For your convenience, the report is presented below.
It is damning on a large scale. The report uses pithy language. Just putting that out there for some of the normalisation of deviance fans who may think, “well the truth may lie somewhere in between.” Where "in between" is a distance between reports like this and a Lockheed Martin press release. There are many less grey areas in the world of engineering. Poor management has made the F-35 program an outlier in every sense of the word.
It is hard to highlight the report because there are so many negative statements against the F-35 program. I will try a few.
Because of extreme difficulties, software block definitions are being lowered. Yet again. Some items that were supposed to be in one block are kicked down the road into the next one. The program has a history of this. Now, they are against a wall.
If you were not sure if Gates was right about putting the F-35B STOVL on “probation”, this report will tell you why. No amount of idiotic marketing by the USMC's General Amos can can paper over all of the engineering problems.
With most other designs, they put the engine in a position where its exhaust will not damage the aircraft. Because of center-of-gravity needs to meet the STOVL requirement the engine is located farther forward. The F-35 has its exhaust in a place that puts limits on what you can do with the aircraft (speed and sustained power) or you will burn off pieces of the horizontal stabs.
Brilliant.
Want some quotes? Hard to pick. Try this:
Operational Assessment
The JSF Operational Test Team completed an operational assessment of the F-35 program and determined that it is not on track to meet operational effectiveness or operational suitability requirements. The JSF Operational Test Team assessed the program based on measured and predicted performance against requirements from the JSF Operational Requirements Document, which was re-validated in 2009.
The program—as a reason to exist--is finished. Some of us are just waiting for those who are a little slow, to get a clue or two.
Hopefully an outcome from the failure of the F-35 will make various program leaders and politicians realise we have a lot of talent engaged in building the wrong aircraft. The fix is to reorganise that talent to build the right aircraft. It would be good if some decision-makers that are able to take this fact on board and lead a transition toward a recovery, stand up and make themselves heard.
17 comments:
I've already posted about on the earlier F-35B thread, but anyway - check out the chart of the issues with the 'B'. Seems the only way to keep bits from falling off is to make sure that: "flight not to exceed 400 KCAS below 18K ft and 0.5 minimum g-load"
JRL
EDIT: "...about *this* on..."
Time to start using the preview function...
JRL
Well, that's the problem of this design, right? The B poisoning all other versions with CoG limitations, limiting growth capability, &c.
Though I have to say under the given circumstances they did a wonderful job area-ruling it.
My song stands:
(1) -- Too big to fail on an industrial level. That's not the more important question than the military. If the F-35 goes under LMCO will follow and then the U.S. is a one-horse town called Boeing. Cause I don't think the govt would prop up NGCO to restart its tacair business.
(2) -- The death of the F-35 would also be the death of tacair as we know it. In the short term it would have to mean massive additional SHornet buys, but in the longer term it would probably mean the USAF is split in two, with one part returning to its (near)-strategic routes with a 2025 NGAD/FAXX, and the other part going unmanned.
Yip, edit - should say:
(1) -- Too big to fail on an industrial level. That's NOW the more important question than the military.
This is an interesting statement considering the massive amount of marketing bullshit from Lockmart to date touting the F-35 "sensor fusion" and radar:
"Overall, the program has demonstrated very little missions systems capability thus far in flight test,. In fact, the program has not delivered some of its intended initial training capability, such as effective and consistent radar performance."
Throw in the useless helmet display, and lagging software development and we have a winner guys (NOT)!
Here's another nasty bit:
"63 aircraft produced under Lockheed’s first four initial production contracts will require significant numbers of structural modifications and upgrades to attain the planned service life and full combat capability."
So for the JSF partner nations and the US, how much will it cost to fix the mistake jets that Lockmart is churning out?
The mythical affordability of the JSF Program remain just that.
Wow! Almost too many unresolved issues to comprehend but several things hit me: 1. "the total mission systems verification to date is only approximately 4% of that planned". 2. Low reliability compared to the operational requirement (only 1/5 to 1/3 of the planned mean time before critical failure). "the program has a significant challenge to provide sufficient reliability growth to meet the operational requirement". 3. It's not at all ready for pilot training yet. So far approximately HALF of the test missions have required intervention by flight test control room personnel (read that LM engineers). 4. Engine air re-start capability is "lower than expected", requiring 320 knots min airspeed, thus necessitating a high descent rate." 5. The ALIS system is nowhere near ready to support flight ops. I'm glad I'm not a LM engineer....Many ulcers ahead!
So what will replace the worldwide abundance of F-16s? Most nations so equipped will have less funding available for replacement types over the next decade or so. More likely they would be inclined toward F-16 refurbishment than go for F-18 derivatives, even if Boeing could adequately up production to satisfy increased demand.
Huge loss of credibility (face) for the US Government in entertaining the notion of financially involving partner nations in funding development of an unproven type. Also big potential of course for legal claims in untangling the mess created via rubbery JSF offset orders for industries around the world.
The obvious solution to keep LM ticking over is to direct them to get moving post haste on F-16 enhancement options. But will the requisite leadership emerge?
It's looking like more teen series "infill" aircraft sales everyday. I don't see the US actually cancelling the F-35 program, because the technology development is important for the future, not to mention the jobs aspect. However, I think there will ultimately be a dramatic reduction in the total numbers produced and a number of partner nations either leaving the program or severely reducing their purchases. This will open the door for less expensive gen 4.5 aircraft.
Canada originally had 132 F-18's (80's and 90's), then reduced to 80 modernized F-18's (2000's), with the proposed 65 F-35's, it really doesn't make sense for such a vast country plus our peacekeeping/NATO roles to have such few planes. There are so many different air missions that can be flown, the vast majority not requiring stealth that there should clearly be a mix of aircraft.
Cancellation of the F-35 program is a 60 billion dollar loss, but not the end of the world. To recap Tacair the USAF (and USN and USMC) should be forced to accept hundreds of upgraded block III SHs and production of an upgraded larger F-22 should be resumed. Give adiitional new F-15 SEs to the USAF and we should be ok until we have 6th gen fighters figured out. I hope a President Romney will see the light.
USMC tacair will have to change. If it continues to exist in a few years it will only have land based/nuclear carrier based squadrons. The F-35B SVTOL is not going to survive the budget axe in the coming years.
An amphib carrier like can not survive on it's own in a conflict without the backing of a mainline nuclear carrier and it's airwing. Amphib carriers are also not blue water carriers and can not "stand off" at larger ranges.
The only time an amphib carrier can go it alone is against a Banana Republic military. In which case an AT-29 Super Tocano would probably be able to overwhelm the opposition.
The F-35 isn't an outlier.
This is the future of Defense contracting with an increasingly dysfunctional and corrupt Pentagon.
Look a the Comanche, the FCS, the LCS, the DDG 1000, and now the JTRS show that we are now incapable of taking a weapon through development and procurement.
Heretic here.
Man, that list of deficiencies for the B model is ... impressive. Brings to mind what Hawker Siddley realized with the P1127 and their "discovery" that the more complicated a V/STOL system is, the easier it is for something to screw up and the shorter the time between failures and the more time reigning in the hangar as a queen. With the F-35B design, Lockmart went for the most complicated design POSSIBLE ... and look what resulted, a Rube Goldberg MESS that can't operate anywhere near up to (mil)spec.
The pentagon made a serious mistake in going with the X-35 instead of the X-32 (imnsho).
The mistake was not in picking the X-35 over the X-32 - the real mistake was giving fundamental design priority to the Navy's army's airforce's impractical and grandiose yearning for a stealthy, supersonic pogo-stick. They should have been given a down-sized STOL version of the A-10 and told to damn well like it.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog...
JRL
As a compromise, I'll concur with variations of both Supperaptor's interim 'Plan B' strategy, as well as Canuckfighter's Super Tucano assessment.
@ Matthew G. Saroff
The F-35 is an outlier and biggest failed project in the world etc.
This lemon is not the future of Defence contracting with an increasingly dysfunctional and corrupt Pentagon.
The F-35 program must be cancelled.
Maybe Sukhoi will let us buy some PAK-FAs.
Hahaha that's classic on buying PAK-FA! WELL PLAYED!
Post a Comment