F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

fretburner

Banned Member
well, last time I checked, the Navy didn't exactly have a shortage of aircraft.
they'd bought plenty of the '18E/Fs...
No shortage now, but there could be a shortage later.

The delays in the -35C will force the USN to buy more SHs. This is NOT ideal for them. And so I believe, if I'm reading the article correctly, that if they're forced to buy more SHs, why no just cut the number of -35Cs to the "minimum"?
 

NICO

New Member
I think USN estimates there will be a shortage around 2017 to 2022, around 150 fighters or so if memory serves me right. Lots of old airframes out there. Depends on how many SH USN buys from here on out, where F35C will be and don't forget that current SH are getting beat up pretty badly flying ops in Afghanistan. They are using them up faster than anticipated. USN will need to replace old block SHs with newer blocks or buy F35C which might be a long wait.

I don't want to get in trouble with proF35 crowd but this really should be no surprise with all the economic difficulties the US is facing that F35C and B are being looked at. Personally, I have no problem with getting rid of B version and USN/Marines buying C version only.
 

fretburner

Banned Member
I also wonder if the USN does cut the -B and keep the -C to the minimum, will they develop the SH to the "International" version? The one they're proposing to co-develop with Japan?
 

jack412

Active Member
Last edited:

wormhole

New Member
The report that the F-354 fleet would cost US$1 trillion to sustain over its lifetime created quite a stir.. using the same formulas to compute costs, its been pointed out that extending the life of legacy jets would cost 4 times as much didn't seem to generate as much passion,, I wonder why?

One high-ranking USN admiral characterized the current SH as "gen 4.2ish".. you can throw money at the plane but the reality is its design dates back to the '70s and it will always compare unfavorable vs. the F-35C. If the Indian AF rejected the jet, there must be a lesson in there somewhere.
 

fretburner

Banned Member
fretburner, I think the problem is that you are reading B. Sweetman and taking what he writes at face value, IMO sadly he is only a small step above APA
I read B. Sweetman's posts in AW but I also read others. And I have a mind of my own.

Thing is, the budget cuts are real, and I'm skeptical that F-35Bs or Cs are going to be cheaper to buy and operate, especially since the current and past conflicts did NOT require stealth for the overwhelming majority of the sorties. Dessert Storm 1 needed the F-117 mainly to hit Iraqi command and control (non-stealthy Wild Weasels did most of the SEAD). The conflicts after that only needed the B-2s. Unless you envision the US getting into an all-out war with China and Russia, you will probably not need 500 F-35s. If the US will invade a country with S-300/400 SAMs and T-50/J-20, it's doubtful that that country will have 100 of those types. And by that time, the US will probably have a 6th Gen Fighter in place or "disposable" UAVs. After those SAMs and fighters are neutralized, then you would probably want to use bomb trucks like the F-15Es versus F-35s.

Do note that I'm not someone who screams "death to the F-35" here. I just asked IF one of the variants are cut and surviving variant's buys cut to minimum, THEN what?
 

JoeMcFriday

New Member
F-35 Program Fixes Wing Problem - Defense News

F-35 Program Fixes Wing Problem
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 1 Sep 2011 17:40

Technicians with the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program have found and corrected a problem with part of the aircraft's wing structure.

As part of the fifth-generation stealth fighter's test program, the jet's structure must be tested to ensure it meets its fatigue life requirement, a standard requirement for all new aircraft.

"During this analysis, a shortfall in the predicted durability life of the Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) and Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) wing forward root rib was identified," said JSF program spokesman Joe Dellavedova in an emailed statement.

Lockheed Martin is leading an international program to develop and manufacture the single-engine stealth combat jet for the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps and allied military forces.

The root rib is an aluminum part located where the leading edge of the aircraft's wing meets the jet's fuselage. It is required to have a life of 8,000 flight hours, and was slated to be tested to twice that, or 16,000 hours. But during testing, the root rib developed cracks at just 2,800 hours.

Program officials had suspected the problem, Dellavedova said, but proceeded with testing, in coordination with the U.S. Air Force, to gather more data.

"The crack is consistent with analytical predictions, both in terms of location and life," he said.

This sort of problem is not unusual in the development of any new aircraft, said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va.

In most aircraft programs, dozens of such problems are found and routinely corrected. That includes civilian aircraft such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787 airliners, Thompson said.

Dellavedova said the JSF program has developed retrofit plans and a redesigned full-life forward root rib for both variants.

"Resolving durability test article findings is a well-understood process. Durability testing is conducted early in the development of any new aircraft to avoid costly sustainment issues later in the life of the aircraft," he said. "Problems are found and corrected in development rather than fleet service."

In the meantime, the affected F-35s will be inspected regularly until they are retrofitted with the fix, as is always the case with any aircraft.

The new modified forward root rib design will be incorporated into production planes from the beginning of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 5 for both CTOL and STOVL aircraft. A total of 30 CTOL and 34 STOVL LRIP aircraft will need to be modified to fly for their full fatigue life.

This particular modification has been grouped with the existing retrofit requirements to reduce both the cost of the modification and the time that aircraft spend in deeper maintenance, Dellavedova said. It is expected that the forward root rib modification will take about 45 days to complete." ENDS

[Bold by Mac]

There is so much double talk by Dellavedova, yet it seems the F35c is not affected so its root rib must be satisfactory, for now at least.

This begs the question if, as he says, they suspected the problem and accurately predicted the failure and its timeline WHY did they continue building jets and not use the F35C part. The fix for 60 plus jets isn't cheap and maybe the F35c part isn't interchangeable, so much for commonality.

Its been reported elsewhere that he said no new costs will be incurred in repairs. Why? Because the cost of this fix has already been paid for, hidden amongst the recently announced over runs, so no 'new' money is required to fix these 60 plus jets. There's a saving in that?

I think the F35 capabilities are great and much needed but I'm not a fan of how the program to build/test them has been structured and managed.

Mac
 

wormhole

New Member
So a total of 64 jets out of a possibly more than 2000-plus to be built will have to be retrofitted? I guess that's why they test them..
 

jeffb

Member
There is so much double talk by Dellavedova, yet it seems the F35c is not affected so its root rib must be satisfactory, for now at least.

This begs the question if, as he says, they suspected the problem and accurately predicted the failure and its timeline WHY did they continue building jets and not use the F35C part. The fix for 60 plus jets isn't cheap and maybe the F35c part isn't interchangeable, so much for commonality.

Its been reported elsewhere that he said no new costs will be incurred in repairs. Why? Because the cost of this fix has already been paid for, hidden amongst the recently announced over runs, so no 'new' money is required to fix these 60 plus jets. There's a saving in that?

I think the F35 capabilities are great and much needed but I'm not a fan of how the program to build/test them has been structured and managed.

Mac
That's obvious isn't it? Have you looked at the different F35s? The F35C uses a different wing... Its not a part its an entire wing. Pretty basic stuff. People still desperate to find problems in this project so they can make some sweeping statements about its "structure and management"...
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
@JoeMcFriday: There are several thing that account for the confusion.

1. It was not the initial failure that was predicted, but the progression of the failure once detected.

2. They had to keep the test going in order to fully understand the failure and predict it's life. They do this in order to accurately design both the patch (for existing F-35s) and the new part for the production line.

3. They did not stop the production line in order to wait for a new part because that would have cost even more money than doing a retrofit. Since we do not know the timeline involved we cannot estimate how many F-35s were being built while the crack was being tested.
 

JoeMcFriday

New Member
So a total of 64 jets out of a possibly more than 2000-plus to be built will have to be retrofitted? I guess that's why they test them..
Or look at it another way, 100% of all A & B jets built through LRIP 4 will have to spend 45 days each being rebuilt, meanwhile keep flying them as they are being monitored, I hope not by the same people who designed them.

Another way would be to say that every A & B jet completed before LRIP 5 will have to be returned and redone as the structure appears inadequate. We really are fortunate this was discovered so early is one point of view, if one disregards the magnitude of the initial design flaw.

A design team that could only get 2600hrs out of a design requirement of 16000hrs really didn't even get remotely close to getting a key part's design right.

That magnitude of miscalculation slipping through oversight and simulation doesn't instil confidence in me and raises the probability of more design flaws.

Having 2000 more airframes to pick up design flaws on is not my idea of quality control or safety net. The 64 jets are not a % of 2K, they are a % of 64.

I'm old fashioned, I know, but vehicle components should be as thoroughly tested as possible BEFORE production and not concurrent with it. A good design team comes a lot closer to their design goals than this effort, especially with the computing power available to-day.

I am in favor of the F35, I'm not in favor of the way the program's run.

Cheers,
Mac
 

JoeMcFriday

New Member
That's obvious isn't it? Have you looked at the different F35s? The F35C uses a different wing... Its not a part its an entire wing. Pretty basic stuff. People still desperate to find problems in this project so they can make some sweeping statements about its "structure and management"...
I'm more aware than you might think and I read your post. The following line is from mine:-

"The fix for 60 plus jets isn't cheap and maybe the F35c part isn't interchangeable, so much for commonality."

I'll admit though, I didn't know just where the wings began to differ, ie at the fuselage or outboard of it but allowed for that as you can plainly see.

I don't know who the 'people' are you are referring to, I'm not inventing problems for LockMart, just commenting on them.

I would prefer the F35 proceed with no more surprises and be a great success. That doesn't mean I switch my brain off and accept every word that a contractor says as Gospel.

If you find no problems with the structure and management of the program then you are at odds with the US Govt. for a start, I'll leave them to issue itemised statements.

Mac
 

JoeMcFriday

New Member
@JoeMcFriday: There are several thing that account for the confusion.

1. It was not the initial failure that was predicted, but the progression of the failure once detected.

2. They had to keep the test going in order to fully understand the failure and predict it's life. They do this in order to accurately design both the patch (for existing F-35s) and the new part for the production line.

3. They did not stop the production line in order to wait for a new part because that would have cost even more money than doing a retrofit. Since we do not know the timeline involved we cannot estimate how many F-35s were being built while the crack was being tested.
Mate,

I understand 2 & 3,
3/ I suggested they knew about the problem some months ago, at least long enough to factor it into the over runs payments. It clearly wasn't long enough to replace the part before LRIP 5.

1/ I differ slightly here on the nature of the test.

I understand the test was to destruction, therefore a failure was certain. The failure was supposed to happen a lot closer to 16000hrs though as that is the design requirement. 2600/16000hrs I regard as a major failure of design, others may not.

I suggest the cracks so early at 2600hrs were neither scripted or expected though to me Dellavedovas semantics suggest the opposite.

I agree that once detected the "progression of the failure" must be predictable enough for them to maintain assembly and flight ops.

That of course is the call they and the Air Force have made.

Cheers,
Mac
 

wormhole

New Member
I'm old fashioned, I know, but vehicle components should be as thoroughly tested as possible BEFORE production and not concurrent with it. A good design team comes a lot closer to their design goals than this effort, especially with the computing power available to-day.

I am in favor of the F35, I'm not in favor of the way the program's run.

Cheers,
Mac
That would drag development on even longer as components would a significant amount oif time to work out all the bugs before you could progress to the next step. In a project as complex as the F-35 with so many groundbreaking tech in the works, it would be a cumbersome and expensive approach.
The spiral-block model actually employed allows for concurrent development with testing..its not foolproof but its flexible and it works.. you just have to accept that there will be surprises down the road that will have to be attended to.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If you guy's actually read back through the thread you will find that this problem had been identified a long time ago, it is not a major issue, they continued with the part and testing to gain valuable data and not to hinder initial LRIP airframes. I don't understand how some people think that not only this issue but previous issues are a problem ?
Every time something happens it is the end of the world as we know it, obviously most are not old enough to have seen, read or be involved in what has happened to previous aircraft development ? The JSF Project has had less developmental issues than many still flying aircraft that I can think of and yet people on here are putting these very same aircraft up as an alternative ?
The thread goes quiet for a couple of days so a little bit of trolling brings up old information just to start the same pathetic argument, get over it, you are now running the risk of what was a good thread being shut down
 

JoeMcFriday

New Member
If you guy's actually read back through the thread you will find that this problem had been identified a long time ago, it is not a major issue, they continued with the part and testing to gain valuable data and not to hinder initial LRIP airframes. I don't understand how some people think that not only this issue but previous issues are a problem ?
Every time something happens it is the end of the world as we know it, obviously most are not old enough to have seen, read or be involved in what has happened to previous aircraft development ? The JSF Project has had less developmental issues than many still flying aircraft that I can think of and yet people on here are putting these very same aircraft up as an alternative ?
The thread goes quiet for a couple of days so a little bit of trolling brings up old information just to start the same pathetic argument, get over it, you are now running the risk of what was a good thread being shut down
Aussienscale

I think you're overstating the case a bit here. Trolls? End of the world as we know it? What pathetic argument in particular?

Just how long ago would that article be dealt with in this thread? It was only published that day.

I've followed the thread from the beginning and don't recall the wing root issue being confirmed by LM, would appreciate you showing me where it is dealt with.

Before you accuse me of being anti-F35 refresh your memory with this post #1390, for example. I'm not Anti-F35 and definitely not a troll!!

I don't know the age of the majority you refer to but I was around and working by the 1960s and though I've seen plenty, I don't assume everyone else is ignorant or uninformed and their different opinion is therefore invalid.

I posted that article here because it was published, because it was new and because it concerned the F35 NOT because "The thread goes quiet for a couple of days" and to do a bit of pathetic trolling.

I responded politely to those that addressed me and didn't respond with any inflammatory follow ups.

I suggest I'm not the one with any problem to get over.

Mac
 

jack412

Active Member
I read it as a more general thing and not directed solely to you, the last couple of pages have put some rather questionable views from various posters

I think what he is getting at is that you will find that the article you cite is in fact old information repackaged, the structural tests is documented and discussed previously here, use the search function and read what has been posted to see if you have a new point to add
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Aussienscale

I think you're overstating the case a bit here. Trolls? End of the world as we know it? What pathetic argument in particular?

Just how long ago would that article be dealt with in this thread? It was only published that day.

I've followed the thread from the beginning and don't recall the wing root issue being confirmed by LM, would appreciate you showing me where it is dealt with.

Before you accuse me of being anti-F35 refresh your memory with this post #1390, for example. I'm not Anti-F35 and definitely not a troll!!

I don't know the age of the majority you refer to but I was around and working by the 1960s and though I've seen plenty, I don't assume everyone else is ignorant or uninformed and their different opinion is therefore invalid.

I posted that article here because it was published, because it was new and because it concerned the F35 NOT because "The thread goes quiet for a couple of days" and to do a bit of pathetic trolling.

I responded politely to those that addressed me and didn't respond with any inflammatory follow ups.

I suggest I'm not the one with any problem to get over.

Mac
mmmmm interesting response, obviously hit a nerve there Joe ?
If I have something to say directly to you I would either address or quote you in my response, You seem to have a constant need to point out your pro stance on this, not sure why, we have read your post's.
You also seem to be taking some rather big assumptions as to the intent of my post and respond with material that was not in my original post
If you have a bit of a play with the search function you will find plenty of discussion some time ago about this, yes the link was a new report, but on old information, which are the anti F35 mob "Trolling", discussion on these and other issues with the JSF are also located in the RAAF thread, the JC1 Sea Trial, and also the now closed Hypothetical Carrier for the RAN thread IIRC :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top