It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More F-35 "fun" - Latest service life assessments are bleak

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
So now we are seeing the REAL reason for the latest F-15 purchase thinking in some parts of the USAF world:

nationalinterest.org...



The 2018 report from the Pentagon's operational testing and evaluation arm, set for public release this week and obtained early by Bloomberg's Tony Capaccio, indicates that ongoing reliability issues have drastically shortened the service life far below expectations, so far that there's "no improving trend in" available aircraft for training and combat missions — a dangerous combination for a perpetually buggy aircraft.


I will leave the bullet point details for others to read and comment on, but a short summary is this:

Service life is a possible ghastly 2100 hours
Cyber security with data links has been found to be un secure in some areas
air to ground accuracy is "unacceptable"
field maintenance are not meeting acceptable goals


I love this quote:



Lockheed Martin's CEO pushed back on the criticism during a call with investors, stating that, "If they chose to have an order on F-15 … it won't be at the expense of F-35 quantities," per the Washington Post : "I'm hearing that directly from the leadership in the Pentagon … not just our suspicion, but I've been told that directly. So I'm not concerned about that."



Which to me should really read, "now that the Bush - Clinton cartel is no longer calling the shots we are finding it much harder to force this aircraft down everyone's throat."

So now, who has to be killed to make this happen?


edit on 1-2-2019 by Fools because: .

edit on 1-2-2019 by Fools because: my quote




posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   

,-The service life of the F-35B variants adopted by the Marine Corps "may be as low as 2100 [hours]," an eye-popping shortfall compared too the expected service life of 8,000 hours.

-"Interim reliability and field maintenance metrics to meeting planned 80% goal not being met," which means fewer aircraft available to actually train on and, therefore, increased barriers to improving readiness among aviators.You
and

The 2100 hr figure is for a relative handful of a specific LRIP batch of B-models.

The availability issues stem from having several batches of aircraft with minor differences in service at the same time, and the depots are not up and running. Most of that should resolve as they update everyone to the improved Block standard(s) and get the supply train stocked and rolling.


Cyber security issues are being faced by many, many advanced platforms. It will continue to be a PITA for everyone involved and a constant battle.

A2G bomb accuracy with dumb bombs is a pretty minor software issue, and isn't a real concern at the moment.

There are plenty of ongoing issues with the program, and it's been a cluster #, but a lot of the criticism seems to be naive, to be kind.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The platform in the article is the b model.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Fools

The platform in the article is the b model.


I have read similar issues with the A and C model in the past. Don't get me wrong, I think the F-35 is a great aircraft. I just think that the idea that it could be everything to everyone is dumb. And these issues are the result of that sort of thinking.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

What a surprise, early LIRP planes have issues. Don’t buy them by the dozens next time.

Other than that, this is not an overarching issue.
The F-35A stress testing went remarkably well, but of course no one cared about that at the time.

F-35 testing shows potential for F-35 life extension
ukdefencejournal.org.uk...


Odds on a certain former Boeing associate commenting on it ?


edit on 1-2-2019 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Fools

The platform in the article is the b model.


I have read similar issues with the A and C model in the past. Don't get me wrong, I think the F-35 is a great aircraft. I just think that the idea that it could be everything to everyone is dumb. And these issues are the result of that sort of thinking.



I agree, one size fits all is not the best method.
But this issue shouldn't be the final word on the entire program.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
What was the service history of the first model T Ford? Pretty bad by todays standards. Considering the design specifications of the F35, it is going to take a lot of cuddles to do it. In the global arms market, the f35 is over kill for most tasks, F15 is more than well capable for eliminating most threats in a more cost effective manner. As in the drag races, trying to get that little more does cost a lot more.

With the TR3B tech still offline for your average dictator, do you want a reliable Honda or a kick ass Ferrari?



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I am biased. My father was a McDonnel Douglas guy his entire working life. I myself however am not in the business. Just an armchair fan.

I still believe that "monica" was a far better plane than the 35.




posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Basically. The whole concurrency thing was destined to fail on a program this complicated. It has been an expensive failure. There is all sorts of valid reasons to be critical of how it is being or has been run. It just seems that a lot of the loudest critics are ill -informed, deliberately misrepresent, draw unusual conclusions from information available, or are just naive.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: mightmight

Basically. The whole concurrency thing was destined to fail on a program this complicated. It has been an expensive failure. There is all sorts of valid reasons to be critical of how it is being or has been run. It just seems that a lot of the loudest critics are ill -informed, deliberately misrepresent, draw unusual conclusions from information available, or are just naive.


That may be so, but they are reporting directly from the horses mouth in other instances. Me, I have tried to stay away from "warisboring" and other naysayers of that ilk because they have always been negative to the aircraft. However I do find it odd that we did not plan for other options if there were areas that would not do well in the program.

eggs in one basket = bad to me



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The X-32 would have required significant redesign to meet the ever changing requirements (particularly for the Navy). Sensor fusion issues wouldn't have cared much about the platform design. I'm not sure it would have been any better off as a program, because many of the issues have to do with the requirements and customer, not just the contractor. Boeing Defense isn't doing an better on the KC program than others are doing elsewhere.

I do think the X-32 got a bad rap, though. Single -piece wing may have had production benefits. The A-model demonstrator had a functional bomb bay which meant more weight and volume. The X-35 skipped that. The tailess/tailed dilemna was created by changing requirements for carrier bring back loads. The demonstrator was already nearly complete when that decision was made. Etc, etc



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

There's a reason the early 787s were dubbed "The Terrible Teens". As others have said, it's not a huge issue. It would be nice to be past the point where people freak out about it, but the management of this program has been ridiculous, and here we are.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   
"obtained early by Bloomberg's Tony Capaccio" I have a real problem with this statement. How was it obtained? Was this classified information? Will the person who leaked it get a high paying cushy job with Boeing?



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

America and the Gt Britain have built many fine aircraft over the decades that have been ground breaking and we have built a few lemons too . When you talk of engine re-builds of 40 hrs on airframes that complex yet a commercial plane engine of sometimes a decade between rebuilds , the simple route just works sometimes !

I am sitting with a old 1 dollar bill in my hand with failing eyesight it looks more like Turkey feathers below that shield , i could be wrong as all these airframes look the same these days to me but all those expensive toys are open to the simplist cyber attack/hack and the expensive toy becomes a burden ditto with supply chain issues and crew issues



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools

There's a reason the early 787s were dubbed "The Terrible Teens". As others have said, it's not a huge issue. It would be nice to be past the point where people freak out about it, but the management of this program has been ridiculous, and here we are.


To that point there is a early model 787 in ANA livery parked out at the Pima museum. First off the production lines are seldom representative of the later production models in terms of longevity etc. Yes the air-frame life of the first run may not be great but as time goes on it will improve.

If you look back at the development of the F-15, F-16, F-22, C-17 etc they all had problems. These are increasingly complex machines and its inevitable that there will be issues.

I also agree that the way that Lockmart and the USAF and the Marines have handled not only the management but also the constant misrepresentations means that any issues will be a issue........



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Going back when the F35,s were struggling with funding didnt they do a whole host of cost cutting to simplify how they made parts/redesigned others?Wonder if that has any bearing on the reduction of service hours on parts.?



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I'd be far more concerned with the ALIS issues than this.



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 04:21 AM
link   
USA and all the other nations that poured money into this should sue lockheed and get a refund.



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I think its time to put this POS in the aircraft graveyard and admit the US has made a massive mistake.

Lets have some perspective by comparing the F-35 with the sr 71

first the SR 71

this aircraft by far was one of the most advanced of its day (and arguably even today) to a point it was not one but 3 generations ahead.

Every part of it was experimental, using new untried materials, and had to be CREATED from the smallest bolts, cutting fluids for the drill bits making rivet holes, control systems, to even specialty tools .

every problem had to be figured out WITHOUT computers doing advanced simulations. It was literally trial and error, lots of wind tunnel tests, and flight testing.

the controls for the most part involved control systems that you would not find even in sale bin at amazon (would say radio shack but alot might not know about them today) .

Its service record of reliability, missions accomplished under the biggest threats, was and still unmatched.

Add to it did not have fighter or bomber configurations and ended service not due to issues with it, but pure politics and the hatred (in case of fighters/bombers) by one narrow minded tyrant named gen lemay.

if this was not awesome enough remember it went from idea in the mind of kelly johnson to operational squadrons (note SQUADRONS PLURAL) within SEVEN YEARS and..... WITHIN BUDGET

now lets look at the F-35

we have access to modern computers, knowledge of advance materials, access to some of the smallest and most powerfull computer control systems, knowledge of aviation aerodynamics and stealth that was not even theories when the sr 71 was flying.

the idea (abit to be fair was another program with same goals) was in 1992, the prototype flew in 2000, the first flight of the finished product flew in 2006 and the first operational squadron (the marines ONE SQUADRON) was in 2015.

If we ignore the concept phase and just look at first prototype to operational (did i mention ONE squadron) squadron was 15 YEARS.

It had SERIOUS FLAWS that still needed fixing, grounded aircraft and WAS OVER BUDGET by BILLIONS.
the exact amount keeps getting buried with stores like "the cost per unit has dropped" type shuffling.

even taking into account its now in multiple countries and three branches in the US armed forces .

in 2018 it is now 18 years from prototype to operational it STILL has dangerous unfixed flaws with now reported less than promised/contracted service life...making it MORE EXPENSIVE and MORE MONEY paid by TAXPAYERS to fix.


taking all this into account how can ANYONE (outside of those DIRECTLY PROFITING from this) say with a straight face it is a worthy aircraft worth the price?

The politicians and upper ranked military #tards have screwed us again... time to call an end and save the taxpayer some money

scrounger



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: scrounger

Lockheed should be forced now to fix all the issues for FREE and supply all future F-35 at half price.

There incompetence amounts to treason.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join