Last week, the Navy and Marines put on a PR show for the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, bringing a host of reporters aboard the USS Wasp to watch F-35Bs perform short take-offs and vertical landings aboard the ship. This came during the Bravo’s final week of sea trials and, perhaps more importantly, one week after Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told lawmakers that the military may not be able to buy all three variants of the JSF.
The Marines’ F-35B is largley viewed as the most likely version to be cut. It was facing so many development delays and cost overruns in recent years that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates placed the B-model on a two year probation last April.
While initial press reports about the jet’s sea trials were mostly positive, Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information — a longtime F-35 foe — claims that the test birds encountered the following difficulties during sea trials:
1) Apparently, the two F-35Bs involved in the sea trials had been diverted to Patuxent River to be repaired the previous week—presumably for fixes the crew on the Wasp were unable to perform. One of the aircraft flying the displays for the press, BF-4, broke (again) after the media event. The upper lift fan door actuator—a component that was supposed to have been fixed already—apparently had a problem. It turns out the actuator has to be redesigned yet again.
2) When asked about maintenance on the Wasp, officials speaking on behalf of the F-35 did not say that more maintenance had been taking place than had been planned. It is not clear if that does or does not mean the extra maintenance that took place at Patuxent River.
3) Despite at least one media writer’s descriptions of impressive landing parameters during the displays, I am informed that the effects of the Wasp’s structure were causing the ship to slow down because the handling qualities resulting from the wind coming around that structure were not what they expected.
4) The testing was planned for a two week period, but it ran on into a third week. It would be interesting to know if there was anything beyond the extra maintenance that explains this.
If true, Wheeler’s first point having to do with the lift fan door may (or may not) be a big deal depending on how serious the redesign will be.
Last week, press reports quoted program officials as saying that minor problems
encountered during sea trials were quickly fixed and that they didn’t impact the test schedule.
We’ve got calls and emails in to the F-35 program office and will let you know what we hear back from them.
In the meantime, enjoy the video of two F-35Bs operating from the Wasp, after the jump.
{ 85 comments… read them below or add one }
Who cares? They look cool
Cancel the B model already! Geez. It's just an endless money pit. It's too bad the JSF ever had this req because the JSF could have been so much more without the B model driving it's design.
I agree- but some Marine with fruit salad on his chest will appear in front of Congress to talk about the Marines being unarmed, etc.
Cancel "B" and sell Camp Pendleton- that whole amphib fetish needs to be killed off sooner than later.
now we are talking, the likely hood of a necessary amphib landing on enemy territory is far lower than the potential need for a LO aircraft that can be deployed wherever there is blue water (which is 70% of the entire planet btw). the ability for our allies to deploy this from smaller ships is another key factor to consider.
You should have stopped at Winslow T. Wheeler.
Amen to all the above ! The penalty in weight and cost and performance to the other variants of the plane are enormous. I get a laugh out of hearing Marine ( and Navy for that matter) pilots tell me how cool their plane is, while knowing that they maneuver at 2G's less because of their carrier landing capability.
One can only wonder what the A model could do without these limitations.
That lift fan door looks like there will be a lot of trouble. Since any forward movement will put a lot of stress on the hing and closing mechanism. I thought the bi-fold doors would be lighter and less likely to be stressed from forward movement.
So basically critics of the F-35 are still saying the F-35 is no good? Shocking.
No, this time people using the F-35 are saying the F-35 is no good.
Mmmm, yeah. That's not what I'm seeing, buddy. Wheeler is far from an F-35 pilot, and if I remember reading correctly, a week or two back there was a pretty nice little piece about the F-35 quoted on DT from a pilot who flew some of the sea trials. I've never heard anything but positive feedback from F-35 pilot accounts.
Do you honestly believe that the career of any pilot who criticizes the F-35 isn't over as soon as the words come out of his mouth? Do you really think that pilots are actually impressed with performance "almost as good as the F-18" in a plane that won't be combat ready for years?
And Winslow learned about all of this so-called "problems" by just observing, right?
These self-proclaimed "experts" of the anti- F-35 crowd are just hating the fact that the birds are now flying from and landing on carrier at sea.
How you know that Wheeler is wrong?
Because he usually is.
1. There are no maintenance crew qualified to work on the F-35 on the Wasp. So of course any maintenance was performed on land.
2. The maintenance schedule was performed as planned. End of story.
3. This is something that every aircraft that applies to every aircraft that becomes certified on the LHA/Ds. It's one of the reasons why they have the testing, to quantify handling across the deck. Another non story.
4. Nothing more than rank speculation.
No MX crew qualified to work on the Wasp, huh? ANY maintenance was performed on land?
From Amy Butler's story on AvWeek's Ares blog:
"Many routine repairs have been conducted on the ship, according to Briggs.
Among the repairs conducted on the ship were replacement of a flat tire. Incidentally, Briggs says that the aircraft are using tires at a slower rate while on deck than during testing at Pax. There, testers found they were having to replace tires faster than expected in crosswind conditions.
Maintainers also replaced an upper lift fan door actuator on BF-4 while on the ship, Briggs says. The aircraft was down for maintenance Sunday mid-day for the fix and back flying Tuesday, he says.
Overall repairs “haven’t gotten worse out there” than testers are seeing for operations at Pax, Briggs says."
Care to comment, PMI?
I will. They obviously didn't deploy the full support package for a shipboard integration task less than 100 miles from home base. Next?
*shrug* Just going by info I've gotten from individuals embarked on the Wasp. Sure I severely simplified it down to a single sentence which was probably self defeating but it doesn't really change the issue.
People don't really grok what all is necessary to keep modern aircraft up and running while at sea. Even air frames that have been in service for years require large numbers of spare parts & equipment that just isn't going to be available on board for 2-4 wk long trials….especially when there is no need to do so as the ship is within a stone's throw of the aircraft's home.
Just a soldier here, But I did go outon the Kitty Hawk, Reagan, Guam and Ike.
1. If those Navy AMSs, AMHs, ADs, AEs, ATs and MRs cant fix a Electical or Hydraulic accuator, switching system or a hinged door, then NOBODY at Lock-Mart, Pax River or Santa's workshop can. They are very good.
2. Send a pre-production, still being tested, "we want to show it off SO badly", aircraft 100 miles out to sea for a "Dog and Pony" show and not send a totaly sharp maintenance team out in a couple of CH-53Es ahead of time? Well not even the Marines would be that silly. Oopps!
The same maintainers that work on them at Pax worked on them on the boat.
Just speaking for myself, but what I 'hate' about this is the fact that the F-35 is only now doing what it was supposed to have done about 3 years ago for several $10's of billions less. IOC for the B was originally supposed to have been a year ago. Even in 2006, IOC was slated for early 2012. When is it scheduled for now, 2016?
I do agree with that. The F35 is a horribly mismanaged program. I hope the threats of cancellation will be the kick in the ass needed to get the program back on track.
Some sexy scenes in that video…
We will find the problem, no matter what the cost!
Stop the presses! Winslow Wheeler has discovered that the entire logistics support package for the F-35B was not prepositioned on the Wasp for these trials. Someone tell Winslow that the WASP is cruising about 80 miles from F-35B home base in Pax River and that this is NOT a supportability test. Then ask him exactly DoubleU Tee Eff is his point? I would also suggest the unattributed 'author' of this piece refer to earlier Mil.com articles that note the 2 weeks was the shortest(!) expected period expected for this round of shipboard trials and that the WASP was booked for much longer. Are 'we' now beating up programs for accomplishing tasks slightly slower than the fastest possible time?
They look neat on the deck and all but is it worth it. If the program fails then the only option I feel should be to buy E/F Super Hornets, the new G Growler, and fund a Super Harrier program.
The first F-14 ended in a ball of flames and debris.
Granted things did not go much better for the next thirty years……
But it did the job and kept those scumbag Soviets in their place. Ensuring the safety of the Atlantic and Pacific fleets.
The F-35B will make the Gator Fleet an extra source of available aircraft while the initial stages of the next (hopefully never) fight happens.
Plus it will save a lot of Marine lives.
Lets get the Gator Fleet into the fight before the guys hit the beach…..
From Wikipedia "The F-14 first flew on 21 December 1970, just 22 months after Grumman was awarded the contract, and reached Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 1973." That's less than 5 years from the RFP going out to IOC with the fleet. There is no comparison between a plane going from RFP to IOC in five years and the endless F-35 problems.
Don't ever cite wikipedia. It doesn't prove your point and makes you look like an idiot.
Are the dates right or aren't they? Don't ever shoot down information based solely on the source, it makes you look like… etc. etc.
I think he meant the first prototype crashed, which it did in the days following its first flight.
http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/f14.htm
"Designed in 1968 to take the place of the controversial F-111B, then under development for the Navy's carrier fighter inventory, the F-14A used the P&W TF30 engines and AWG-9 system and carried the six Phoenix missiles that had been intended for the F-111B. A completely new fighter system was designed around these with emphasis on close-in fighting "claws" along with standoff missile fighting. From its first flight on 21 December 1970, the F-14A has come through five years of development, evaluation, squadron training and initial carrier deployments to become the carrier air wings' most potent fighter. Technical and financial problems that received a great deal of publicity have been overcome in achieving this goal"
The F-35 totally depends on it's LO (Stealth) capabilities to survive. When designed back in the 90's there wasn't a counter to it. Today is another story. The Russians are putting in their new " Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA Radar" in all their new fighters and retrofitting all Flanker series aircraft with it. The L Band wing mounted AESA Radars can detect "Stealth Aircraft and Missiles" at fairly long ranges. Example F-117 at 40+ miles ( F-117 All Aspect Stealth), so the F-35 ( Front Only Stealth) won't be able to sneak up on them like the LM Power Point presentations say they will.
I wish the Russians hadn't come up with the L Band AESA because it puts my beloved F-22 in jeopardy, because it's been incorporated into their SA400 and SA500 series of Surface to Air missiles. Now they are building into their PAK-50, SU-35, and retrofitting them into there older Flanker series aircraft. Stealth has been around for 30 years and we knew sooner or later there would be a counter to it, and any aircraft that depends entirely on LO (Stealth) to survive will have major problems. At least the F-22 was purpose built to be a dog fighter.
This is nonsense? You honestly think we've ignored everything but the X-band when developing our stealth aircraft? Hell, most SAMs aren't even X-band!
That's funny. It is hopeful and delusional boasting to claim that one have created a radar to detect stealth planes when they have no available stealth planes to test it with. No F-22, which is the only REAL stealth capable plane out there, has ever been to war, or locked on by an enemy radar. It is quite common these days for Russia to make these claims as if it would help to sooth that yearning for the old Soviet era complex.
What about F-117s and B-2s?
radar testing to some extent is done with scale models and full size mockups that can be even stealthier than a real thing, from X35 to F35 plane has gotten all sorts of dings and bumps on teh shape which are definetly not helping RCS
1. The F-35 wasn't designed in the '90s. The X-35 was quite a different machine.
2. This L-band radar is only going to be useful at short range. It has less resolution and power than the main X-band radar.
3. What do the Russians have to test it against? A few prototypes nowhere near as stealthy as the latest American designs. This 40+ mile figure of yours seems unlikely.
4. No aircraft has the same RCS from every angle. The same goes for the F-117A. The F-35 is stealthiest at the front, but that doesn't mean it will be detected at long ranges at every other angle.
I tried to post the Links that would let the reader decide for themselves just how good it is, and they won't let me post them.
The Russian Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA Radar links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/12/…
http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-57/kopp.p…
http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/tag/l-band/
http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/08/tikhomirov…
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html
And in the meantime, Boeing has completed another delivery ahead of schedule and on budget:
http://www.defencetalk.com/boeing-completes-deliv…
We should have gone with the F-32
One has been production for more than a decade. The other is an R&D program.
The X-32 looked completely un-fighter-like. Had it won, there would have been less chance of the F-22 getting killed. At the very least LM would have fought tooth and nail for their only meal ticket.. The X-35 really porked up anyway.
One company (Boeing) can so far deliver its latest fighters under-time and under-budget, while the other (Lockheed) has the one plane they delivered, over-budget mind you, now ground and the other so over budget that it makes the Apollo program ($120 Billion inflation calculated) look like a bargain.
Except Boeing's latest fighter is a 4.5 generation design lacking many of the F-35's capabilities. If Boeing had a 5th generation stealth fighter flying, maybe you'd have an argument.
Boeing's JSF would have had to go under a similar development process before a combat ready "F-32" emerged. Inevitably, it would encounter its own problems. The competition between the YF-22 and YF-23 was a close one, the same can't be said about the X-32 and X-35.
Was it really a slam dunk for the X-35?
And don't forget that during the competion between the Monica and the X-35 that Boeing had to redesign the wing. And also they were never able to complete the vertical takeoff or landing without problems. What gets me is all these monday morning experts that have never been involved in R and D of anything as sophicated as these aircraft.
You can give me all the "Negatives" you want, it doesn't change the fact that my statement on the New Russian L Band AESA Radars is true,
You will learn that you can't say anything on this site negative about the Marines without them all downvoting you regardless of how right you are.
Hey, you guys still haven't answered the questions that were posed in the last ten threads on this subject; why do we still need the Marines as a separate force?
Joe: It's when you say negative things about the F-35 not the Marines. I wish we had larger Marine Corp. I also wish the Russians hadn't come up with the L Band AESA because it puts my beloved F-22 in jeopardy, because it's been incorporated into their SA400 and SA500 series of Surface to Air missiles. Now they are building into their PAK-50, SU-35, and retrofitting them into there older Flanker series aircraft. Stealth has been around for 30 years and we knew sooner or later there would be a counter to it, and any aircraft that depends entirely on LO (Stealth) to survive will have major problems. At least the F-22 was purpose built to be a dog fighter.
Why do you care so bad if they are?
here we go with —- Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
It never is.
Russia displayed both their prototypes at the recent airshow and both jet's engines experienced flamed out…. So, now they are back in the garage…
As far as being stealthy… well, at first they will make "ray-dar" that will be invisible to the stealth plane and then it will be able to see the stealth plane… :)
T-50-2 flamed out (fuel control glitch). It was only briefly grounded.
Undisclosed structural issues were discovered on the T-50-1. It's still not flying.
* It's easier being second.
* They are making 1 plane, not 3.
They (Sukhoi) only have a budget of $10 Billion dollars, not over $40 Billion with most of the cost underwritten by the U.S. Government.
I really wouldn't bet my life on Russian accounting methods.
Not exactly the most open, transparent and ethical government.
You have to understand that failure is normal for the F-35 program. It was always designed to have problems. What journalists unkindly refer to as poor design and repeated problems are known as "profit centers" by Lockheed accountants
Are you related to dfens or something? You sound the same with this "every error is a planned mistake by Lockheed" BS.
Oblat's new moniker.
So you're saying that capitalism doesn't work, William? Giving a government contractor a financial incentive to screw up and drag out a program doesn't influence their behavior at all? Wow, comrade, I'm betting you really miss the old USSR! They didn't think capitalism worked, and look at how well that worked out for them.
Lift fan was such a horrible, horrible idea. Should have gone with Boeing’s X-32
Should not have tried to stuff 3 airframes into 1.
"How did the Russians, with a military budget of 11 billion, create a STEALTH FIGHTER THAT'S BETTER THAN THE F-35…."
Please explain your definition of "better", and exactly how you determined that a particular Russian aircraft is "better than" the F-35 according to these criteria.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
The criticism levelled by Mr. Wheeler won't make me loose any sleep:
"1) Apparently, the two F-35Bs….." – "Apparently". There's your problem, right there.
"2) [....]….did not say that more maintenance had been taking place than had been planned. It is not clear if that does or does not mean the extra maintenance that took place at Patuxent River." – And this is relevant how?
"I am informed that the effects of the Wasp’s structure ….." – Informed by whom? Someone who actually knows what they are talking about?
And regarding the lift-fan door issue (if such it is), it doesn't surprise me that some modifications to the aircraft will be needed after the first sea trials. If all else fails, ask Yakovlev how they did it with the Yak-38.
Conclusion: If you want to knock the F-35, at least have enough respect to use valid reasons for doing so.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
First… I have absolutely zero respect or trust in anything Wheeler writes. Ever. Second… nothing described during this testing phase of the program looks like a deal breaker. An actuator redesign, some operational changes in launch and recovery, and some supposed maintenance on two testbed platforms… given the F-35B's past this is hardly what I would call Earth-shattering news. Certainly nothing worthy of the dramatic headline on this article. In reality the technical issues with the F-35 aren't near as bad as some other platforms that made it to the service and performed well. The budget, on the other hand, is quite a different story….
I don't get why people are making such a big deal about a door actuator, as if the airframe is doomed…
Given the layout of the lift fan door, and where the stresses would be coming from, it probably got bent such that it cannot close all the way.
That's like saying that my honda civic is an engineering failure because the hood latch keeps getting bent.
The actuator gets replaced with a stronger one, and presto problem solved.
Yea really and how many times do they need to redesign the same actuator to fix this easy problem ?
But I'm joking of course Lockheed wont change anything they will just reduce the specification of the F-35B to meet this failure.
There is a laundry list of specifications reduced to meet failures in the F-35 program so what if the F-35 suddenly cant land in moderate winds.
"There is a laundry list of specifications reduced to meet failures in the F-35 program…."
I'd love to see that list. Could you provide a link, please?
Thanks in advance.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
Spot on.
Actuator door latches are the least stress free points in aircraft design.
A failure here is a simple fix. No Reliability aspects, no Maintainability aspects
A metal bender basic fix.
end
Semper Fi
I wonder what type of oxygen system is used in the F35?
REMEMBER.
The AV8B Harrier is just about at the end of the service life of these STOVL birds
.
The F18, production line is just about as old as I am.
The F15, Production line likewise.
The F22, production line is terminated.
bt
While the Boeing and Northrup drones are building up, these production lines do not build Sea Borne fighters, nor heavy lifter protectors.
Essentially, w/o the F35 variant;, the USAF, USN Aviation and the USMC aviation, with all there support and Spec Ops missions, will be out of birds by the end of this decade.
What then, oh DOD tech wizards.?
end
Semper Fi
Next time time let….make the companies develope the jets with thier own money not our tax payer money. Waste your own money Lockheed.
I dont get it. All the complaints are about teething problems getting this plane ready for production. I have yet to see one state of the art complex piece of technology work with out some design fixes. They all have some problems, sometimes lots. Some are unfixable like the TFX/F-111A/B which had the Naval variant cancelled and the AirForce fighter version turned into a medium range bomber. The question should be, what can it do when all the bugs are gotten out of the plane. Is it going to be the do all enemy killer, zero CEP bomber, fighter and bomber blaster all with no casualties to itself that its supposed to be.
A lot of people get a kick out of creating mountains out of mole hills.
I think the F-35 will perform very well in the long run, the only thing there is really to complain about is the cost overruns, which is a legitimate problem and will affect how many we actually purchase.
In considering whether to cut the F35B, you must also consider the effect on foreign buyers.
Most nations have small aircraft carriers. Others, like Australia, would like to get back into the game, but are not interested in a large carrier. Can other versions of the F35 take off and land on small carriers? If not, and there is no F35B, foreign buyers will be looking to other aircraft.
If they are looking to other aircraft for carriers, why also buy the other F35 variants? Small airforces don't want multiple different platforms. So, if you have to have some STOL European plane on your carrier, why not get the same aircraft for your airforce?
Besides, aren't those the same planes the performed well in Libya?
In the end, the big picture may require F35B to be continued.
……
"I am informed that the effects of the Wasp’s structure were causing the ship to slow down because the handling qualities resulting from the wind coming around that structure were not what they expected."
……
That seems a little odd, doesn't it?
I mean, Harriers and helos have been operating from these amphibs for years, and we never really heard anything of the sort that wind turbulence from the island was a constant problem that prevented flight ops too often.
Were that the case, we'd have heard about the issue, to include consideration in redesigning the island to be less of an aerodynamic nuisance.
Is the F-35B really that much more sensitive to crosswinds and turbulence?
Surely not!
Yeah, the JPO is probably going to say something just like that.
So do you think the press on one of these PR field trips should ask questions, or just repeat what they're told?
There's a huge difference between asking questions & trying to shoehorn everything to fit your personal agenda.
Let me put it this way:
Apollo program:
-Treading new ground and without the computing power in an average calculator today. A monumental task.
-Timeframe: 1961-1969 (full success of mission)
-Budget (inflation calculated): $120 Billion
F-35 Program:
-Making a stealth plane that has been done several times before by the same company. A "cheap" version if you will of stealth.
Timeframe: 2000 – _____ (still no full capability)
Budget: $382 Billion
How can you people still defend this program is beyond me. This is literally a daytime robbery of the American taxpayer.
Hell, the entire F-4 Phantom II program costed about $22 Billion adjusted for inflation, and we got 5,100 planes out of that program.
No no, I'd really like him to answer that. You can too if you want. What do you think?
We have this situation of a program that's years behind and $billions over, and the military -the government or at least a part thereof- is trying to convince the taxpayers to keep spending. Shouldn't the press be asking a few questions? See, I'm not really sure if Win Wheeler is really on to anything here, but he asked questions when everyone else just transcribed.
Would the program be where it's at now, if we'd been more willing to ask questions all along? Maybe it would've been canceled, maybe it would be more successful. Sunlight can be a good thing. That's my take.
They gave you bad info, and you should fact-check. Maybe they don't know what you thought they did.
The issue that Wheeler is trying to raise apparently is not that maintenance was necessary or where it happened, but did the military obfuscate the amount of maintenance required? Here's a relevant line from the Butler story I quoted above: "Overall repairs “haven’t gotten worse out there” than testers are seeing for operations at Pax, Briggs says."
Those projects were only 20 years after WWII. Big Wars tend to clear the cobwebs, shake off the rust. The people in charge in those days had come through a big fitness test.
And your basis falls flat on its face when you consider that the U.S. is now involved in its longest "hot" war ever at nearly twice the length of WW2.
The real answer is that Lockheed has nothing to lose by prolonging development. Who's insane idea was it to have nearly the entire development costs underwritten by the U.S. Government?
Sadly, you see this all to often in government (and not just US government) contracts, especially when it comes to development.
I seem to remember (don't ask me for a link) that NASA has now managed two development contracts according to an alternative model: Any contractor can take part, but noone gets any money up front. Every time a contractor demonstrates a pre-defined milestone, that releases payment of a, likewise pre-defined, bag of money to said contractor.
This way, you pay only for actual progress, and if you're lucky you end up with more than one product that passes the final milestone (e.g. demonstrates operational capability).
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg