Home » Air » F-35 Watch » Flight Maneuver Hints at Cause of F-35 Fire

Flight Maneuver Hints at Cause of F-35 Fire

by Brendan McGarry on September 3, 2014

F-35A_080614

The U.S. Defense Department official in charge of the F-35 fighter jet program said a previous flight test maneuver played a role in an engine fire that led to a temporary grounding of the fleet and ongoing flying restrictions.

Speaking during a defense conference Wednesday at the National Press Club, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said three weeks before an F-35A made by Lockheed Martin Corp. caught fire during takeoff June 23 at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, it was flown in a manner designed to test the performance of its g-force, roll and yaw characteristics within designed limits known as the flight envelope.

While the maneuver only last two seconds or so, it caused excessive rubbing between the titanium blade in the fan section of the F135 engine made by United Technologies Corp.‘s Pratt & Whitney unit and the surrounding material, Bogdan said. The metal reached temperatures of as high as 1,900 degrees Fahrenheit — compared to the normal level of about 1,000 degrees — and resulted in micro-cracking, he said.

A few weeks later, during the fateful takeoff, the blade came apart and actually pierced the left aft fuel tank, engulfing the rear of the plane in flames, Bogdan said. “It was the fuel tank that caught fire,” he said.

While the pilot escaped from the aircraft unharmed, much of the plane was destroyed. Bogdan declined to say it was a “total loss” because he said the program office plans to reuse parts that are salvageable. But it’s safe to assume the incident was a Class A mishap, which is defined as accidents resulting in fatality or total permanent disability, loss of an aircraft or property damage of $2 million or more.

The Joint Strike Fighter is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons acquisition program, estimated to cost a total of $398.6 billion for a total of 2,457 aircraft. That breaks down to a per-plane cost of $162 million, including research and development.

Under the most recent production contract with Lockheed, the department in 2013 agreed to pay $112 million per F-35A, $139 million per F-35B and $130 million per F-35C. Those figures, known as unit recurring flyaway costs, include the airframe, engine, mission systems, profit and concurrency.

The Pentagon in its budget for fiscal 2015, which begins Oct. 1, requested $8.3 billion for 34 of the aircraft, including 26 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs and 2 F-35Cs. The House Appropriations Committee voted to buy an additional four aircraft, for a total of 38, while the Senate panel agreed with the Pentagon’s request — a difference that will have to be resolved in conference negotiations. Congress hasn’t yet passed a defense spending bill.

Eight countries have committed to help develop the F-35, including the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway. Also, Israel, Japan and South Korea plan to buy production models of the aircraft.

There are currently about 100 F-35s in the U.S. fleet, Bogdan said. Pratt & Whitney has delivered roughly 150 F135 engines, he said.

Bogdan said Pratt & Whitney officials have vowed to cover the cost of the engine fix, which will probably include redesigning that part of the propulsion system to create more space in the so-called trench area. He declined to specify how much it will cost until the program office completes a root-cause analysis, expected later this month.

A prototype part may be tested as early as mid-October, Bogdan said. Meanwhile, the program office is developing a new engine break-in procedure as a short-term fix to better analyze how it performs under increasing loads, he said. Even so, if the planes don’t resume regular flight testing later this month, the program could be delayed by a month or more, he said.

Separately, Bogdan said, Pratt & Whitney has halted further deliveries of the F135 engine amid plans to sue a supplier for providing “suspect” titanium. The Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations are looking into the matter, he said.

The suspension affected 10 engines that probably would have been delivered by now and four more that are not yet under contract, according to an article by Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg News.

The F-35 missed its highly hyped international debut in the United Kingdom this summer. Four of the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing models were scheduled to appear at multiple events in the U.K., culminating with a flight demonstration at the Farnborough International Air Show outside London in July.

Share |

{ 111 comments… read them below or add one }

Robbie September 3, 2014 at 6:24 pm

Well, that's what the test program is for. Glad they found it early…..

Reply

Nessuno September 3, 2014 at 6:43 pm

A test program with a 100 delivered units…..?

Reply

meow September 3, 2014 at 8:25 pm

Good point.

LM's response: Look on the bright side, it could have been 3640 units.

Reply

Bernard September 4, 2014 at 1:32 pm

We can only wonder how many more billion it will take to make this thing air worthy much less combat worthy. Our tax dollars at work. :-(

Reply

camden September 4, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Let's start with 10 billions and 10 years.

LM = Loser's Mechanic.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 4:38 am

Please recall that Pratt and Whitney is responsible for the engine, and not Lockheed Martin. The military was responsible for picking the engine, not LockMart. This same problem likely would have occurred if the F-32 was choosen. Finally, there is no information if the maneuver in question is even remotely important to the operation of the fighter. Finally, they are working on a fix, which Pratt said they would pay for, so we don't know beyond the loss of the plane that it will cost the military anything.

rtsy September 3, 2014 at 6:44 pm

Not early enough.

Reply

ZYX September 3, 2014 at 6:35 pm

Wow – this is rather major. Glad they caught it, and good on P&W to cover the cost of the fix, unlike some defense contractors I know of. Very astute of them to realize that their reputation is on the line whenever a mishap occurs with a part they are responsible for. Especially true for engine manufacturers.

Still, I'm rather surprised that it was an issue with the design of the fan blades.

Reply

CharleyA September 3, 2014 at 7:33 pm

They "cover" it by not reducing the price as much as they should. There bottom line will not be hurt.

Reply

Anon E Mouse September 4, 2014 at 8:02 pm

B.S.
Not too familiar with acquisition program accounting methods are you? This will eat up some of Pratt's program MR (management reserve).

Reply

ChristopherS September 3, 2014 at 6:48 pm

Lets see a fire and a lack of titanium for the engine. Congress should be thinking hard about canceling funding for the F-136.
They should stop funding this white elephant altogether, build the planes already purchased and look into purchasing a 4.5 interim fighter. Maybe turn the T-X Program into the FT-X.Than put the F-35 technology into the winning fighter.
As the USAF is never going to get the 1700 their asking for. As IOS won't be achieved by 2015 or the next five. By then Russia and China will have their own fifth generation fighters online.

Reply

Tiger September 4, 2014 at 1:42 am

The point of no return has been passed. Your idea is DOA.

Reply

Scott September 4, 2014 at 9:50 am

No one said anything about a "lack of titanium" for the engine, perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit. So you think if you just stopped funding of an 20 year research and development program and started all ofer from scratch it would be cheaper… Brilliant. The F35 is having the same problems every new high tech aircraft has nothing more. If the USAF is never going to have the numbers they are asking for, what makes, how does spending the same amount re-developing a new plane change that? Oh by the way, you think Russia and China don't have problems developing new aircraft?

Reply

Ben_RG September 4, 2014 at 5:35 pm

Not making any judgement on the F-35 series but rather a more general point:

It doesn't matter if you spend $20 or $20 billion; if it's no good, it's still no good. You've just wasted more money and should be turning the spigots off with more urgency.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 5:12 am

No one has implied that this was problem that would invalidate the program. It has only been related to one specific maneuver so far. When the Russians had an engine fire on the PAK-FA has anyone suggested it be cancelled? With 18,000 fligth hours, it is actually amazing that more problems haven't occurred.
For a little perspective, we had an F-15 fall out of the sky the other day. By your standard we should now stop flying F-15s? Most of the planes systems are already mature with the IOC Block 2B software nearly ready for release. To fully get what we are paying for, we will need to continue to improve the software, incorporate more weapons, and improve the system integration, but the plane has already demonstrated considerably more value than the planes it will replace. With inflation, research and development, testing and so on, you FT-X would likely cost the same as the F-35 while providing less capability.

Reply

Big-Dean September 3, 2014 at 7:11 pm

hahahahahahahahahahahaha, the act of flying causes engine failure! Well, in that case we had better not fly them anymore.

Reply

rtsy September 3, 2014 at 7:48 pm

Its the high gee maneuvers that one would use to say, evade an enemy missile. But I'm sure all the fancy tech involved will make being shot at obsolete.

Reply

Scott September 4, 2014 at 9:44 am

Ahhhh, yes anything that breaks, only does it because its used… what things break that are not being used? You really are a special kind of $tupid aren't you?

Reply

Big-Dean September 4, 2014 at 2:21 pm

engines are not suppose to fail after pulling some g's, for a couple of seconds, if that were true, then every fighter we have is at risk of engine failure, does that make sense to you Scott, or should I slow down?

Reply

Dfens September 5, 2014 at 11:36 am

Hell yeah, cancel it because the next engine program will be better. Big-Dean personally guarantees it, but he's not putting up any of his money, of course. What the F, let's go ahead and plan on cancelling the next program just before they start producing operational aircraft too, just for good measure. That'll really show these defense contractors how stupid we are.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 5:14 am

Big-Dean I am sure you can build a 40,000 lb thrust class engine with no flaws too. I await your replacement engine any day now. Thank goodness you are here to save us.

Reply

Puffer September 3, 2014 at 7:37 pm

Proof this plane is a dud!

Reply

camden September 4, 2014 at 5:04 pm

Actually the proof that this plane is a dud has been in place for years with respect to its aerodynamic, avionic, firepower and maintenance parameters.

This incident serves to further prove that the power plant is just as flawed and suspect as the rest of the plane.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 5:27 am

Surely you know nothing about the plane. Fighter pilots don't line up to fly duds, and every pilot that has flown it has high praise for it. The testers are doing everything to make it even better, which is an expensive prospect, but they are still praising the plane in every aspect. Tell me what other fighter plane has gone 16,000 hours without a Class A incident while in development? If the plane is a dud, where are the current pilots that are talking badly about it? Certaily there are a lot of pilots flying other planes that will bad nouth the F-35, but they do so in their own ignorance of the plane. The F-35 is so capable, it has more than 4 times the software code as the F-22. While it is not intended to compete with the F-22, it will play a much bigger, more important role. Finally, lessons learned from this plane will be used on future fighters and other aircraft. But you are woefully ignorant of what the plane is capable of now, and certainly what it will become further in the future.

Reply

curious September 4, 2014 at 6:00 pm

let's arrange a combat evaluation drill for the F-35 and the Su-35.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 5:37 am

Assuming it could be arrainged, I am certain the F-35 would defeat multple Su-35s when fitted with 6 AIM-120s, at least up to the pK average of the AIM-120. So, the missile is actually the limiting factor in this case, not the F-35. I do agree that we should be pursuing better AAMs, but based simply on production numbers, the AIM-120 is currently the worlds most imporant AAM. I would prefer to see the US to adopt the Meteor, adding US software where helpful, and using an dual active/passive AESA radar and IR seeker. That would vastly improve all our fighters, but would make the F-22 and F-35 far superior to any other current fighter, not to mention most likely future fighters.

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 3, 2014 at 8:52 pm

Its official. Naval Aviators HATE the F-35 and want the Advanced Super Hornet. The full 2014 Navy Retention Study is out:

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2014/09/full-20

Favorite paragraph:

When asked if the Joint Strike Fighter was the “right aircraft for Naval Aviation,” 60% “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed”, and 22% were neutral. Only 10% “agreed” or “strongly agreed.” Conversely, when asked if they would prefer an Advanced Super Hornet over the Joint Strike Fighter, 62% “strongly agreed” or “agreed,” and 20% were “neutral.”

Keep in mind, these guys are the experts. They put their lives on the line in the aircraft and they are more knowledgeable about the subject than anyone.

Reply

William_C1 September 4, 2014 at 4:44 am

Back in the early '90s the naval aviators wanted the Super Tomcat. They were overruled. In the end they have no control over whatever decision gets made.

The truth is naval aviation does NOT have the "right aircraft" for the next two decades with either aircraft. They need something more capable than either to clear the way for Super Hornets or JSFs to do their work.

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 4, 2014 at 6:51 am

Honestly, William, how would you even know what the right aircraft for the Navy is? How much do you know about Naval Aviation even?

RAdm Bill Moran, director of the Navy’s air warfare division, said that the Super Hornet has fully funded classified upgrades that will be good out to 2030. Are you claiming to know more than him? Did you attend the same classified briefings on aerial warfare that he did?

Reply

Mitchell Fuller September 4, 2014 at 9:22 am

A criticism of both 18 and 35 (if it ever flys operationally and this platform is its own worst enemy) is lack of range without air refueling. Also Navy is missing the power projection re range of the F-14 platform.

In a near peer / peer to peer action their strategy will be to knock the tankers out of the air.

What are your thoughts on these criticisms?

BTW, I'm sure the engine issues 14 years down the road in development in a single engine platform have the Navy feeling even more positive about the capability / reliability of this platform, especially in the vast expanses of the Pacific……..

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 4, 2014 at 2:43 pm

I asked William why he thinks he knows better than the director of the Navy's air warfare division. I don't know who you are, but this part of the thread is not meant for you. I want to hear from William.

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 6:37 am

Well, stealthy UAV tankers will likely be right around the corner. This will allow for tanking closer to the fight while remaining somewhat concealed. Either manned or unmanned stealthy tankers will be required none the less.

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 6:34 am

Did the good RAdm Bill Moran dis the F-35 also? Can't have it both ways. If you believe him on the Super Hornet, why would he be wrong on the F-35. My bet is he supports the F-35 too.

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 6, 2014 at 9:48 am

You're bet is wrong and you clearly don't know anything the nature of defense acquisition. The Navy doesn't get to decide if they stay in program, congress does. The F-35 is being forced on the Navy. The has been fighting to get out. They even asked if they could take a three year pause from the program in a sly attempt to leave, but congress refused. Military personnel that say anything that will undermine the program have their careers on the line. Even the most elementary people who follow defense are aware of this. Fighting against a military program like this has to be done sneakily and in private.

And, lastly, why is everyone commenting on this part of the thread, but William?! I only wanted to talk to him on this round. He hasn't answered my question yet.

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 5:58 am

The FA-XX will do a good job completing the picture, aspecially if the do not try to make it to juiced up with tech right out of the gate. The rumor of AI being used should only be seen as a spiral upgrade (software block) to the plane. But, the F-35 will add many capabilities to the USAF, Navy and Marines that they currently do not have.

Reply

Tiger September 4, 2014 at 7:13 am

Those Experts have zero fight hours in the "35C." There is nothing Super or advanced about the Hornet. Like a old Chevy Cavalier with a wing & big muffler added.

Reply

xXTomcatXx September 4, 2014 at 10:33 am

My thoughts exactly. Until the C variant gets into enough hands, judgement should be reserved.

Reply

FWGuy September 4, 2014 at 10:51 am

You left out the rest of the statement, which basically says most of those surveyed have never flown the F-35 and have no clue to its real capabilities. I know those that have flown are deeply impressed about the jets capabilities.

"One commenter, a JSF pilot, noted that much of the community has yet to see the JSF in action, which — when coupled with years of negative press — may be one reason for the deep skepticism about the F-35."

Reply

xXTomcatXx September 4, 2014 at 11:16 am

Keep in mind, these guys are the aviators that love the birds they're in and would happily fly it until the end of their careers. None of them have landed one on a carrier deck to make a fair comparison anyways. How much of their perception is based of media coverage of the program vs real-world experience? This is no different than asking you or I for our opinions.

Opinions are like something, everyone's got 'em.

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 4, 2014 at 2:39 pm

xXTomcatXx, FWGuy, and Tiger.

Don't all of you think the F/A-18 pilots have considered this? Now you're trying to discount their opinions? Let me get this straight, you guys are claiming to have more knowledge and better sound judgement than current Navy fighter pilots? That's the very definition of ignorance. By the way, they can't land the F-35C on a carrier deck because the jet HASN'T BEEN ABLE to land on a carrier. Or did you forget that, xXTomcatXx?

They have friends that work inside the program and they know it's going. They also know what's truly needed for Naval Aviation because they have real world experience in carrier ops. The fact that they haven't flown the aircraft doesn't bear much weight in terms of what's already known about it.

Do you seriously think you're opinion is worth the same weight as that of a current Navy fighter pilot? Really? You're gonna have to explain that one to me.

Reply

tiger September 4, 2014 at 4:29 pm

A pair of Navy gold wings does equal a opinion that is any more valid than those here who can analyze the situation. While the 35C may not be the next F-4. The plane has not even reached the fleet. Those pilots have at best done no more than read Defensetech.org

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 4, 2014 at 6:25 pm

Wow, you seriously think a pair of gold wings doesn't mean anything. You clearly have no clue what it takes to get those gold wings or how hard it is. Those pilots have friends inside the program that often keep them updated with information. They don't just read defense articles. Do you think they only have access to the same information as you? Seriously?

Big-Dean September 5, 2014 at 9:46 pm

Tiger, sitting on a couch playing video games does not make your opinion valid either

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 7:42 am

The Navy plans to start landing F-35s on a carrier any day now. Your HASN'T BEEN ABLE is based the Navy's funding and procurement program and is not based on getting the F-35 landing on a carrier at the earlierst possible time. If that was the first requirement of the F-35 program, and its not, then they would have done it in 2009 I am sure. The Navy chose the slow road.

Again, show us the pilot that transfered to the F-35 program, that still prefers the F/A-18 instead. There are a lot of pilots that are ignorant of technology they have never been introduced to. They may be the best with the plane they fly, but that speaks nothing of understanding things they know nothing about.

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 6, 2014 at 9:55 am

You mean the F-35 that was supposed to enter service in 2012? Sea trials were supposed to be done in 2015? You've just shown me you don't know ANYTHING.

Are we talking about the same program? Do you even know what's wrong with the tailhook? You know that they put it too close to the rear landing gear so that the gear presses down the wire and the hook scrapes over it right?

The easy way to fix that is to stretch the length of the fuselage so that there is more distance, but they can't do that because it would lose commonality with the other variants and cause a huge price hike so LM is trying a dozen other fixes that don't seem to be working. If the carrier trials are pushed back (which has been the pattern) that means LM has failed again. The first carrier landing was supposed to be done years ago, but LM keeps pushing the timeline back because they have failed again and again. In fact, it's highly likely that the trial will get pushed back again.

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 5:53 am

Written like a complete F-18 devotee, with no vision of the future. Black Owl, I scanned all the comments on the article in question, and virtually none of them even mentioned the F-35 or your vaunted Advanced Super Hornet. (And I am not against the Navy buying ASH if the money could be found either). Second, one snippet of the article talked about the F-35, one wonders what positive remarks on the F-35 were left out. Third, with fewer than 20 Navy pilots now flying the F-35C, it is hard to imagine that those pilots remarking on the F-35 would even know about the plane. I recall talking to an F/A-18 pilot in the around 1996 that had no idea or understanding of what an AESA radar was, while I as a non-aviator knew much more about them than he did. It is easy to be bllish about what you know, and critical about things you don't understand. I suspect that is the situation here. Finally, just reading a blog by someone going as cdrsalamander tells you a lot. Try reading the AirInternational special on the F-35. It is a critical and complete look at the plane that is very enlightening.

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 6, 2014 at 10:00 am

wpnexp, your past posts just now have shown me that you have such a lack of knowledge of this subject that I won't debate you because you have some SERIOUS reading to do before I can take you seriously.

I bet you didn't even click the link in the blog and examine the studies yourself. I used the blog's page because it summed up the part of the study that I wanted to focus on. I don't actually follow that blog, but the link it has leads directly to the Navy's website where the study results are open for viewing.

I'm not going to comment on anything else you post until you've shown me you actually have an understanding of this material. By the way, a private conversation you had with a pilot all the way back in 1996 is a poor source for an argument in 2014.

Reply

Mark September 7, 2014 at 9:19 pm

If you had watched the video I posted you would know the tail hook issue was solved by doing two basic things. 1 they sharpened the hook and applied more downforce. Testing is complete. What is next will come in the next few months. They will be taking them to the carrier.

Reply

JayB September 3, 2014 at 11:01 pm

Eight years after first flight, and with one hundred airframes procured, the flight test team performs a two-second maneuver designed to test the g-force performance of the F-35. Result: The airframe violently burns to the ground. (Luckily, the test pilot managed to escape unharmed – Thank you, God.)

I don't know whether to laugh, or commit suicide. This program makes Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet seem like a feel-good story. I'm sorry about the gloom, but this aircraft development and aquisition program is the most botched in military history.

Reply

NathanS September 4, 2014 at 1:19 am

This is hardly anything new – and especially for Pratt & Whitney who have been down this road before.

Even after the official launch of the Boeing 747, accelerating too quickly caused the Pratt & Whitney engines to explode. Pratt & Whitney were very slow moving in providing a fix. So Boeing decided to take the CEO of Pratt & Whitney for a test ride. While in the air, the test pilot said, "I want to show you something", and pulled the throttle of engine 1 to full, and the engine exploded. He looked at the CEO who was visibly shaken, and put Engine 4 to full throttle, and it exploded. He put his hand on Engine 3, but the CEO stopped him, and said, "Okay, okay, I'll make sure it gets fixed". Within a week they had a fix to the problem.

And surprise, surprise – the jacket of the turbine blades did not provide enough room for the blades to expand due to heat. Sounds very familiar doesn't it?

As it turns out, the Boeing 747 is now considered one of the most successful commercial airliners, and the P&W engines ended up being quite reliable.

Reply

William_C1 September 4, 2014 at 4:51 am

It was a similar story with the F-15 and F100 engine although not quite so drastic failures. The F100s were prone to compressor stalls, were wearing out too quickly, and the afterburner had a bad habit of "flaming out" resulting in a hard start when it did ignite again. It took awhile to fix but the F100 has one of the best safety records for USAF engines.

Reply

xXTomcatXx September 4, 2014 at 10:36 am

Because this is the first fighter program that had to redesign it's engine…

Oh wait! The Great Engine War was our last go around. Silly me.

Reply

SMSgt Mac September 4, 2014 at 8:23 pm

It's the story of all jet engines considered 'advanced' for their time. The F135 is no different, except it is undergoing less drama than a lot of predecessors thanks to advanced design and test techniques. Earlier engines didn't have the same benefits. It's just that you're seeing a surplus of drama queens and mistaking them for real drama.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 7:56 am

JayB – You are wrong on several points. While the flight may have been used to test the aircraft, it was at Eglin, where the planes are used for training, not test. The flight did not burn up during the test but on a completely different flight, as the plane had not even lifted off when the accident occurred (which allowed the pilot to avoid ejecting to his luck. The plane didn't burn to the ground either, and many parts will be salvaged for use in other planes. Most of the very expensive avionics likely survived. It is hardly the most botched program in history, but certainly is very ambicious. Things like the Goblin fighter and the nuclear bomber, were far more bizarre. The F-104 built for many of our allies were known as flying coffins. Consider the A-10 Flying Dorito if you want a botched program, this is not a botched program. Even the great P-1 Mustang was not successful, until it was matched with the Merlin engine. Making the plane better will take time, and many testers are doing their best to make it that way. But to have the best plane, it has to be tested completely. It is good that the plane will be the most tested plane in history as it will make it one of the most effective. But, testing is about finding problems and fixing them, not sticking your head in the sand and ignoring them.

Reply

Bronco46 September 3, 2014 at 11:19 pm

Many weapons systems have developmental problems like these. The one that cost the most lives would have to be the M-16; which is now a well respected weapon, that many different calibers have been based on. The P-51 was also a dud, for a while. And there have been may other systems that needed time and research to perfect. Granted these are expensive but for this level of technology; with the level of government subsidies seen in Europe.

Reply

LPF September 4, 2014 at 7:11 am

The P-51 was a dud due to lower power of the original engine, but it was not lethal

Reply

Mitchell Fuller September 3, 2014 at 11:39 pm

What has wings but can't fly? The F-35. As a contractor in Fort Worth this joke was told to me by an LM employee………

Reply

Doc September 4, 2014 at 1:54 am

The Eastern Lubber Grasshopper. But, it’s toxic, brightly colored and smelly. Unlike the F-35.

Reply

Mitch S. September 4, 2014 at 9:36 am

Chickens too.
But they taste good when they get fried.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 7:58 am

So, how is it that the plane has over 18,000 flight hours? Pretty stupid remark I would think.

Reply

Mitchell Fuller September 6, 2014 at 10:08 am

Hey don't blame the messenger the joke was told to me by an LM employee at Fred's off 7th St in Fort Worth over a couple of Shiner Bocks. And btw is the fleet currently flying? No, it's been grounded, and test fleet is flying limited hours under restrictions.

What concerns me is joke was told to me by a manufacturer's employee. This platform is its own worst enemy and 14 years down the line not ready to even fly.

Reply

Tiger September 4, 2014 at 7:01 am

"Pratt & Whitney has halted further deliveries of the F135 engine amid plans to sue a supplier for providing “suspect” titanium."

"You mean the guy in the green hoddie under the tracks is a bad titanium dealer? I thought it was pure stuff?" Says the THe P&W guy buying it by the dime bags at 3am……..

Reply

josh.p September 4, 2014 at 7:04 am

Omg… what is it with the f-35? It seems like just one problem after another is just happening with this thing. anybody thinks we should have continued production of the f-22 raptors?

Reply

Tiger September 4, 2014 at 7:05 am

Not really. 1) the F-22 does not fill the mission. 2) It is just as buggy. 3) Has yet to do crap anything in action.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 8:05 am

Yet, the F-22 should have remained in production even to this day in small numbers. The plane had great potential for specialty modes. The FB-22 was a great idea – with 30 or so SDBs. A two seater designed to control UCAVs in battle whould have been great also.

Reply

Scott September 4, 2014 at 9:54 am

You do realize the F22 and F35 serve 2 completely different roles right?

Reply

Dfens September 5, 2014 at 11:50 am

And that the F-22 uses 2 engines to carry less fuel and fewer weapons…

Reply

fly4vino September 4, 2014 at 8:37 am

Sadly the military seems to be infected by the same bulls_itspeak that flows from the White House on an hourly basis

"Bogdan declined to say it was a “total loss” because he said the program office plans to reuse parts that are salvageable.

Gen Bogan – If I borrowed your car and returned it in a wheelbarrow of smoking parts you would be insulted if I claimed I had not totalled your car because the rear view mirror was usable after the glass was replaced

Yes, I know you don't want the press to be able to say the $XXX million dollar airplane was a total loss.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 8:01 am

Most of the very expensive avionics are still salvagable. This represents the major expenses involved with the plane.

Reply

009 September 4, 2014 at 9:44 am

To think this is a single engine aircraft-SCARY!

Reply

tiger September 4, 2014 at 4:42 pm

Big deal. This is 2014, not 1954. Engines have come a long way. Nobody at Boeing would put 8 jets on a B-52 today.

Reply

curious September 4, 2014 at 5:56 pm

Then why put 2 engines in the F-22? Reduce it to one.

Reply

SMSgt Mac September 4, 2014 at 8:26 pm

Different technology states and different design objectives.

Reply

camden September 4, 2014 at 5:12 pm

as long as the ejection system works and the parachute cooperates, a bad engine is not that big a deal – it's not like the F-35s are going to be used in real combats against a country with a real air force. LOL

/ semi-sarc

Reply

Rich September 4, 2014 at 10:40 am

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking going on. Just look into the history of some of the "Century Series" fighters and see how many of them crashed during development and early deployment.

Reply

NRO September 4, 2014 at 1:31 pm

Of course there's lots of Monday quarterbacking occurring. It's OUR taxpayer dollars being spent here and since we're paying the bills, we certainly have a say in this program.

Reply

SMSgt Mac September 4, 2014 at 8:36 pm

You DO realize the engine is still in final stages of development, and this is when you want to be finding and solving problems? You ARE aware that many conditions can't be replicated or even known about until AFTER the planes are flying? Thought not.

Novices in mathematics, science, or engineering are forever demanding infallible, universal, mechanical methods for solving problems. -J. R. Pierce

Reply

Ben_RG September 4, 2014 at 12:35 pm

I saw on another site that Pratt & Whitney are complaining that the titanium they've been using in the engines is of too low quality. I thought that this might explain the issue with the turbine blades. However, this article seems to indicate a design fault in the F135 itself. Given that Lockheed and Pratt are 10 years into this project, it doesn't say much for their quality control standards that issues like this are only now being identified and then only when a test aircraft is destroyed.

Reply

tiger September 4, 2014 at 4:39 pm

The guy in the green hoodie said it was good stuff…

Reply

Rod September 4, 2014 at 5:57 pm

I wonder if the stress imposed by the high g maneuver caused the blade to elastically deform and rub on the surrounding material. Once you get friction, you get heat. Heat could have caused the metal to creep and permanently deform; it could have also expanded the blade and put it into compression, causing micro-fractures. Either way, that leads to more friction and more heat.

These issues can usually be predicted using mechanical properties obtained from vendor; the performance of the alloy may have been exaggerated or it could have been produced improperly.

I imagine high g maneuvers are difficult to test in a lab and is the reason why they never noticed the issue.

Reply

NRO September 4, 2014 at 1:30 pm

Just remember, the F-35's engine is single-sourced to Pratt & Whitney. The Program Office decided to cancel the second engine sourcing to save money.

Reply

SMSgt Mac September 4, 2014 at 8:38 pm

And just remember when that happened the F136 was well behind the F135 in development and it was having its own similar problems simultaneously. So what?
The conditions that brought us the first Great Engine War aren't present today. Well, except for GE trying to stir up some business.

Reply

tribulationtime September 4, 2014 at 2:50 pm

100 F-35, 150 engines, and 8.3 bn worth production contract and F-35 Fighter Aircraft CAN PULL G´s TOO LONG. I find hard to belive how this program is run. I promiss I have real curiosity ¿What Military buy when they select between both proposals?

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 8:09 am

The engine will be OK. It has gone through many hi-g tests and high AoA tests too. One accident is not enough to stop a whole program.

Reply

William_C1 September 4, 2014 at 5:26 pm

I do wish they'd give more details about the specific maneuver in question the aircraft did. Without such details you have the usual suspects going "lol F-35 can't do a simple turn".

Reply

Tony D September 5, 2014 at 5:44 pm

It seems just turning on the engine will cause a fire. Ten years of research and building the engine wasn't enough. How about using a model they have on the shelf that they know works.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 8:11 am

The F-135 is actually a growth model of the F-119, so it is somewhat off the shelf. After 16,000 hours, it is pretty good proof that "simply turning on the engine does not cause a fire.

Reply

Mark September 4, 2014 at 5:35 pm

Here is what is being done to fix this issue.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-lock

Reply

johnny paycheck September 4, 2014 at 6:56 pm

A single engine fighter jet that under high stress may have an uncontained turbine failure into the fuel cell. Yep, let’s buy a bunch of those.

Reply

curious September 4, 2014 at 10:53 pm

they already did, and they are going to buy more, like a couple of thousands more.

isn't it insane?

Reply

Big-Dean September 4, 2014 at 8:45 pm

Pigs can't fly, that saying has proven to be so true!

Reply

FedUpWithWaste September 5, 2014 at 1:02 am

The F-35 is a hornswoggle. Military- Industrial crap. Dump it, upgrade our Super Hornets,
F-16s, F-15s, etc. Why, we could even build NEW versions of the aforementioned aircraft, and have perfectly serviceable. 4.5 gen weapon platforms! And save billions which we are going to need extirpating ISIL.

Reply

Dfens September 5, 2014 at 12:00 pm

Yes, because the next program will be better. We will do it right next time. And if we don't we will continue to do it over and over and over again for as long as it takes (centuries even) until we finally build a single airplane! That will show these greedy contractors — as they laugh their asses off at how stupid the US taxpayer is. You didn't know they make a profit off of development? Maybe you should buy a clue?

Reply

oblatt22 September 5, 2014 at 4:40 am

The F-35 turns like a whale, a whale that has a heart attack when it tries to go round the corner.

No wonder the F-35 pilots motto is "eject at the merge"

Reply

Dfens September 5, 2014 at 12:00 pm

But the next program will be better. It always is.

Reply

William_C1 September 4, 2014 at 5:12 pm

Good out to 2030, but what does he mean by good? Good for what roles? Generally speaking it will be good enough for a lot of potential adversaries, but it won't have the edge against the latest Russian and Chinese equipment.

The JSF is a step forward in many regards but even that doesn't have first rate performance in the air-to-air role. The USAF has the Raptor to do most of the work clearing the skies but the USN has no equivalent. When the Tomcat was retired they also lost a lot of their capability to intercept bombers at long range before they fire their AShMs.

The range of the JSF and Super Hornet is respectable, but there are many out there who believe we need greater range as tankers are too vulnerable.

Reply

William_C1 September 4, 2014 at 5:22 pm

What are these Super Hornet upgrades likely to be? It's very likely there will be upgrades to the radar, sensors, ECM gear, and other avionics. Some further LO treatment and CFTs as seen on that demonstrator may also be likely, as well as the improved engines. A bit leap could be made over the missiles we're currently using but this applies to other aircraft than just the Super Hornet.

The Russians and Chinese aren't standing still however. We've all seen their prototype fighters with extensive LO features and they are introducing AESA radars and other systems comparable to what we currently have. If our Advanced Super Hornet goes up against the eventual Sukhoi T-50 it simply won't have the best odds.

Reply

Ben_RG September 4, 2014 at 5:30 pm

It depends just how 'blue sky' these upgrades are. If someone creates a LIDAR with Radar-like detection radius, then the existing LO technology would instantaneously become obsolete!

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 4, 2014 at 5:44 pm

William, you dodged my question entirely. Do you think you know more than the director of the Navy's air warfare division? That's a simple yes or no.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't know exactly what the upgrades are either, but I know that RAdm Bill Moran knows and odds are he also knows what the Russians and Chinese are making better than you too. I'll take his word over yours any day, unless you can prove to me some reason I should think otherwise.

Reply

citanon September 5, 2014 at 12:51 am

BlackOwl18E, you seem to be new to Pentagon speak. Moran was being very vague with his words. "Good" can mean any number of things, as William has pointed out. The Admiral, in fact, used his Admiral Fu to say nothing while sounding like he said something significant.

Reply

oblatt22 September 5, 2014 at 4:38 am

These guys are just echoing Lockheeds PR. Lockheed can no longer credibyl claim that the aircraft if any good so they have shifted to delaying tactics and claiming that its too early to tell. Soon they will claim well we have hundreds of them too late to cancel now.

Its rubbish, the F-35 is a piece of craap no matter how much you spin the data. The only people who are still saing the craap smells sweet are Lockheed shills.

Reply

Atomic Walrus September 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm

Pilots have a very specialized set of skills and training, but most of them aren't experts in aerospace engineering. They'll certainly have an opinion on aircraft, but it's a lot less meaningful if they have no experience with the actual aircraft they're talking about. (For example, you've never heard a group of F-16 pilots trashing F-15s?) That's not a knock against the guys who earn those wings, it's just a fact that highly specialized knowledge in one area doesn't automatically provide knowledge of other highly specialized areas.

Reply

Dfens September 5, 2014 at 11:39 am

It won't matter if our F-18's get their asses blown out of the sky, because they are more cost effective.

Reply

Jazz September 5, 2014 at 10:52 pm

citanon, I highly doubt he would be promoting the Super Hornet like that when the F-35C is on the line just to use Admiral Fu. I'm also sure his definition of "good" holds a much higher standard than anyone else's definition. He used other terms like "very significant" to describe the upgrades even. You have to take it in context to determine if it's pentagon speak or not.

Reply

Dfens September 5, 2014 at 11:42 am

Hmm, then there are those of us who say they may be crap, but they're the best crap you're going to get given the circumstances under which you buy crap. Why don't you stop paying these companies more for crap, and then cancel the F-35 program? You know, as opposed to doing the same thing over and over again, each time expecting a better result.

Reply

Dfens September 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm

Bingo! But the extra large ego comes standard regardless of the type of fighter jet.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 6:41 am

Doubt you will get a LIDAR with a range anywhere near 100 miles or more even if it is a perfectly cloudless day. The power needed for such a range would be vast to say the least. At that point the LIDAR itself would actually be weapons grade.

Reply

wpnexp September 6, 2014 at 6:47 am

Regardless, the FA-18 is old technology. Upgrades are limited to certain aspects of a plane, not the whole plane. That is why the F-35 represents the future. It is not perfect, but it will be very effective when operational. Pilots that fly it say it is already (even at this test stage) better that other planes they have flown ie the F-16, F-15 and F/A-18. Secondly, you need to tell us if RAdm Moran prefers the FA-18 over the F-35. Haven't heard that so far.

Reply

Mitchell Fuller September 6, 2014 at 11:07 am

Owl, it's a public forum, everyone is free to comment on any post.

Reply

Atomic Walrus September 8, 2014 at 12:52 pm

So how are those Navy A-12, NATF, and Common Support Aircraft programs going? Based on the initial program plans, they should've been in service for a decade or so by now.

Reply

wpnexp September 9, 2014 at 3:03 pm

No, the Navy specifically made themselve the lowest priority for fielding. If the Navy had made fielding an early priority, they would be flying from carriers by now. The tail hook was a fairly easy fix, was just a redesign issue. In fact, the problem has fairly been solved. Like I said, the issue is mostly the fact that the Navy made the F-35 a lower priority that the Marines and the Air Force. While the tailhook was a minor issue, it would have been solved years ago if the Navy made the F-35 its first priority.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: