E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
U.S. Air Force via Reuters file
The crack was discovered in an engine blade of an F35A at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif..
The Defense Department grounded all 51 of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the U.S. military's most expensive project, after a crack was discovered in an engine blade during a routine inspection, it said Friday.
It's the second time F-35s have been grounded in recent weeks. The Pentagon grounded its 25 F-35B jets, used by the Marine corps, on Jan. 18 after a fuel line detached during a training flight. The F-35B — one of three varieties used by the U.S. — was cleared to resume testing only last week.
Unlike that suspension, the action announced Friday affects all of the U.S. military's F-35s.
The crack was discovered in an engine blade of an Air Force F-35A Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., the Defense Department said in a statement. The engine, manufactured by Pratt & Whitney, was being shipped to the company's facility in Middletown, Conn., for more evaluation, it said.
"It is too early to know the fleet-wide impact of the recent finding," the statement said.
Matthew Bates, a spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told The Army Times that the engine analysis should take "roughly" a week.
The Defense Department touts the Joint Strike Fighter — its most expensive military hardware program, at roughly $400 billion — its "next-generation strike aircraft weapon systems," offering "cutting-edge technologies to the battlespace of the future."
Military planners envision the F-35 as taking a lead role in "first day of war" operations, eventually replacing a range of workhorse jets, including the F-16, the A-10 and the F/A-18. Current plans call for the U.S. to buy 2,443 aircraft under a contract with Lockheed Martin.
Leave a Comment:
Its time to put that project to bed. It has been nothing but problems and the cost makes it the most exspensive aircraft to own and operate for the flight hours its been in operation.
Another example of this guy not having a clue whats going on. Did`nt we just ship some fighters to Egypt ? After reading this stuff, they will probably ask China for more planes if the situation occurs. Besides, its not his money being wasted, its the American tax payers !
Who are you referring to not having a clue Mr Mel?
The best thing to do with the F-35 is to schmidt-can the whole project RIGHT BLOODY NOW! It will prove to be an even bigger money sink . . . a fleet of Super Hornets will still outclass anything else flying . . . so just forget about stealth. The F-35 is simply NFG. Aircraft programs have been shelved before . . . there's no shame in simply saying to the defense contractors . . . NO. They've had their opportunity to demonstrate that the the F-35 is a world beater and FAILED . . . now it's just a [finance] beater.
It had looked like the engine was the only good component of the F-35, but no, it's a lemon through and through.
Psst, Mel, try to keep up, our king sent our current top of the line fighters, F16's, to Egypt, to help the Muslim of Brotherhood, a past (wink-wink) terrorist organization.
Actually the ceiling and the speed of the F-15 is better than the F-18. The maneavurability of the the F-16 is better than the F-18. The avionics and vectored thrust of the F-22 could wipe out a squadron of F-18's. We just use the F-18 as our workhorse because of durability and cost efficiency of a still somewhat superior jet to those of other forces. But we need to keep developing these systems because there are other countries that are not giving their development up. I would be ok with just maintaining those F-35's that we have now and work on testing and upgrading but don't be stupid, the F-18 is not the Superior plane.
Robo,
The F-16 is not top of the line by any military definition. As a fighter, the F-15 and the F-22 are much better, so is the super Hornet. For close air support, the A-10 is unmatched anywhere. For ground attack the B-2 wins hands down, the F-15 and F-18 are better too.
The F-16 is (was) relatively cheap and it is a strong airframe that is more agile than the flimsy pilot can stand (G-lock) It was the first fly-by-wire fighter.
Fissile, Robo was talking about the F-16.
To all, do you realize,ANY OF YOU, that you can't have a VERSION B of a JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER!!!! The intent of JOINT means that ONE plane type of plane is capable of serving all services. The JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER that your buying isn't JOINT!!!!!!! Only Boeing's version of the X35 was JOINT. Whatever you do,don't bitch!!!!!
Netanyahu requested the US expedite the F35s we have already sold to Israel. Lets go ahead and send them the whole lot, as soon as possible.
Really Folks, all new aircraft, tanks, rifles, all have short comings and end up as the best n the world. Look at history u all speak of F-15, F16 or F/A 18 super hornets. The best fighter was called TOMCAT, F-14 splashed a lot of BAD guys. The people n the world that hate our armed forces do so because we continue to evolve. The F/A 35 n all versions will be better than all n the world. How many of u whinny babies, served and attempted to make things better. I served and hope I left the 101 Div. better
The F-16 was a good bird, but the c(r)apton wires were brittle garbage. I remember pulling out my first control box and my jaw dropped. The wiring bundle was very small and I could see the aircraft skin. Quite the difference from the F-4.
Just waiting for a tea bagger to claim the blades were made in a foreign country...
I believe the aircraft is still either in research and development or operational test and evaluation phase. This is EXACTLY where you want to find these problems, not after it is declared operational. Pratt and Whitney will find the root cause of this problem and develop a fix for it. The way the reporter writes this article like $400million is a lot of money for a program. Per se, IT IS. But that is NOT what the bottomline cost will be per aircraft. The U.S. Government and its allies will get their money's worth by purchasing the total lot of 2,443 aircraft. $400million already sunk into a program has been spread across the total time span of the program; approximately ten years now. So that is essentially $40million/year.
When all is said and done with this aircraft, you will be amazed at its capabilities and the two single most important aspects: Meeting the objectives of the mission and bringing the pilot back alive.
In the meantime, lighten up; engineers are hard at work making this work of art do some amazing things.
Ha ha! "Just dump the whole thing and rely on old warplanes". Google a Chinese J-31 or a Russian Sukhoi.
Oppps
Here' the really sad part of this story. Here there are 63 comments. The Canadian site covering the story almost word for word (cbc) has 288 comments.
I don't know what to think about the F-35 ? I was an F-111 maintenance guy back in the 70's and it was an airplane that was designed to be all things to all the services originally and was known in its early days as Mcnamara's folly(Navy B model airframe was dropped and became the F-14 with the Phoenix system still intact).in some ways , the F-35 reminds me of the F-111 at its inception into operational use.their were.lots of structral issues with the F-111 , plus intakes that didn't feed air well to the engines(A model)..originally underpowered also...but with later models performance was greatly improved...but (mostly the D model) their were lots of avionics issues(HSD failures)...but eventually alot of these issues were worked out and it became a pretty good/great airplane.. also.the B-1 is a bigger version of the F-111 basically but carries more and goes farther...so maybe if they drop the USMC model of the F-35 and just concentrated on say one model for the Navy and use that one also for the USAF , the beefier gear wouldn't hurt....that was also a weakness on the F-111 , the landing gear , they could save us taxpayers alot of cash and still have an aircraft capable of performing the missions...it just might turn out OK eventually..all new designs have issues that can only be worked out thru operational usage and modification...and maybe a simpler less complicated avionics suite might help to...too many computers in warplanes these days..its all fine and dandy till the electric current is disrupted and the cockpit then goes black , then what ?...oh yeah a smokin'gazzillion dollar hole in the ground and hopefully a succesful nylon landing....as for the USMC..well they need something completely different like an A-10 type that has the same field performance as a Harrier.....I don't see that happening with the F-35...I think the F-35 will be too difficult to maintain under rough field conditions and won't carry enough ordinance for ground support and or rescap....stealth is not that much of an issue for ground pounders(ing)nor is alot of bells and whistle avionics....but the fools in DC can't figure anything out since most of them are draft dodging chickenfeces beholden to the lobbies and not the taxpayers and haven't a clue on what is really needed for our military...they can start with less generals/admirals above brigadier or the naval equivalent for one...instead of all the frivilous waste that the 2 star and above generals and admirals are so good at doing for their own self centered interest..since they're in the rear with gear and not making timely on scene decisions most of the time and just filling time till retirement and lobbying for excutive positions in companies that are part of the military industrial complex....anyone who has been in the military knows exactly what I'm ranting about
Why am I not surprised to find a libtard trying to make a non-political article political.
@Inspiredby Humanity -- The cost of this program is over $400BILLION (with a 'B'), not $400 Million. Here is a recent article by Reuters that discusses how/why the program is so expensive:
www dot reuters dot com slash article slash 2013 slash 02 slash 19 slash lockheed dash fighter dash bogdan dash idUSL4N0BI3WA20130219 (*No spaces in the URL*)
Not sure I agree with the development approach taken. Seems to me it's far more expensive, and a lot less reliable as a result. But my opinion of now-LGen Bogdan may be clouding my judgment.
I stand corrected; when I read the article I could have sworn it said $400million...It would appear that the reporter that wrote this checked his number and edited it to $400billion...
They said the same thing about the F-16 being an electric jet and how it would just lose electronics and fall out of the sky, never mind mentioning single engine giving the Viper a new nickname: LAWN DART.
Scrapping the F-35 would be stupid after the development cost of this plane. And the problems it has are not catastrophic. A fuel line separated? A crack in an engine blade? These are not difficult problems to fix. ANY all-new design is going to have teething problems. I don't care if it's a new fighter or a new airliner (Boeing 787). The V-22 Osprey had HUGE problems and a lot of them. So many and so complex that for a while it looked the the Osprey would be canned and never go into service. These have been fixed and the aircraft is operational today.
Comparing this new plane to successful planes from the past is a non-issue too. Planes like the F-15, F-14 and F-16 (someone actually even brought up the F-4 Phantom - sheesh) are old technology. When new, these planes all had problems needing a fix (the F/A-18 had MAJOR engine problems early on).
I fly a plane that operates on a pair of Pratt & Whitney engines (it isn't a fighter). It was found that the 1st stage compressor (known as an IBR) was developing cracks and curling of blades on certain airplanes. A 300-hour inspection was required to discover any developing problems. The plane wasn't grounded let alone anyone calling for the removal of the plane from service.
P&W eventually found that the problem related to certain engines within a specific serial number range. These IBR's were retrofitted and the problem no longer exists. (I have the distiction of being the first pilot to have an IBR failure, which shed blade parts through the engine.)
These relatively minor problems with the F-35 will be fixed, and fixed quickly I'll bet. And there is likely to be other issues that come up that will need to be fixed. It's a whole new airplane. Problems are inevitable. It is too expensive of a program to be sure (went over budget by A LOT). This aside, there are not any good reasons to do so.
well Jetjocky, I might agree about the fuel line. But, a turbine blade issue? That's a big deal. If you really fly jets and are not just a poseur, you should know that. How do I know. I spent decades as a structural dynamicist helping develop rocket engines. It takes months to understand the nature of the problem. Manufacturing/materials/design. Then many more months to find a fix. Many more months after that to implement, test, and certify the fix. Maybe, just maybe the flaw showed up because of a particular operating envelop condition. It that's ALL is is (spoken with sarcasm), it will constitute a limitation on the capability of the aircraft.
I keep going back to the A-10 Warthog, which the services wanted to retire until it was clear it far more effective an survivable than planes supposedly to replace it. A real embarrassment.
Frankly, the whole concept of an all purpose fighter is absurd. It's like asking an Escalade to race at Le Mans. Ike, the head of our armed forces in World War 2 and no liberal, warned about the military industrial complex. He is, no doubt, spinning in his grave.
Jim Jones - too true. There's too much focus on trying to cut costs. Making a "joint" fighter that the Air Force, Navy and Marines can all use variants of to keep parts costs down sounds good in theory, but then you wind up with something weaker than the sum of its parts and designed by committee. No dedicated fighter can match the A-10 in ground attack, and the F-15 and F-22 are about the best we've got. Yeah, they're expensive, but I thought that was the point. If war was cheap, we'd do it for fun.
F-35 is a money pit. Builder is getting rich at the expense of the American taxpayer.
"The V-22 Osprey had HUGE problems and a lot of them. So many and so complex that for a while it looked the the Osprey would be canned and never go into service. These have been fixed and the aircraft is operational today."
The V-22 was and still is a deathtrap to fly. The f-35 will prove to be much of the same, only with one pilot to kill. Both are nothing more than corporate welfare. This system will prove to be a big step back by putting all the design and performance flaws in each service with the same aircraft. It is both a waste of money as well as a serious security risk to all services to rely on only one type of aircraft. ANY flaw subjects every service to the same countermeasure for their air superiority. Not a smart move.
Also the 21st century will see asymmetrical warfare take front lines. So sabotage of only a limited number of critical components that fit a craft used on three services of the military, would get the most bang for the buck if you were an aggressor with long term plans of attacking the U.S. Which puts us in a weak position. And bottom line, the plane just sucks performance wise. So while I don't mind paying taxes for military hardware. I hate to see it get pi$$ed away on third rate crap like this. We can do so much better.
Refusing to kill a program based on money already invested/sunk costs is rarely a winning financial decision. Freeze the program, identify and evaluate the problems, THEN make a decision regarding the likelihood of success & probable funding required. To say, "Well, we've already spent a gajillion dollars--we can't stop now!" is foolish at best.
Flights of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 will be allowed to resume, the U.S. Defense Department said, ending a suspension that grounded the fleet after the discovery of a cracked engine blade in one of the stealth jets.
The affected engine had been subjected to “prolonged exposure to high levels of heat and other operational stresses” in testing, the Pentagon F-35 office said today in a statement.
Enlarge image
An undated handout photograph shows Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 fighter jet, provided to the media on Thursday, Dec. 8, 2011. Source: Lockheed Martin Corp. via Bloomberg
Inspections of other F-35 fighter jets didn’t find any other “cracks or signs of similar engine stress,” and no redesign will be needed for the engines built by United Technologies Corp. (UTX)’s Pratt & Whitney unit, according to the statement.
The F-35, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program, has been plagued by a costly redesign, bulkhead cracks, excessive weight and delays in software that have helped put it seven years behind schedule. The cost of the program’s 2,443 aircraft is now estimated at $395.7 billion, a 70 percent increase since 2001.
The flight suspension was ordered Feb. 22 after a routine engine inspection revealed a crack in a turbine blade on a test aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The grounding was undertaken as a “precautionary measure,” the Pentagon’s F- 35 office said that day in a statement.
The decision to end the suspension came after Pratt & Whitney recommended that flight operations be restored.
Eighth Batch
Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor, earlier today received a $333.7 million down payment to buy initial parts, components and materials for an eighth batch of F-35s, as the Pentagon locked in the funds hours before automatic U.S. budget cuts were set to take effect.
The action exempts the funds from the across-the-board spending reductions known as sequestration that begin tomorrow, because Pentagon officials have said contracts with obligated dollars won’t be cut or terminated. The eighth contract calls for 35 jets, including four aircraft for the U.K. and two for Norway, according to a Pentagon statement.
SOURCE:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/lockheed-f-35-flights-permitted-to-resume-pentagon-says.html
put the money into cyberwarfare, that's where the threat is going to come from. not from a fleet of warplanes attacking us.
They are Washington
Single-source engine too. They did it to save money. Now it'll cost 'em.
Yep
They should have let Rolls-Royce and G.E to continue to develop the "alternative"engine.
It would have been better quality and actually reduced costs in the long run.
End this program think of the cost saving it would provide enough to off set all potential cuts and some, It is just stupid to have something like this that we don't really need.
Please explain why we dont need it. The F-15s were all built in the 70s, the A-10s are all early 80s, and the F-16s are not much newer. The Marines are waiting to retire their old Harriers until the F-35 comes on line. The F-35 has been in development since 1996, so if we scrap it, are you ready to start a program all over that will take 11 years to get the first flight.
A blade crack in an engine is part of the process that was found during testing. This is when you are supposed to find blade cracks. The F-35 is not operational, it is still in testing, where pilots are supposed to break it to find the weak areas that need to be improved.
Hope they can fix this and see some better return on this investment. Nothing wrong with the A-10, F-16, and F/A-18 we have gotten our money's worth from them since Desert Shield/Storm with continual upgrades they are still lethal platforms. I doubt the F35 will ever be as good as the A-10 in close air support roles that cannon on that thing is a beast!
What, they are brand new, are we getting the parts from China???
New doesnt mean good.
Few hard parts from China, but the ICs are another story...
When the first stolen Mig-25 was researched by the West during the 1970s. They found vacuum tubes used in its Avionics systems. The US Military laughed at this...
Until they realized that an EMP would disable much of the US Avionics systems and the MiG would still be operational...
IMO - Basing ALL of your aircraft on ONE design, enables an opponent to exploit any discovered weaknesses...
The AV-8 A&B has seen a staggering abundance of crash-causing glitches, it was a developmental nightmare and is still KILLING its Pilots. It killed a close friend a week prior to me flying with him in 1983...
AC-
And yet the AV-8B and its cousin in the UK is still in use or has recently been mothballed...Even after all the developmental nightmares, it was still worth it.
Ultimately, the F-35 will prove itself. What it lacks in capability will also be exploited by the pilots trained to fly it.
All you "experts", please tell me one new weapons system that didn't have initial problems. I'll be waiting.
Well I heard very little about the F15's, GO EAGLES!!!
The F-5/ T-38. No problems at all.
Mike, Im no expert, 32 years USAF, you are right, all weapons systems have had problems, but the inital cost, then over runs, then problems make this weapons system to exspensive for the return on our money. As I stated, Im no expert, but I can spot garbage when I see it.
Mike, I will be waiting!!
So would you like to talk about something you know about now Mike?
Actually the F5 program had initial engine problems that were quickly resolved. Obviously a much lower cost weapons system project than the F35.
Johnson, what is your experience with weapons systems launch?
Probably a lot more experience than you Mike, but that was already pointed out when I said I was not an expert, you??
Here is one example of the exspense of a system that has been in development since 1996 and only what, 53 planes have been delivered.
On 11 March 2010, a report from the Government Accountability Office to United States Senate Committee on Armed Services projected the overall unit cost of an F-35A to be $112M in today's money.[64] In 2010, Pentagon officials disclosed that the F-35 program has exceeded its original cost estimates by more than 50 percent
Mike,
the GE J-85 engine was originally developed to power an unmanned missile. It's small size and good power to weight ratio made it a good fit for the low cost low maintenance fighter. The 'problem' you refer to was the fact that it was not man rated. It was modified (uprated) before being installed in the first prototype There were no problems in the test phase or thereafter.
Johnson, I'm not an "expert" either, but I have a fair amount of experience as a weapons system program manger.
MyJohn,
April 4. 2012 the GAO gave a program cost for the F-35 at $1.51 Trillion. I'll do the math. 1.51 trillion divided by 2443 airframes, equals $618 million each for the life of the program.
Sorry, "manager" not "manger".
In November 2011, a Pentagon study team identified the following 13 areas of concern that remained to be addressed in the F-35:[164][165]
All this can be found with a quick google seach, i cant post the links
Ed
the 2443 airframe number was the the initial expected order. They have already cut those numbers to fund the over runs. Who know how many more will be cut and what the final cost will be.
MyJohn,
As of Jan 24 2013, the Air Force had no plans to reduce the number of F-35s they want to purchace (Aviation Week). I have not heard of cuts from the Navy or Marines either. Please cite your source.
One more problem you didn't list above is that the F-35 uses the same oxygen generating system as the the F-22, which has had some highly publicised problems.
Ed-
Wasn't the F-22 oxygen generating system resolved when they discovered a faulty valve in the suit and not in the generating system? That was last Summer wasn't it?
Please, the F-35 has been plagued by problems, rising costs, and setbacks since the early 2000's when it was known as the JSF. Another example of Lockheed failing to deliver.
Another example of Lockheed failing to deliver? Are you kidding?
Ever hear of:
P-38 Lighning
Consellation
P-80 Shooting Star
C-130 Hercules
S-3 Viking
C-141
U-2
SR-71
F-16
F-117
The Electra did have it's non-fixable problems. Maybe that's the plane you're refering to.
The GAO said last April that the F-35 program will cost $1.51 Trillion, up from $1.39 Trillion the year before. I wonder how much it will go up this year?
Dump this endless money pit of an aircraft, now.
Another money pit program that politicians will insist we keep because it provides jobs. Yet we bail out the US auto industry, which saved tens of thousands of jobs, and the very same politicians cried foul. It will be like the V-22 Osprey, they will continue dumping money into it until they get enough into service to claim they are fit to be operational, then dump even more money into them to maintain them and to try and justify keeping them in service. The V-22 has a pretty abysmal operating and maintenance record overall, and they started that program in the mid-80s! Talk about "teething problems"!
Drones and unmanned aircraft are the future, lets dump this program now and focus on that fact.
Ironically, while the V-22 had alot of development problems, it's probably one of the safest aircraft in the Marine corps now. The F-35s we currently have aren't cleared for combat missions yet, as they are meant for testing and shakedown trials, kind of like a beta test for an MMO. These kind of issues are to be expected, and it's better to have them happen now, rather than in the middle of a war.
The V-22's program cost is $35.6 billion for 408 aircraft. The F-35's program cost (Apr. 2012) is $1.51 Trillion for 2443 aircraft. They are hardly comparable. The V-22 was doing something that had never been done before. The F-35 was supposed to be refining tech and making it cheaper. An all purpose aircraft was deemed the bast way to cut the cost of new aircraft. It has totally failed in this prime goal of the program.
Time to Cancel the "Junk Strike Fighter". It can't even turn as well as the OLD F-4's or F-5's of the 60's. It is only Stealthy from the front, which means it's large engine ( that broke after 400 flight hours ) will be seen for mile by modern IRST systems in all Russian, Chinese, and European 4th Gen fighters and will get a Infrared missile up it's back side. The F-22 was cancelled because it cost to much at $120 million, but now the cheapest JSF is $168 million & the B model is $295 Million each. Time to restart the F-22 line and up-grade the F-15C's to F-15S variants and quite wasting the taxpayers money on the FAIL PROGRAM!!!!!
The F-35, F-22, and B-2 are "Death Spiral" aircraft. The are so expensive to design, build, and operate that the cost drives the production number down, so the cost per aircraft hour becomes unmanageable.
The US has not deployed an aircraft with full IR stealth, so the aircraft of many air forces can knock F-22s, F-35s, and B-2s out of the sky with much less expensive aircraft.
The current war with China is economic, not military.
i hope their guns start backfiring.....
Good, more money for the War contractors.
The defense budget is the greatest ripoff in our government. Every project is ridiculously over budgeted and none of us have any idea as to what's really going on within the system. The greatest problem is that it is so easy for our politicians to get kickbacks from the contractors, because the funds are not accounted for. That is exactly why your politicians don't want to cut DOD spending. As a people, we should insist on accountability for our tax dollars spent by the DOD, and demand to know who receives, and how much is given to politicians by lobbyist.
F-35 is the Biggest SCAM by the Arm industries in US history. We are crying about debt, yet we have been pouring money in billions and now trillion in this SCAM for the last 15 years and the final product is not even Fully Ready. Where is the money going? Who is benefiting from this? You know the answer and they keep asking for more, they have good lobbies in DC and all over the country. Scrap the @!$%#, cut the defense budget, invest in cyber warfare and DRONES.
F-35 the biggest Scam in US history and we are footing the bill and nobody is complaining about giving so much money to very few.
Speaking of scams and overruns -- Google this article:
How the Air Force blew $1B on a dud system
It's disgusting how poorly managed some of these programs are. The DoD budget needs a top-to-bottom overhaul.
All new weapons systems have problems at the start. The design
and the testing of new equipment is always the best of the best in regarding to
maintaining and monitoring. When the new system gets in to the hands of the
users is when we will find the bugs in the systems.
An example the military bought a communications van. Two companies’
wanted the contract the government when with the lowest bidder. The van built
by the lowest bidder had problem with the cables in back being too short. Whenever
you pulled a draw out they stretch and torn and had to be replaced. The government
gave the contract to the highest bidder and hand no problem with the van from
then own.
For all those that think this is a waste...
A next generation fighter is a lynchpin to our military capability. Absolute air superiority is so critical to the way our military fights. Think about it? If a soldier is wounded, he is medi-vac out. If he is needs more, he is Aerovac out of the theatre. Our troops don't travel by ship to deployments, but rely upon the many transport craft to get there, and for resupply. If we did not have absolute air dominance, if the air space was even contested, we would lose alot of our supply chain and response capability. Now I don't know much about the F-35, as I had more experience with the F-16 and the F-22, but we are expected, if we face a modernized nation to be outnumbered almost 7 to one in any dog fight. That means the aircraft has to have that kind of kill ratio, or better. I know the F-22 has a 11 to 13 to one kill ration over most fourth generation aircraft. I can only imagine the F-35 has the same.
Troops don't travel by ships to deployment? That's weird because the Navy gives the Marine Corp a ride to get to theater and have MEU's embarked on there warships and have been doing it for quite some time!
Well, Cyrus (Vance)
The F-22 has no kill ratio at all as it has never been in combat. (unless you want to include the one that killed it's own pilot through hypoxia). Simulated kills do not count.
The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter. It is a multi-role aircraft that is not particularly good at anything except consuming tax dollars.
A cracked fan blade means two more years of delays. and more cost increases.
Watch for the next GAO report in early April.
M1 Garand was the best, I think, except for the little bell that rang when the empty clip ejected. Back then we fired the 600 yd KD range with open sights. The real Army, OD uniforms and all.
Having fixed USAF aircraft for 20 years and studied aircraft history for close on to 50 years now I can say that no new aircraft has ever been trouble free. I follow that comments up with: In my opinion this aircraft was designed to fight the Soviets coming through the Fulda Gap. What we need for physical combat now is something more along the lines of the old OV-1 or OV-10 - low, slow and heavily armed with the sort of munitions that are good against personnel. The A-10 is great but it is designed to go against tanks and I doubt we will fight tanks anytime soon. If a version of the A-10 could be made without the GAU-8 gun and instead something lighter and more useful for anti-personnel it would be great. But since the A-10 is designed around the GAU-8 gun system I doubt it can be done. The AC-130 series is great for most close support missions but its weapons systems are not really flexible enough - and I say this about my favorite bird, which I worked on back in the day.
Bottom line, get rid of the F-35 as it is the wrong bird for the foreseeable missions.
The military is facing huge budget cuts so it is the perfect time to put them out of service.For those who have watched these budget crisis in the past this is what the military does when they are facing less money in their coffers.
AGAIN!!!???
Sorry folks, I'm all about military weapons and tech and us being the best, but at this point it probably would have been cheaper to redesign the F-14. I don't care how much "stealth" you have once you're shot down you're down.....Besides, even our own military is highly concerned about theft of F-14 parts.....THAT should tell us all something.
F-35, good idea, wrong time. needs much more R&D, so does the F-22.
These pet projects are the reasons behind the financial disaster this Nation is facing.
You can thank republicans and democrats alike for the military fraud machine. You'll notice that even ol Chuck Grassley never really acutally did anything to cut back fraud in government procurement, just used it once a year for PR while making sure his "family farm" was properly structured to extract maximum welfare from the tax payers.
The fraud involved in this program alone would fund quite a few teachers
Wow that is a lot more money per copy than previously advertised. Raptor production was stopped shortly into the production run because of cost. The Raptor is a much better airframe and has two engines. At first thought the F35 wasn't a viable alternative because it has the one engine and less redundancies. I can't imagine $400 million for that plane. Seems like a ripoff. The F-15E Strike Eagle would still rule in combat. I realize other countries are developing faster, better airframes but nothing comes close to the Raptor. UAVs are taking center stage these days. I think there is promise for the F-47 with AI and threat assessment programs. Modern aerial warfare is pushing towards drones. But America still needs piloted warplanes...I agree. Bring back the Tomcat. I always loved those F14s.
There is great promise in the X47B program but it is far from combat ready. It's slow too, subsonic, but there will be a supersonic UCAV on drawing boards (well, Catia) very soon, improving on all that has been learned from the X47B, Predator and Global Hawk programs. A pilot's body is the weak link of the future.
you got that right Ed the future is Pilots on the ground and plans that go mach 6 armed to the teeth
hummm EEeeeeEEEEEE sticky keyboard I am guessing I need to stop going to porno sites MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ed-
I agree that an unmanned system is going to be superior in flight dynamics, but the engineers and Martians that are helping them need to come up with a way to prevent another RQS-170 Sentinel fail. We don't need our coolguy technology winding up in the wrong hands again.
Go easy, people! Look back into history: not a single JET aircraft has ever been an easy sell. They have all had their maturity issues. Those maturity issues are no different now with this aircraft than they were with the F-4 or F-16. Both had their problems, but look how they turned out. My only gripe is that P & W shouldn't hold the DoD responsible for this gripe. The bird is still being tested, therefore should be covered by the manufacturer. Give it chance.
In other words: shut the @!$%# up and let the engineers do their magic!
F-5/T-38
Costs with overruns were over 1 trillion for delivery before the cracked blade. No idea how much more this issue will pile on top of that.
Should we let it reach 2 trillion before we decide to scrap it?
When a single projects costs reach the total of our nations yearly spending, it's time to reassess how we allocate our spending.