pentagon analyst who gained widespread attention in the 1980s for issuing pointed warnings about the military's pursuit of unaffordable weapons. "But by the time you realize the numbers don't add up, you can't get out of the program."

A turbulent takeoff

The F-35 program, which commenced 12 years ago, was intended to be a model of how to build a modern fighter. The same airframe would be used to produce planes for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, with only modest modifications to address service-specific needs, hence the name Joint Strike Fighter. The commonality, proponents argued, would allow the three services to mount more coordinated wartime missions, and, perhaps more important, it would drive down development, assembly and maintenance costs.

That was essential because the Pentagon needs a lot of F-35s. It is supposed to replace thousands of legacy aircraft including the F-16, a workhorse of the Air Force fleet, and every fighter jet owned by the Marine Corps. The F-35 was pitched as the answer because it was supposed to be affordable — in the relative terms of fighter jets — and could be acquired in larger quantities than the F-22 Raptor, the Air Force's new high-performance fighter.

Pentagon officials accepted Lockheed's claim that computer simulations would be able to identify design problems, minimizing the need to make changes once the plane actually took to the sky. That, in turn, led to an aggressive plan to build and test the aircraft simultaneously.

Cautioning that all of those assumptions were flawed, Spinney and other defense analysts urged the Pentagon to see the plane in flight before committing to buy it. But senior Defense Department officials in the George W. Bush administration did not heed the warnings.

Within months, the program began veering off course.

The Air Force, Marines and Navy all sought additional modifications to meet their needs, reducing commonality among the three models. A bigger problem was the fundamental concept of building one plane, with stealth technology, that could fly as far and fast as the Air Force wanted while also being able to land on the Navy's carriers and take off vertically from Marine amphibious assault ships.

Instead of meeting the original plan of being about 70 percent similar, the three versions now are 70 percent distinct, which has increased costs by tens of billions and led to years-long delays. "We have three airplane programs running in parallel," Bogdan said. "They are very, very different airplanes."

Even with three variants, the plane's design has forced serious compromises. To remain stealthy, bombs and missiles must be placed inside a weapons bay, which limits the volume of munitions that can be carried. The use of a single engine, required for the Marine version, restricts speed.

With an even more complex engineering challenge than initially envisioned, Lockheed and the Pentagon took a hands-off approach to managing the program, according to several people involved in the process.

An electrical engineer who worked as a manager at Lockheed's F-35 program headquarters in Fort Worth beginning in 2001 said the development effort was beset with "tremendous organizational inadequacies" and "schedule and cost expectations that never were achievable." In his unit, he said, there were no firm development timetables and no budgets. "It was all on autopilot," he said. "It was doomed from the beginning."

In 2005, the engineer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of concerns he will risk job opportunities in the close-knit aviation industry, participated in a two-week-long assessment of the program."There were reds and yellows across the board," he recalled. But when he briefed his superiors, "nobody was interested," he said. And when he gave a copy of the assessment to those at the Pentagon office responsible for the plane, he said, "they didn't want to hear it."

A senior Defense Department official acknowledged the office "didn't have the capacity or the understanding to manage such a complicated program" at the time. Lockheed executives also make little excuse for those years. "It was a very different program from what we are executing today," said Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice president of F-35 business development.

With wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, and military budgets growing year over year, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld paid little attention to the program. His successor, Robert M. Gates, took the same approach during his first few years on the job. In 2007, the Defense Department permitted Lockheed to begin producing the fighter — before the first flight tests had even begun. Frank Kendall, who is now the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, has called that decision "acquisition malpractice."

Early tests uncovered flaws unnoticed by the computer simulations. Key engineering tasks, including the vertical takeoff and landing system, were taking much longer to complete. All the while, costs were rising at supersonic speeds.

In 2009, Gates grasped the dysfunction. The following year, he withheld $614 million in fees from Lockheed, fired the two-star Marine general in charge of the program and brought in a Navy vice admiral, David Venlet, to clean house. In 2011, Gates placed the Marine plane on probation, warning that it would be killed if problems with its propulsion system were not fixed quickly.

Bogdan, who served as Venlet's deputy until December, when he took charge of the development effort, was astounded by what he found when he delved into the program.

"It was an unimaginable mess," he said.

Taking countermeasures

An imposing former test pilot who wears an olive flight suit to his office in Crystal City, Bogdan spent his first two years on the job analyzing virtually every aspect of how the plane is designed and built. He and Venlet adjusted schedules and assumptions, and they implemented changes that brought the Marine version off probation. New goals call for aggressive testing and modifications over the next five years, and the start of full-rate production by 2018.

Bogdan thinks the program cannot afford another do-over. "There is no more money and there is no more time," he said.

To stay on track, he has adopted a get-tough approach with Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney, the contractor building the plane's engine. Instead of allowing Lockheed to manage the development of millions of lines of software code for the plane — one of the most vexing technical challenges — his office, which has now grown to 2,000 people, is taking charge. "We have forced discipline on them," he said of Lockheed.

He has pushed Lockheed to pay for all cost overruns — in the past, the government picked up the tab — and he has insisted that the company share in the expense of modifications to planes that are being built during the testing phase.

"What I see Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney doing today is behaving as if they are getting ready to sell me the very last F-35 and the very last engine and are trying to squeeze every nickel of that last F-35 and that last engine," Bogdan said earlier this month during a visit to Australia, which plans to buy 100 F-35s. "I want them both to start behaving like they want to be around for 40 years. I want them to take on some of the risk of this program. I want them to invest in cost reductions. I want them to do the things that will build a better relationship. I'm not getting all that love yet."

Lockheed and Pratt executives insist they are trying to drive down expenses and increase reliability. "We've made enormous progress over the past few years," said Lockheed's O'Bryan. "When the professionals look at the facts and they talk to the pilots, they see a program that is accelerating with costs that are rapidly decreasing."

O'Bryan said Lockheed and its suppliers are "committed to working in close partnership" with Bogdan's office.

For Bogdan, an even bigger challenge involves the cost of flying and maintaining the F-35. The Pentagon estimates it could reach as much as $1.1 trillion over the life of the plane. Although unknown variables such as the cost of fuel could drive that figure down, Bogdan said the jet has serious sustainability problems. Chief among them are a greater need for maintenance and replacement parts than projected. "If we don't do things now to change the game, this airplane will be unaffordable to fly," he said.

He is pushing suppliers to make parts more reliable, and he has put Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney on notice that they should not assume they will be selected to fill the operations and maintenance contracts, which could be worth as much as $500 billion. He wants other firms to compete for parts of the work, reasoning that it will bring down costs.

To reinforce his seriousness, he has told Lockheed and Pratt not to wait him out. Unlike other senior officers, who change assignments ever few years, he intends to stay for 10 years. "The only way I'm leaving this program," he said in the interview, "is if I'm fired."

A dogfight no one wants

But Bogdan's leverage is limited. Behind his feisty language lies an inescapable reality: The services don't want to shrink their orders, and Congress doesn't want to clip the F-35's wings.

For many legislators, the F-35 is as much about employment as it is about air superiority. Lockheed has repeatedly emphasized to legislators, particularly those who sit on appropriations committees, that the plane supports 133,000 jobs, many of them at 1,300 subcontractors and parts suppliers spread across 45 states. When full-rate production begins, likely in 2018, the company says the employment figure will grow to 260,000.

A Web site established by Lockheed for the plane provides a sample letter for constituents to send to lawmakers. "The F-35 program is a win-win proposition for our national security and our nation's declining manufacturing base," the letter states.

Despite the lobbying, a few members have spoken out. One of them was Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Navy pilot. In December 2011, he took to the floor of the Senate to lambaste the development effort. "In a nutshell, the JSF program has been both a scandal and a tragedy," he said.

The following November, the Marines established their first F-35 squadron in Yuma, Ariz. They invited McCain to the inauguration ceremony.

"I am — after many years of frustration and setbacks — encouraged that the overall program is moving in the right direction," McCain said at the event. He said the program was on track "to produce more achievable and predictable outcomes."

For the generals who lead the Marines, the F-35 is a must-win fight. There is no alternative fighter readily available to replace the service's current jets, which will soon become too obsolete to fly.

"It's essential for us," said Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, the Corps' deputy commandant for aviation. "We don't have another option."

Thus far, there has been little discussion within the Pentagon or on Capitol Hill about whether the Marines, which are organized to travel by sea and fight small wars, require such a sophisticated aircraft. Compared with the Air Force and Navy versions, the Marine variant has the most engineering challenges and the largest price tag. But the Marines, the smallest service, have long wielded disproportionate influence on the Hill and in the Pentagon.

"Nobody wants to say no to the Marines," a senior Army officer said on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the program. "Nobody around here is asking the fundamental question: Why does the Navy's army need its own air force?"

Avoiding a death spiral

The Pentagon's latest five-year budget plan, released last year, calls for a smaller volume of annual purchases to save money. Sequestration-related cuts this year also will defer a few more planes. But the overall purchase of 2,443 jets remains unchanged.

Though the F-35 is rarely mentioned by those seeking to rein in federal spending on Capitol Hill, sotto voce discussions are beginning within the walls of the Pentagon. Some senior officers, even those who are enamored of the plane, worry that footing the $400 billion tab in an era of declining defense budgets will require too many other sacrifices and trade-offs.

"This aircraft does everything better than anything ever flown," a three-star general said on the condition of anonymity. "But how many can we afford? How many of them do we really need?"

Although Air Force and Marine leaders have held fast, an unofficial reexamination is occurring within the Navy, which is not as desperate for the F-35 because it possesses a relatively new fleet of F/A-18 Super Hornets. While toeing a public line of support for the F-35, some Navy experts are looking at whether it makes sense to reduce its planned order and plow some of the savings into high-speed drones that can operate off aircraft carriers, according to senior military officials.

Should that occur, or should Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decide to shrink the overall purchase, it could prompt howls from key U.S. allies, including Britain, Italy and Norway, which all have contributed to the development of the aircraft. Their purchase price has been based on a U.S. order of about 2,500 jets. If that number drops, the per-plane cost will rise for the allies, possibly leading them to buy fewer then planned.

For some of them, cost increases and delays over the past decade have been significant enough to prompt a reexamination. Australia is deciding whether to halve its 100-plane order and Canada is reconsidering its plan to buy 65.

A smaller total purchase, of course, further increases unit costs for the United States, which likely would increase pressure to cut more. Procurement officers have a term for the phenomenon, borrowed from the world of aviation: a death spiral.

That's what happened to the Air Force's F-22. The original plan, set in 1991, was to buy 750 of them for $132 million apiece. Increased development costs and budget cuts in the 1990s sent that program into a tailspin. The Air Force eventually wound up with just 187 — at a cost of $422 million per plane.

That is why Bogdan is pressing Lockheed so aggressively to reduce costs. He knows the F-35 — despite the jobs it fuels, regardless of the needs of the Marines and Air Force — is a giant, unstealthy presence in the federal budget.

His best defense against cuts, he figures, involves showing that the long-troubled program can finally meet its targets — and that more reductions will just mean more-expensive aircraft.

"We have to understand there are trade-offs every time we cut spending on the F-35," he said. "And none of them are very good."

F-35's ability to evade budget cuts illustrates challenge of paring defense spending - The Washington Post
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
Re: Pentagon: F-35 won't have a chance in real combat

How the F-35 defends itself against budget cuts

The Defense Department and Lockheed Martin, the giant contractor hired to design and build the plane, have constructed what amounts to a budgetary force field around the nearly $400 billion program. Here is a look at three ways the F-35 is protected.

 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top