US Defence Cuts Announced: F-35 program delayed AGAIN

[FLYBOYJ]

Yeah, there just isn't the aircraft turnover anymore. Upgrades sure, and that also will add costs, but that theoretically won't be until the reasonably distant future. If in 30 years the F-35 is still nowhere near retirement, the media will be saying that they were a great bargain.

Yep - Just like the same way they said the F-117A was the "worst kept secret of the cold war" because models were made of it when it was still classified. Tell me, would you think this was the same aircraft?

 

[Catch22]

Looks more like the SR-71 to me.

 

[ivanotter]

Flyboy, correct me if I am wrong:

are the cost over runs caused by changes to the specs as the project is going along (scope creep)?

Those must be serious changes to the specs, but Ihave not seen that.

If the B version is causing the "bad press" you are spot-on in suggesting that it should be "released" from the A and C versions.

If that is the case, does it not confirm that we have tried to be "all things to all men" and building an a/c by committee, a compromise of all kinds of requirements to the point where it is not a compromise, but compromised.

I think we would all like to see just one smooth-running project in our life-time, but...

However, the problems reported seem to be of a more basic nature. Broken spars, over-weight, etc etc, should not occur with the type of design tools we have now, really. Are there fundamental issues with the specs, only showing up in the implementation in your opinion?

Ivan

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboy, correct me if I am wrong:

are the cost over runs caused by changes to the specs as the project is going along (scope creep)?

Those must be serious changes to the specs, but Ihave not seen that.

Some of them are. LMCO is also to blame for some of the delays as well, and then you have just normal production teething pains that would be inherent in the design and production of any modern warplane, let alone one as sophisticated as the F-35.

If the B version is causing the "bad press" you are spot-on in suggesting that it should be "released" from the A and C versions.

Perhaps - what also has to be examined is the need and the cost to kill that part of the program if necessary. If it is decided that the "B" version should not be produced, more than likely LMCO will receive cancellation fees and a good chunk of the planned workforce will be furloughed. It could also drive the cost of the other models up. All that has to weighed to see if it would be cost effective to kill that segment of the program, and of course most of the media is too stupid to cover any of this.

If that is the case, does it not confirm that we have tried to be "all things to all men" and building an a/c by committee, a compromise of all kinds of requirements to the point where it is not a compromise, but compromised.

No, not really. I believe the aircraft could work if properly managed by the contractor and government. The problem in the aircraft manufacturing industry is there are too many bean counters and not enough people who really know how to build and fly airplanes.

I think we would all like to see just one smooth-running project in our life-time, but...

However, the problems reported seem to be of a more basic nature. Broken spars, over-weight, etc etc, should not occur with the type of design tools we have now, really. Are there fundamental issues with the specs, only showing up in the implementation in your opinion?

Ivan

Broken spars? I don't know where you came up with that one. Weight has been an issue with the aircraft since the X-35 days, but the concept aircraft shows the design is viable. I don't think there anything wrong with "specs" in general - its a matter of getting all the technologies going into the aircraft to "blend." The F-117A had similar problems but that program was successful because a lot of the normal red tape and the press were kept off the program.

 

[ivanotter]

It does show that the F-35 is hugely complex.

As also Glider is stating, project creep is a danger in all major technology projects. F-35 is probably also there.

That said, are we closer to "bleeding edge" than "leading edge" with the F-35?

As a layman looking in (and I have been project managing some rather big IT projects), it looks as though we should re-look the B version and maybe just get A and C finished.

How much impact will it have if the USMC gets "dropped" (and the RN maybe)?

Dusting off the Harriers could be an idea?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It does show that the F-35 is hugely complex.

As also Glider is stating, project creep is a danger in all major technology projects. F-35 is probably also there.

That said, are we closer to "bleeding edge" than "leading edge" with the F-35?

As a layman looking in (and I have been project managing some rather big IT projects), it looks as though we should re-look the B version and maybe just get A and C finished.

How much impact will it have if the USMC gets "dropped" (and the RN maybe)?

Dusting off the Harriers could be an idea?

Again, all food for thought, its going to be a matter of need and dollars. I do know that in the past several weeks the "B" model has been doing quite well during flight tests at Pax River, and on prototype completed a 4 hour flight. The USAF will sell its sole for the F-35. I think you''re going to see a day where the only manned combat aircraft in the USAF inventory will be the AC-130, F-22, F-35 and the B-2

 

[ivanotter]

F:

I also read that the B can start to hover, etc, doing what it was supposed to do.

Somehow, I think the bad press must be countered as a priority. That could be done by admitting the severituy of the problems (honesty is typically very good) and to have a more rigid action plan.

That could involve things like:

Delay the B until the A is flying
Dust off the Harriers - telling USMC and RN to start contingency planning
Increase the pace of the flight tests on the A version
Ensure total buy-in from the overseas customers (they must be looking at contingencies, no doubt about it. I would if it were me sitting in Europe and looking at it)
Get the weapons integration stepped up.

Wold that be an action plan or am I "smoking funny cigarettes"

Ivan

 

[FLYBOYJ]

F:

I also read that the B can start to hover, etc, doing what it was supposed to do.

The F-35B been hovering for a while.

Somehow, I think the bad press must be countered as a priority. That could be done by admitting the severituy of the problems (honesty is typically very good) and to have a more rigid action plan.

The only way the press will be squelched is when you see the F-35B complete its flight testing program and break some records, but even then you'll still have critics. As far as admitting problems - I think that's been done to a point. There is a tremendous amount of oversite on this program and hiding something will be extrememly difficult. I also think LMCO knows the consequences if they don't get this right.

That could involve things like:

Delay the B until the A is flying
Dust off the Harriers - telling USMC and RN to start contingency planning
Increase the pace of the flight tests on the A version
Ensure total buy-in from the overseas customers (they must be looking at contingencies, no doubt about it. I would if it were me sitting in Europe and looking at it)
Get the weapons integration stepped up.

Wold that be an action plan or am I "smoking funny cigarettes"

Ivan

I would guess there are some thinking on the same lines, but until the F-35B can be proven to not meet its design intent, the only limiting factors are cost and schedule.

 

[ivanotter]

Breaking records would be nice to see. The only way to redeem itself.

I still think the B is dragging the project down. It is creating uncertainty and doubt where there should not be.

PS: I may be biased against the F-35 as I find it "ugly".

Did they go out of the way to design something ugly? it is nearly as bad as the X-32 which takes the prize. Could theyhave designed something like F4, Super Hornet (my all-time favourite) or just something not so ugly.

Ivan

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Breaking records would be nice to see. The only way to redeem itself.

I still think the B is dragging the project down. It is creating uncertainty and doubt where there should not be.

PS: I may be biased against the F-35 as I find it "ugly".

Did they go out of the way to design something ugly? it is nearly as bad as the X-32 which takes the prize. Could theyhave designed something like F4, Super Hornet (my all-time favourite) or just something not so ugly.

Ivan

Ascetics are in the eye of the beholder, I know that functionality went into the design and it has a lot in common with the F-22.

As far as the F-35B dragging the program down – that has yet to be seen. Remember, there are so-called "problems" and cost over runs, but none so far that would give justification for pulling the plug. LMCO probably has about 6 months to get program back on track; personally I think they can do it. Now it's a matter of foreign sales and need to justify the aircraft.

 

[ivanotter]

Let's see if LM can get it out of probation.

Have we seen any confirmations on numbers for break-even? is it still into the 2,000+?

PS: I shall be starting a new thread: the "ugliest" a/c ever designed. My nomination: X-32.

Ivan

 

[ivanotter]

I picked this from another forum:

Pentagon Cuts $6.9 Billion by Delaying Lockheed F-35s - Bloomberg

Comments?

reg,

 

[FLYBOYJ]

All points are on the mark but the delay is more of a shell game than anything else. The DoD will cut $6.9 Billion from THIS year's budget but tack in on or spread it out in futute budgets. LMCO gets impacted as any slowdown on the line will more than likely affect employment numbers. At least the article seperates the problems with the F-35B from the other versions.

 

[ivanotter]

It is indeed a factual article, but also what would be expected from Bloomberg.

What about the dwindling numbers? how big an impact will that now have on the total programme? never mind the profit clause in the contract, but more on the confidence level?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What about the dwindling numbers? how big an impact will that now have on the total programme? never mind the profit clause in the contract, but more on the confidence level?

A matter of need. Some of the spares and after production support may increase in price.

As far as confidence? I'm not sure what you mean but also remember there were supposed to be 123 B-2s. I don't think those flying the aircraft today are that worried.

 

[ivanotter]

Picked from aviation week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:21f23df4-ab3b-4042-aea9-04cb1f727f9d

It looks a bit all over, but their conclusion is that it is still within the envelope of problems to be expected.

The bulkhead/spar problem does sound a bit extreme, though.

Comments?

 

[ivanotter]

JPO on STOVL F-35 Design Issues

sorry

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Having inspected machined titanium parts, this isn't too uncommon and it sounds like an easy fix on production models. I've similar situations on smaller parts when I briefly worked on the early C-17 program.

 

[ivanotter]

it seems to be a bit late in the day to find those types of problems.

One would expect that such things on main components would be found in the design phases, with all the great design software we now have around.

These fixes look strange:

Oops, titanium too heavy:
Fix: chuck in aluminium spar

Oops, not strong enough
Fix 1: machine it a bit
Fix 2: re-desgin it to dilude stress

It does come across as fixes with no thought-through planning of consequences.

All the other stuff sounds like engineering quests.

The big question looming: do we find bigger things as we go along now as it is finally coming off the ground (x'cuse the pun).

Ivan

 

[Matt308]

This is becoming a really odd thread, ivanotter. I can't tell if you have a point or just want to blog.