New F-35 Report

[GregP]

Could be. All I know was I avoided the MOAs and Luke AFB like the plauge when I was flying because they could creep up on you without warning so quickly. Once I was in a Cessna 182 and looked over anf ound an F-16 on my right wing. He waved, peeled off, and disappeared rapidly. Turned out to be a friend from the airport who was in the guard and also in our flying club, but it's pretty hard to recognize anyone wearing a miitary helmet in a fighter jet cockpit even if they wave, so I didn't know until a week later. I asked how long he had been there before I noticed and he said about 20 seconds. I thought that wasn't too bad for a general aviation traffic scan.

I was startled, to say the least as I was flying from Scottsdale to Sedona to have the proverbial $100 hamburger.

One morning we had a pair of A-10's visiting Tucson at the time from the east coast fly right through our traffic pattern at traffic pattern altitude over Scottsdale airport at 250 knots! Needless to say we got their tail numbers and bithced to the Air Force and the FAA. It didn't happen again whie I was still flying there.

 

[wuzak]

I'm curious why so many people are getting hung up on WVR turn and burn dogfighting, how exactly are the opposition supposed to locate the F35's to engage them in this brawl in the first place?

If the F35 knows where you are and you don't know where it is, your going to be very busy dodging missiles!

So the theory goes....

 

[wuzak]

And as much as im a supporter of the F-35, that should have been thought out by each partner nation. The F-35 isn't for eveyone for both cost and capability.

Unfortunately the F-22 was never offered for foreign sales.

Plus, in Australia there was no proper evaluation of the F-35's capabilities against our needs.

 

[wuzak]

But there are plenty of highly-capable SAM systems that can take out all our attack airframes quite readily. With Putin continuing his sabre-rattling and tweaking NATO's nose, how long will it be before we see yet more capable SAM systems being sold to countries that are hostile to the West? At that point, it's too late to do something with our existing fleet. We need a modern, low-observable fast jet platform capable of precision attack...and that would be the F-35.

Which came first, the Russians "tweaking NATO's nose" or NATO expansion into Russia's neighbours?

Pretty sure Russia already sells weapons to those "hostile to the West".

 

[kool kitty89]

The real issue isn't the ability to DO it ... the issue is constantly-shifting goals and specifications. I'd describe it, but people like FlyboyJ and Drgondog have lived it like I have and KNOW the problems caused by constantly shooting at a moving target. There are many others in here who have lived it and know, too.

This same sort of problem develops with nearly any sort of engineering. I can think of some horribly organized civil engineering and development plans that either ended up getting re-evaluated and canceled outright or (in the case of the new High School that finally opened around 10 years ago) finally put back on track after months or years of varying delays and political/bureaucratic messes. In some cases it's changing requirements in other cases it's improper planning/data collected and provided by the customer (government/military in these cases) or upper management in the case of internal R&D projects (... or management influenced by 'market research' and marketing divisions ... ). Middle management of some sort or another that lacks the skills to properly plan and deliver the requirements in the first place and also usually lacks the understanding of engineering or economics to minimize wasteful spending and delays forced my belated amendments to requirements. (or, of course, cases where they DO understand but just don't CARE about doing their job well, and only care about looking good playing political/bureaucratic games)

Same goes for tons of stories I know in the computer and electronics industries, though not too many specific to military contracts. (probably because people tend to be less free to openly discuss those matters ... or just because the consumer market is an even bigger mess than the military/government one)

All too rare do you get politicians or corporate bureaucrats that know how to play the game well AND actually care about getting things done right ... and are good at doing both while not looking underhanded or sneaky about it to the public.

Hmm, I suppose the more practical public image problem is just that a lot of people find it much easier to focus on short-term costs and end up being penny wise and pound foolish with lack of foresight or concern for long term costs. (monetary and just general consequences)

The government wastes a LOT of time and money trying to get contractors to pay for things that have to be redone at government request due to government-specified changes. They wind up paying anyway, but they drag you through the mud to get paid.

And waste a ton of time and money (and other resources) bickering about it rather than just settling for some compromise to expedite things. But then you need at least one side to actually be willing to compromise and unless you have BOTH that tends to mean the more sensible one eating the entire cost just to avoid delays and waste. Then again, if both sides were being sensible and rational about the entire project, they likely wouldn't be running into those sorts of delays and conflicts nearly as often either.

While I was at one company, we had local machine shops refusing to deliver fixtures until they were paid for because the money was slow in coming. Naturally, that impacted schedules, which tended to draw penalties on top of schedule slips ... all due to inefficiency in accounts payable. Our company refused to finance government projects and wait for the payment to come in the mail, so it was hurry up to get it done on time and then wait around to get paid before continuing with the supposed "continuous-effort" project.

As a taxpayer it was outrageous. As an engineer it was business as usual on some projects that shall remain nameless.

That all sounds very familiar, and delays tend to be compounded ... everything's great when it goes to plan, but with lack of margins for error and contingencies for mistakes/changes you end up with cost overruns ... investors/buyers being unwilling to pay more or other bottlenecks for procuring added resources to keep up pace and end up in a vicious cycle of overlapping costs. Developers that under-bid costs to win a contract would make that problem worse too. (speaking in general, not saying there's any relevance to the F-35's case)

The issue is the CUSTOMER is inducing the changes!!!!

You know, that really is the bigger issue even beyond the mistakes in planning that leads to improper requirements in the first place, especially since you COULD end up with a very good, solid plan and resulting specification that made perfect sense for the overall requirements but added changes being thrown in for stupid reasons after the fact due to shifting politics or management.

That, and curbing excessive changes and wasteful spending (and delays ... and resulting further waste) resulting from that might be a lot more practical to actually moderate than applying quality assurance techniques to the planning stage itself. Say if Congress really wanted to cut the budget, moderating THOSE sorts of situations might make a lot more sense ... the problem would still be: who actually intervenes there? Unless you have people in the government who actually have at least a basic understanding of the engineering and economic issues (and the concepts associated with good quality assurance) involved and are actually focused on expediting development and minimizing wasteful spending you're stuck where we already are. (it seems like there's a LOT more engineers with a decent understanding of politics than there are politicians with decent understanding of engineering ... and lack of any sort of coercion compromising their integrity)

It's almost like we could use some sort of quality assurance oversight committee to arbitrate in such matters. (any added costs there would probably be far less than the wasted time/money on mismanaged projects, the problem would be actually establishing a group like that and maintaining the competence and integrity of the committee members) Plus, if the DID do their job well ... they'd probably end up dumped on by the media and politicians ... people tend to not like compromise or being told they're 'wrong' ... and quality assurance very often requires telling ALL sides they're wrong at some point or another. It's the whole non-partisian political problem. (I'm getting far afield here, but I can't help but be reminded of some of the same political and economic issues Teddy Roosevelt ran into in office or during the 1912 election)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Unfortunately the F-22 was never offered for foreign sales.

Thanks to US congress...

Plus, in Australia there was no proper evaluation of the F-35's capabilities against our needs.

"Caveat emptor" Not very smart!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

When I lived in Phoenix, AZ for 23 years, we had a spate of accidents from the mid 80s to mid 90s when we were seeing quite a few F-16 crashes. Luke AFB was the F-16 training site and they had (and probably HAVE) a LOT of F-16s.

We took to calling the F-16 the "Lawn Dart" because they were hitting the ground so often. It was more than 60% engine failures, probably from maintenance issues mostly, but the USAF won't TELL you that.

Sorry Greg but I'm throwing the BS flag on that. If anything maintainers are the FIRST ones looked at after any Class A mishap. I work directly with 3 USAF squadrons and we have had "minor situations" where the pilot clealy errored, but in a last gasp maintenance was questioned.

BTW I believe all Class A mishaps must be made public and I also believe they are under the scrutiny of the arms Services Committee, so you have elected officials providing oversight. Look into Janet Harduvel and how she took on General Dynamics after her husband was killed, that incident changed they way the military had to deal with bad accidents.

 

[GrauGeist]

Which came first, the Russians "tweaking NATO's nose" or NATO expansion into Russia's neighbours?

I don't recall any NATO bases in the Ukraine or the Crimea...

 

[buffnut453]

Pretty sure Russia already sells weapons to those "hostile to the West".

That's why I said "yet more...being sold".

Which came first, the Russians "tweaking NATO's nose" or NATO expansion into Russia's neighbours?

Last time I checked, NATO wasn't invading parts of Russia or threatening nuclear expansion. I hardly think Mr Putin can take the moral high ground here.

Russia has consistently exported technologies to hostile nations and, based on how things stand today, it's likely to get worse. My frustration with all the "let's buy more F-16s and F-15s" crowd is that those aircraft don't stand a chance against such systems but at least the F-35 has a chance at being survivable.

 

[GregP]

Hey Joe,

They had a LOT of F-16 crashes, no BS. The local media ... notoriously accurate in aviation reporting as always(!), usually said "crash after engine failure." There was no reporting to the general public from the Air Force, but we sprouted bumper crop of F-16s about then.

So ... if the engines were at fault, it's either the engine design that is still flying today in the airframe, the fuel quality or running out of it, the maintenance, the electronics failing, or the pilots making the big mistake. There are few if any other possibilities.

I couldn't give less of a darn which one it was since I'm not in charge of F-16 safety and not I'm flying them either; they still crashed at a pretty good rate in the late 80s early 90s in Phoenix. Unless the reports were bogus ... but they usually had chopper film of a smoking something in a hole surrounded by wreckage. I'm not suggesting ... I'm telling you that the maintainers were blamed locally as I was there and flying at the time and paying a lot of attention. But no local pilots ever heard a word from the USAF one way or the other. My friend in the Air Guard never talked about it and I didn't ask.

In the end, it makes no difference to me what the root causes were, they had a rash of crashes at Luke and then it tapered off ... flying the same planes. Since I'm not located there now and not really flying these days, I can't say but I haven't heard too many sinlge-plane F-16 reports over the last 10 - 15 years. They may run over an occasional Cessna 150, but that's a two plane accident that isn't likely the fault of the F-16's engine.

Call BS if you will; SOMETHING dropped the F-16s out of the sky over a 7 - 10 year period around Phoenix and then seemed to "go away." I hope it STAYS away. Coincidentally, they had a LOT of F-15's there, too, and they didn't seem to suffer from the same reported engine-related woes despite being a similar engine and I hope they never do. In fact I can't recall a single F-15 crash at Luke while I was living there, but I also may have rose-colored glasses.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hey Joe,

They had a LOT of F-16 crashes, no BS. The local media ... notoriously accurate in aviation reporting as always(!), usually said "crash after engine failure." There was no reporting to the general public from the Air Force, but we sprouted bumper crop of F-16s about then.

Do you have a quantitive number of crashes??? I could tell you that the F-16 has a high accident rate and has had engine issues, but with that said, where does it connect to "maintenace"????

So ... if the engines were at fault, it's either the engine design that is still flying today in the airframe, the fuel quality or running out of it, the maintenance, the electronics failing, or the pilots making the big mistake. There are few if any other possibilities.

See below...

I couldn't give less of a darn which one it was since I'm not in charge of F-16 safety and not I'm flying them either; they still crashed at a pretty good rate in the late 80s early 90s in Phoenix.

Again, hard numbers Greg!

Unless the reports were bogus ... but they usually had chopper film of a smoking something in a hole surrounded by wreckage. I'm not suggesting ... I'm telling you that the maintainers were blamed locally as I was there and flying at the time and paying a lot of attention. But no local pilots ever heard a word from the USAF one way or the other. My friend in the Air Guard never talked about it and I didn't ask.

and again, if there were maintainers to blame that would have came out in the accident reports which are public record.

Call BS if you will; SOMETHING dropped the F-16s out of the sky over a 7 - 10 year period around Phoenix and then seemed to "go away." I hope it STAYS away. Coniodentally, they had a LOT of F-15's tgehre, too, and they didn't seem to suffer from the same reported engine-related woes despite being a similar engine and I hope they never do.

F-16 Losses

Although you may believe every F-16 might have crashed in Arizona (there were a lot of crashes there), here's the real story...

"All USAF F-16 fighter Class A (major) aircraft mishaps from 1975-93 were analyzed, using records from the U.S. Air Force Safety Agency (AFSA). There were 190 Class A mishaps involving 204 F-16's and 217 aircrew during this 19-yr period. The overall Class A rate was 5.09 per 100,000 flight hours, more than double the overall USAF rate. The mishaps are categorized by year, month, time of day and model of aircraft in relation to mishap causes as determined and reported by AFSA. Formation position, phase of flight and primary cause of the mishap indicate that maneuvering, cruise and low-level phases account for the majority of the mishaps (71%), with air-to-air engagements associated with a higher proportion of pilot error (71%) than was air-to-ground (49%). Engine failure was the number one cause of mishaps (35%), and collision with the ground the next most frequent (24%). Pilot error was determined as causative in 55% of all the mishaps. Pilot error was often associated with other non-pilot related causes. Channelized attention, loss of situational awareness, and spatial disorientation accounted for approximately 30% of the total pilot error causes found. Pilot demographics, flight hour/sortie profiles, and aircrew injuries are also listed. Fatalities occurred in 27% of the mishaps, with 97% of those involving pilot errors."

F-16 Class A mishaps in the U.S. Air Force, 1975-93.
USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5123, USA.

If you want specifics about those engine failures, I'll talk to my boss tomorrow. He was Ranking NCO at Hill AFB for a number of years and worked on the F-16 for over 20 years. His son currently flies them

 

[GregP]

Joe,

I'm not an Air Force reporter. I don't HAVE hard numbers and will NOT waste time and effort to get them to satisfy someone's curiosity. If you are curious, go check it out. There were a LOT of F-16 crashes there for awhile. I don't care what summary reports say ... I lived there and heard about them on the local news and it ain't no BS. I never paid any attention to F-16 events around the world or the nation, but local crashes made the news.

I have little curiosity about 30-year old crashes in any case unless it's someone like Amelia Earhart or someone newsworthy for some reason. I'm getting tired of defending facts and things veterans say about flying in WWII ... I'm NOT the one saying them (just reporting it) in the case of veterans flying experiences and the crashes were reported on the Phoenix news.

If you or anyone else doesn't think they crashed there, that's fine. It won't affect aviation safety today and I have NO agenda concerning the crashes, hard landings that resulted in scrapped planes, or whatever it was. I mentioned the crashes as a response and want no more to do with them as I wasn't on the accident investigation board and didn't even want to be.

If you guys don't want to hear about aviation events, I won't post about them. End of story and my interest in it. Damned sorry I even mentioned it.

 

[wuzak]

I don't recall any NATO bases in the Ukraine or the Crimea...

Not yet anyway.

However, Ukraine was seeking to become a member of NATO before all the civil war stuff happened.

 

[GrauGeist]

Not a civil war...it's Russian backed antagonists trying to destabilize the country so Putin can go and "protect Russian speaking people" like he did in the Crimea.

There have been a good number of Russian police and Russian soldiers captured in the Ukraine and there has also been Russian police caught and arrested in the Baltic states...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Joe,

I'm not an Air Force reporter. I don't HAVE hard numbers and will NOT waste time and effort to get them to satisfy someone's curiosity. If you are curious, go check it out. There were a LOT of F-16 crashes there for awhile. I don't care what summary reports say ... I lived there and heard about them on the local news and it ain't no BS. I never paid any attention to F-16 events around the world or the nation, but local crashes made the news.

Well why spout off some BS without backing up what you say?!?!? I work with this stuff daily and SEE some of these reports. I gave you the data, if you want to go in and keep listening to the bubbleheaded bleach blonde on the boob tube, go right ahead, but be advised that I will call you on the BS...

I have little curiosity about 30-year old crashes in any case unless it's someone like Amelia Earhart or someone newsworthy for some reason. I'm getting tired of defending facts and things veterans say about flying in WWII ... I'm NOT the one saying them (just reporting it) in the case of veterans flying experiences and the crashes were reported on the Phoenix news.

If you or anyone else doesn't think they crashed there, that's fine. It won't affect aviation safety today and I have NO agenda concerning the crashes, hard landings that resulted in scrapped planes, or whatever it was. I mentioned the crashes as a response and want no more to do with them as I wasn't on the accident investigation board and didn't even want to be.

If you guys don't want to hear about aviation events, I won't post about them. End of story and my interest in it. Damned sorry I even mentioned it.

Greg, stop being a f#*king baby - anytime anyone calls you on something you have a hissy fit. I don't know eveything but when I do have facts in hand I show them. I'll also call people on any BS and would expect any other member to do the same.

Now let's drop this and move on...

 

[pbehn]

I only mentioned the F 16 accident rate because of the previous quoted post and the fact that it has a single engine.

I was looking at this site about accidents.

F-16 Mishaps Accident Reports

I was looking at accidents by year which covers all forces you can look up USA only losses separately.

There was CERTAINLY an increase in UK of AC lost to accidents 26 years ago in the run up to desert storm not only RAF but also a few USA aircraft based in UK. I believe low level training restrictions were lifted and the number of training OPs increased by a huge percentage.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I only mentioned the F 16 accident rate because of the previous quoted post and the fact that it has a single engine.

I was looking at this site about accidents.

F-16 Mishaps Accident Reports

I was looking at accidents by year which covers all forces you can look up USA only losses separately.

There was CERTAINLY an increase in UK of AC lost to accidents 26 years ago in the run up to desert storm not only RAF but also a few USA aircraft based in UK. I believe low level training restrictions were lifted and the number of training OPs increased by a huge percentage.

Great info pbehn! Certain things to look at - How many were due to training? It was mentioned that there were a lot of accidents in Arizona. If you look into operations at Luke AFB, it's a training base, you're naturally going to have a high rate by nature of the operations.

Preperation for war - again agressive training will induce accidents.

There were a few component failures (Turbine blades coming apart, generator and fuel control failures) but scanning thorough a few pages I found nothing to show that any of these failures were due to "maintenance," but that's not to say there hasn't been a maintenance related class A incident during the F-16's operational history. I have a meeting with my boss, I'm going to hit him up abut engine failures and maintainer induced incidents.

 

[Totalize]

Shouldn't that be "But here's our F-35, eh?"?

Sorry...couldn't resist. I'll get my coat.

Awwh Shucks. No worries eh? or should I say Huh?

back at ya buddy.

 

[Totalize]

When I lived in Phoenix, AZ for 23 years, we had a spate of accidents from the mid 80s to mid 90s when we were seeing quite a few F-16 crashes. Luke AFB was the F-16 training site and they had (and probably HAVE) a LOT of F-16s.

We took to calling the F-16 the "Lawn Dart" because they were hitting the ground so often. It was more than 60% engine failures, probably from maintenance issues mostly, but the USAF won't TELL you that.

Yeah but our minister said the F-35 engine will never fail.......tongue firmly planted in cheek.

 

[buffnut453]

Awwh Shucks. No worries eh? or should I say Huh?

back at ya buddy.