F-35 news roundup

[11bee]

Major cuts coming down the road and now the entire fleet is grounded due to an electrical glitch. Maybe it IS all doom and gloom?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/03/360325/f-35-fleet-grounded-after-electrical-subsystem-failure.html

[MarkW]

It's not exactly an electrical glitch.

More on potential cuts.

Edited August 5, 2011 by MarkW

[MarkW]

Here's one for all you PAK-FA fanboys.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7184407&c=FEA&s=CVS

SEOUL - South Korea's arms agency has eased radar cross-section requirements in its F-X III fighter jet program to entice more plane-makers to vie for the job.

That's a boon to the Boeing F-15, the Eurofighter Typhoon and possibly the Sukhoi PAK-FA; and a blow to Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II, which had been the de facto sole bidder for the purchase, worth up to 10 trillion won ($9.6 billion).

If that doesn't tell ya something, I don't know what will...

[11bee]

Here's one for all you PAK-FA fanboys.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7184407&c=FEA&s=CVS

If that doesn't tell ya something, I don't know what will...

Gee, I wonder what the odds are that SK will select any product from Europe or Russia? This is just a symbolic move and is aimed at getting the US manufacturer's to sharpen their pencils a bit.

I'm sure the PAK-FA advocates will be along shortly to tell us why this was taken out of context and how that plane is just as stealthy as the F-35.

[Mark M.]

11bee, I know this term has a negative connotation in American culture after the big economy bailouts, but the F-35 project really is "too big to fail" -- it is ingrained in the very fabric of the future of 3 of our armed forces, as well as many international air forces as well. The size and scope of the project may continue to either earn acclaim or condemnation, but it will NEVER be canned. Not after all the work has been done. All the slow points are passed and all the production is just beginning. This is the final home stretch. To even contemplate cancelling now ignores all the effort put in and ALL ramifications for the next 50 years of American armed forces.

It's pure ignorance to suggest it, so I don't put much stock in that Yahoo news report. I don't know the person, but IMO it's flat out ignorance to even suggest it. From the ground up it was built as too big to fail. It isn't just a new fighter order. It's far more complex than the F-22, or the B-2, or the B-1 where you can just "cancel" an order because it's too pricey. We literally have no other alternative that comes close to doing what this project does, and it has been groomed to replace the majority of our nation's strike/fighter force.

[Mark M.]

Major cuts coming down the road and now the entire fleet is grounded due to an electrical glitch. Maybe it IS all doom and gloom?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/03/360325/f-35-fleet-grounded-after-electrical-subsystem-failure.html

At the risk of coming off as a fanboi (I like to think I remain mostly objective), the article says this:

"In this case, the Honeywell-built integrated power package (IPP) failed during a standard engine test following a maintenance check at 08:30 on 2 August, the JPO said.

The IPP is primarily used as both a starter for the engine and a back-up electrical system, supporting the two main generators. In March, the IPP proved its worth by activating after both generators shut-down with the AF-4 still in flight. The power generated by the IPP allowed the flight control system to keep operating until the pilot landed."

Hardly a massive failure. It's a backup part, only used if 2 other power units fail, and used to start the engines. The rest were grounded as a precaution only. None of the others were mentioned to have failed the test. It's a new plane and they want to make sure all is accounted for. They have grounded more for far lesser grounds in the past.

EDIT: P.S. AF-4 was the same one that failed the test. It has already proven that it worked initially. They didn't go in and replace it or work on it or anything. That same IPP already saved this airframe. Can't assume it's a major problem without more info.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Mark M.

[MarkW]

Gee, I wonder what the odds are that SK will select any product from Europe or Russia? This is just a symbolic move and is aimed at getting the US manufacturer's to sharpen their pencils a bit.

I'm sure the PAK-FA advocates will be along shortly to tell us why this was taken out of context and how that plane is just as stealthy as the F-35.

Dude, be cool!! :o You want to get whacked by the Sukhoi Fanboy Mafia??!!

HE DIDN'T MEAN IT!! We all KNOW the PAK-FA is WAAAAAYYYY more stealthy than anything ever. Ever ever.

Everyone cool now?

(11bee, start casually backing yourself towards the door... if I say run, RUN)

[MarkW]

Hardly a massive failure. It's a backup part, only used if 2 other power units fail, and used to start the engines. The rest were grounded as a precaution only. None of the others were mentioned to have failed the test. It's a new plane and they want to make sure all is accounted for. They have grounded more for far lesser grounds in the past.

The IPP is not remotely a "backup part".

EDIT: P.S. AF-4 was the same one that failed the test. It has already proven that it worked initially. They didn't go in and replace it or work on it or anything. That same IPP already saved this airframe. Can't assume it's a major problem without more info.

Edited August 5, 2011 by MarkW

[11bee]

11bee, I know this term has a negative connotation in American culture after the big economy bailouts, but the F-35 project really is "too big to fail" -- it is ingrained in the very fabric of the future of 3 of our armed forces, as well as many international air forces as well. The size and scope of the project may continue to either earn acclaim or condemnation, but it will NEVER be canned. Not after all the work has been done. All the slow points are passed and all the production is just beginning. This is the final home stretch. To even contemplate cancelling now ignores all the effort put in and ALL ramifications for the next 50 years of American armed forces.

It's pure ignorance to suggest it, so I don't put much stock in that Yahoo news report. I don't know the person, but IMO it's flat out ignorance to even suggest it. From the ground up it was built as too big to fail. It isn't just a new fighter order. It's far more complex than the F-22, or the B-2, or the B-1 where you can just "cancel" an order because it's too pricey. We literally have no other alternative that comes close to doing what this project does, and it has been groomed to replace the majority of our nation's strike/fighter force.

For what it's worth, I agree with you 100%. I don't think that they would ever pull the plug on the program but I guarantee that this option is going to be tabled by some as way to put a big dent in those upcoming budget cuts.

The real concern is that I think there inevitably will be cuts to program. It may be too big to fail but it is also to big to get through this process unscathed. Assuming there are cuts or deferred production, one has to wonder how many more reductions / delays can occur before other nations terminate their orders. That would inevitably result in cost increases and more pressure on the US to cut orders, etc, etc. Kind of a vicious circle.

And despite having no alternative to this program (which I happen to also agree with) I have no doubt that Boeing will be telling the world that their upgraded F-18 / F-15's will be just fine as cheaper substitutes for the JSF.

The next few months are going to be very interesting. Hopefully the test program stays on track with no more glitches.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I have no doubt that Boeing will be telling the world that their upgraded F-18 / F-15's will be just fine as cheaper substitutes for the JSF.

Thats a safe bet considering they have been doing it for years In the end though Boeing can only through so much external junk on an F-18 to make a generation 4.987561 fighter. The Navy knows this. They are killing time with the super bug and it was always meant as a temporary place holder. The F-22 cruises at the same speed as a super bug going full throttle. Without the F-35 the USN is an aviation "B team" and B-teams don't need so many expensive aircraft carriers, here come the cuts! At this point anyone talking about full cancellation looks uninformed or downright ignorant.

[11bee]

At the risk of coming off as a fanboi (I like to think I remain mostly objective), the article says this:

"In this case, the Honeywell-built integrated power package (IPP) failed during a standard engine test following a maintenance check at 08:30 on 2 August, the JPO said.

The IPP is primarily used as both a starter for the engine and a back-up electrical system, supporting the two main generators. In March, the IPP proved its worth by activating after both generators shut-down with the AF-4 still in flight. The power generated by the IPP allowed the flight control system to keep operating until the pilot landed."

Hardly a massive failure. It's a backup part, only used if 2 other power units fail, and used to start the engines. The rest were grounded as a precaution only. None of the others were mentioned to have failed the test. It's a new plane and they want to make sure all is accounted for. They have grounded more for far lesser grounds in the past.

EDIT: P.S. AF-4 was the same one that failed the test. It has already proven that it worked initially. They didn't go in and replace it or work on it or anything. That same IPP already saved this airframe. Can't assume it's a major problem without more info.

Here is more info and as was noted previously, this is a critical part, not even remotely can it be considered just a "backup"

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/08/a-short-history-of-the-subsyst.html

To quote a portion of the article:

The F-35 is one of the first "more-electric aircraft", meaning it uses electricity to replace several functions formerly fueled by hydraulics or pneumatics. The IPP is the heart of the power and thermal management system. Its roughly 200hp gas turbine engine sends power to the starter/generator, which powers on the F-35's engine, which, in turn, powers up the generator. The IPP then manages the air-cycle cooling system, plus acts an emergency power supply in case both starter/generators happen to fail.

Also, this sounds just a bit ominous:

We don't know how long the grounding order caused by an undisclosed IPP malfunction on 2 August will last. Since the announcement landed in our email inbox at 14:14 on 3 August, the programme has been in communications black-out mode. Even its normally chatty Twitter page has gone silent.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Also, this sounds just a bit ominous:

Even its normally chatty Twitter page has gone silent.

LOL come on that's funny. It can't tweet if its electronics don't work. Duh!

Remember how slow that scrolling text was in Iron eagle? The F-16 is a joke at twitter, just like all the 4th gen fighters. The F-35 is the only fighter capable of 21st century internet social networking. The only other fighter capable of such a feat was really more of a whiny facebook type:

Everyone should tweet "get well soon wishes." to the F-35. When it gets better it will thank you. The coolest thing about the F-35 tweeting is that it promotes itself... Think about that. The F-35 is Mike Tyson AND Don King-- Multi-role indeed!

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/29/the-marines-see-light-at-the-end-of-the-f35b-tunnel/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

The B is looking good May beat the Navy, launching from a ship first.

Edited August 8, 2011 by TaiidanTomcat

[MarkW]

One other note on the Flight Global article cited above:

March 2010: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that exhaust from the engine and integrated power package exhaust may cause excessive damage to the flight deck environment and runway surfaces that may result in operating limits or drive costly upgrades and repairs of JSF basing options.

The above statement has been proven to be categorically false for the CV and CTOL version, and only somewhat true for the STOVL. But then again, the Harrier tore up runways if it was used improperly too.

The other conclusion to draw from the above article is the IPP is on LONGER than the engine is, in one mode or another, since it starts the engine and then manages the thermal management system while the jet is running.

[11bee]

LOL come on that's funny.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/29/the-marines-see-light-at-the-end-of-the-f35b-tunnel/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

The B is looking good May beat the Navy, launching from a ship first.

When the powers that be stop tweeting, you know the shat has hit the fan. I'll have to subscribe to McCain's twitter feed to get his take on the situation.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Thats a safe bet considering they have been doing it for years In the end though Boeing can only through so much external junk on an F-18 to make a generation 4.987561 fighter. The Navy knows this. They are killing time with the super bug and it was always meant as a temporary place holder. The F-22 cruises at the same speed as a super bug going full throttle. Without the F-35 the USN is an aviation "B team" and B-teams don't need so many expensive aircraft carriers, here come the cuts! At this point anyone talking about full cancellation looks uninformed or downright ignorant.

Well hold on a bit.

Carriers are floating air bases and can deploy anywhere in the world. USAF air bases are incapable of doing so. Yes, aircraft carriers and their task forces are costly but so to are keeping many USAF air bases open around the world. Air bases in parts of the world where the US is not really welcome. So the Navy really is not the B-Team but really is the A-Team. The only assets the USAF can deploy globally at relatively short notice are its long range bombers. Tactical aircraft take time and a lot of politics/diplomacy to deploy to parts less welcoming to the US and its allies. Not much others can do to stop the US from floating carriers in international waters to provide force projection.

IMO the troubles with F-35 is that its being asked to do too much. This takes more time to sort out. I think it will keep being funded and will see many years of capable service but it will always be grilled for its abilities to cost ratio.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

For what it's worth, I agree with you 100%. I don't think that they would ever pull the plug on the program but I guarantee that this option is going to be tabled by some as way to put a big dent in those upcoming budget cuts.

The real concern is that I think there inevitably will be cuts to program. It may be too big to fail but it is also to big to get through this process unscathed. Assuming there are cuts or deferred production, one has to wonder how many more reductions / delays can occur before other nations terminate their orders. That would inevitably result in cost increases and more pressure on the US to cut orders, etc, etc. Kind of a vicious circle.

And despite having no alternative to this program (which I happen to also agree with) I have no doubt that Boeing will be telling the world that their upgraded F-18 / F-15's will be just fine as cheaper substitutes for the JSF.

The next few months are going to be very interesting. Hopefully the test program stays on track with no more glitches.

In reality the latest F-15/F-18 can probably more than capably do 98-99% of the things the F-35 and F-22 can do. Maybe not better for them all but given the odds of whom they may be asked to enter conflict with these platforms are still leading edge as is the latest block F-16's. I'm not saying that F-22 and F-35 have no purpose and are not going to represent the sharpest edge of technology but in that in reality current and future possible variants of Teen series fighters can do virtually anything they will be tasked with doing and come out smelling like roses.

[MarkW]

In reality the latest F-15/F-18 can probably more than capably do 98-99% of the things the F-35 and F-22 can do. Maybe not better for them all but given the odds of whom they may be asked to enter conflict with these platforms are still leading edge as is the latest block F-16's. I'm not saying that F-22 and F-35 have no purpose and are not going to represent the sharpest edge of technology but in that in reality current and future possible variants of Teen series fighters can do virtually anything they will be tasked with doing and come out smelling like roses.

Uh, no. If they could, we wouldn't be spending a gajillion on F-35. In fact, the list of things we are going to be able to task the teens with gets real short the second you have an air defense capability more advanced than Libya or Afghanistan. Or the second your carrier can't come closer than 400 miles from a target or tanker.

As for the B team beating the C team to a carrier, they'd better. They should have already gone!

[TaiidanTomcat]

When the powers that be stop tweeting, you know the shat has hit the fan. I'll have to subscribe to McCain's twitter feed to get his take on the situation.

That made my day!! McCain better kick it while its down before it wakes up, becomes self aware, and lands on his lawn (old people hate things on their lawn. Almost as much as they hate fancy new expensive things, so you can imagine how steamed he would be.)

Well hold on a bit.

Carriers are floating air bases and can deploy anywhere in the world. USAF air bases are incapable of doing so. Yes, aircraft carriers and their task forces are costly but so to are keeping many USAF air bases open around the world. Air bases in parts of the world where the US is not really welcome. So the Navy really is not the B-Team but really is the A-Team. The only assets the USAF can deploy globally at relatively short notice are its long range bombers. Tactical aircraft take time and a lot of politics/diplomacy to deploy to parts less welcoming to the US and its allies. Not much others can do to stop the US from floating carriers in international waters to provide force projection.

A carrier is only as good as the aircraft that fly off it.

In reality the latest F-15/F-18 can probably more than capably do 98-99% of the things the F-35 and F-22 can do.

Thats an interesting stat.

Edited August 8, 2011 by TaiidanTomcat

[T0M4ever]

Everyone should tweet "get well soon wishes." to the F-35. When it gets better it will thank you. The coolest thing about the F-35 tweeting is that it promotes itself... Think about that. The F-35 is Mike Tyson AND Don King-- Multi-role indeed!

Well what use is a stealth aircraft if it's going to go revealing details of it's missions on social networking sites?! ;)

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Uh, no. If they could, we wouldn't be spending a gajillion on F-35. In fact, the list of things we are going to be able to task the teens with gets real short the second you have an air defense capability more advanced than Libya or Afghanistan. Or the second your carrier can't come closer than 400 miles from a target or tanker.

As for the B team beating the C team to a carrier, they'd better. They should have already gone!

They spend that money because its a military industrial complex. That said, I never said the most advance Teens are going to be better at all things than the F-22/F-35 can do. I said given the probability of conflicts we may/will see in the foreseeable future the most advanced teens will get her done as needed and come out smelling like roses. I'm not saying do not have F-22 or F-35 but tactical planning developed and the current platforms will support any likely conflict we are to see any time soon.

Going to war with Russia, India and/or China in the foreseeable future is not likely going to happen and if that where to be so the F-22/F-35 will not alleviate the inevitable pain and stupidity of said wars. No other nations will be able to stare down US military assets even with the US using most advanced Teen series fighters.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

That made my day!! McCain better kick it while its down before it wakes up, becomes self aware, and lands on his lawn (old people hate things on their lawn. Almost as much as they hate fancy new expensive things, so you can imagine how steamed he would be.)

A carrier is only as good as the aircraft that fly off it.

Thats an interesting stat.

Well the aircraft on board modern USN carriers are as capable as any foe they will likely face any time soon, problem solved.

Next lets look at typical mission profiles US combat aircraft will typically fly.

F-35, F-15, F-16 F-18 etc. Carrying Jdam's and dropping them at a distance from a target of opportunity or interest. If not Jdam's they will carry LGB's doing the same. If it comes to air to air including the F-22 and the best Teens out there they will most likely fire at the enemy they will face before the enemy is able to fire at them. And if it were to move to a dog fight well if US pilots are incapable of out doing those they may face well the the 800 billion spent on the military budget is much a waste.

Look, most fighters are tactical bomb trucks in reality first. Jdam and LGB make this even safer. Well as safe as conflict can be. SAM suppression is something the US military does well. The US also has better eyes in the sky than any likely enemy it will face in the foreseeable future.

[11bee]

No other nations will be able to stare down US military assets even with the US using most advanced Teen series fighters.

That is a big, big statement.

With regard to the awesomeness of carriers, I would ask you to consider these two items:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_041_submarine

Of these, I would be much more concerned about the 2nd one, AIP subs are truly impressive and becoming more common every year. From what is available open-source, the USN doesn't really have a fix for this problem.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

That is a big, big statement.

With regard to the awesomeness of carriers, I would ask you to consider these two items:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_041_submarine

Of these, I would be much more concerned about the 2nd one, AIP subs are truly impressive and becoming more common every year. From what is available open-source, the USN doesn't really have a fix for this problem.

F-35 nor F-22 will prevent any possible success with these items you note. Carriers are good targets that it why they have a substantive and highly professional task force. But they are movable, air bases are not. Air base can be rather easily bombed too especially with medium and long range missiles. Many parts of the world do not welcome US air assets on fixed airfields. Unless the US plans to only launch and retrieve all air assets from relatively safe US land possessions it needs its carriers if it wants global force projection.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well what use is a stealth aircraft if it's going to go revealing details of it's missions on social networking sites?! ;)

It will actually have to keep the chatter up even during missions to as not give away the attack.

given the probability of conflicts we may/will see in the foreseeable future the most advanced teens will get her done as needed and come out smelling like roses. I'm not saying do not have F-22 or F-35 but tactical planning developed and the current platforms will support any likely conflict we are to see any time soon. Going to war with Russia, India and/or China in the foreseeable future is not likely going to happen and if that where to be so the F-22/F-35 will not alleviate the inevitable pain and stupidity of said wars. No other nations will be able to stare down US military assets even with the US using most advanced Teen series fighters.

I wish I had your crystal ball. I didn't predict a war in Afghanitan, Libya, Iraq, or raids into Pakistan. and thats just the last ten years. I didn't predict Kosovo, yugoslav strikes, before that either. Kosovo, of course had a stealth fighter shot down. thats kind of a big deal. How are you so good at predicting future wars and how they will go? Its not necessarily war with china and russia that people fear, its the weapons exported to other folks we are more likely to fight that bothers people. Rumors about SA-18s in Libya saw a near instant change in tactical procedures. Sure teen fighters are ok now but how will they be in 10 years? What if a country like say canada buys a fighter that is only OK for 5-10 years but they only buy aircraft once a generation (or every thirty years?) In war do you bet your life on OK? "good luck sir, you are in the OKest aircraft we can buy.... and remember we are all counting on you"

[TaiidanTomcat]

Many parts of the world do not welcome US air assets on fixed airfields. Unless the US plans to only launch and retrieve all air assets from relatively safe US land possessions it needs its carriers if it wants global force projection.

Wait isn't that why the navy needs a generation 5 stealth fighter? you just contradicted yourself. How can you say the USN is essential to global force projection and then say they that they don't need the latest and greatest?

If it comes to air to air including the F-22

But there are no F-22s because there won't be airfields right? nor are there any other teen fighters save the F-18E/F right?

You can't predict the future. Although I do appreciate that you think the US is invincible. Its refreshing.

Edited August 8, 2011 by TaiidanTomcat