Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: The Pentagon's 399 billion plane nowhere

Share             
  1. #1
    Senior Member Pak92's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,841
    Thanks
    1636
    Pakistan Pakistan

    The Pentagon's 399 billion plane nowhere

    The next-generation F-35, the most expensive plane ever built, may be too dangerous to fly. Why is Congress keeping it alive?
    By Kate Brannen

    Burying bad news before a long holiday weekend, the Pentagon announced just before 9 p.m. on July 3 that the entire F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet was being grounded after a June 23 runway fire at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

    The grounding could not have come at a worse time, especially for the Marine Corps, which had lots of splashy events planned this month for its variant of the next-generation plane, whose costs have soared to an estimated $112 million per aircraft.

    Effectively saying that the most expensive warplane in American history is too dangerous to fly is a huge public relations blow for the Pentagon, which has been under fire for years for allowing the plane's costs to increase even as its delivery time continued to slide right. The plane's prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, could also take a hit to its bottom line if the F-35 isn't cleared to fly to the United Kingdom for a pair of high-profile international air shows packed with potential customers. One thing the grounding won't do, however, is derail the F-35, a juggernaut of a program that apparently has enough political top cover to withstand any storm.

    Part of that protection comes from the jaw-dropping amounts of money at stake. The Pentagon intends to spend roughly $399 billion to develop and buy 2,443 of the planes. However, over the course of the aircrafts' lifetimes, operating costs are expected to exceed $1 trillion. Lockheed has carefully hired suppliers and subcontractors in almost every state to ensure that virtually all senators and members of Congress have a stake in keeping the program -- and the jobs it has created -- in place.

    "An upfront question with any program now is: How many congressional districts is it in?" said Thomas Christie, a former senior Pentagon acquisitions official.

    In the case of the F-35, the short answer is: a lot. Counting all of its suppliers and subcontractors, parts of the program are spread out across at least 45 states. That's why there's no doubt lawmakers will continue to fund the program even though this is the third time in 17 months that the entire fleet has been grounded due to engine problems. In fact, in the version of the defense appropriations bill passed by the House, lawmakers agreed to purchase 38 planes in 2015, four more than the Pentagon requested.

    The Pentagon has offered little information about the cause of the fire or whether the Marine Corps' version of the plane, the F-35B, had been cleared to participate in the Royal International Air Tattoo and the Farnborough International Airshow in the U.K. next week.

    "Nobody wants to rush these aircraft back into the air before we know exactly what happened and investigators have a chance to do their work," Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters Tuesday.

    In addition to the Marines, the F-35 is also being built for the Navy and the Air Force. Each service is getting its own unique version of the aircraft, though the most important part -- the engine -- is being shared across all three models.

    But the armed services are not the only customers. Eight international partners have signed on to help build and buy the planes: the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway. While not involved in the development of the plane, Israel and Japan are buying it through the foreign military sales process, and South Korea recently indicated that it would buy at least 40 of the aircraft.

    It's crucial for the Pentagon that each of these countries sticks with their planned buys to prevent the unit price of each aircraft from increasing even further. Lockheed, in turn, sees those foreign sales as an important part of its strategy to diversify away from the shrinking U.S. defense market in favor of expanding overseas ones.

    Unfortunately for the Pentagon -- and for Lockheed -- the Pentagon's decision to ground the planes has already caused the aircraft to miss its scheduled July 4 international debut: flying over the naming ceremony for the British Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier -- the HMS Queen Elizabeth -- in Scotland.

    "This government has sold this turkey and is still selling it," Christie said.

    None of the countries involved in the program have indicated their commitment to it has changed since the planes were grounded.

    Its future really isn't in doubt, but the F-35 is facing some criticism at home. On Capitol Hill, the F-35's biggest critic is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He's famous for his tirades against the plane, bemoaning the program's cost and the fact that the United States is buying the fighter jet before its testing is even complete. But so far his rhetorical bark is worse than his legislative bite when it comes to the annual defense authorization bill.

    On Tuesday, McCain told Defense News that the F-35 is the worst example "of the military-industrial-congressional complex," but other senators, including Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), were mostly confident that its problems would be fixed.

    Meanwhile, Lockheed's rival Boeing, which builds EA-18G Growlers and F/A-18 Super Hornets, criticizes the F-35's capabilities in the press and vies with it for money on Capitol Hill. But even Boeing is careful about how far it will go with its criticism, because at the end of the day, the company doesn't want to burn its relationship with its government customers, said Winslow Wheeler, a former congressional staffer who closely tracks the program's ups and downs.

    "The political armor of the F-35 is as thick as the heads of the people who designed the airplane and its acquisition plan," he said.

    Wheeler is one of the F-35's biggest critics, but his view of the program's political protections is widely shared, and it's one of the reasons that the program appears to be here to stay despite a growing record of problems.

    In September 2013, the Pentagon's F-35 program office announced that the tires on the Marine Corps model were wearing out way too fast. This February, the entire fleet was grounded for a whole week after a crack was discovered in a test aircraft's engine turbine blade. As recently as June 9, the Pentagon had to ground the entire fleet after an oil leakoccurred midflight, causing a Marine pilot to emergency-land the plane at a base in Arizona.

    But the program office and Lockheed have worked hard to solve these problems as they crop up. And Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manager, has brought new focus to the program's price tag, pressuring Lockheed to bring down its costs.

    Still, the problems continue. According to congressional and defense sources, the June 23 incident happened right before the F-35A -- the Air Force variant -- lifted off the ground. The pilot was able to abort the takeoff and get out of the plane in time.

    "The root cause of the incident remains under investigation," the Pentagon said in its July 3 statement. More than two weeks since the event, there has been little official news. The companies, meanwhile, are staying mum.

    "Lockheed Martin is working closely with the F-35 Joint Program Office and industry partners in supporting the Air Force investigation," said Lockheed spokeswoman Laura Siebert. "Safety is our team's top priority."

    The plane's engine maker, Pratt & Whitney, also said it's standing ready to assist the investigation, but it wouldn't offer any more details.

    Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, attributed the F-35 grounding to the growing pains inherent in any complicated new weapons program. "It absolutely doesn't do anything to shake our confidence in the F-35 program and the progress that has been made both from an engineering and from a financial perspective," he said.

    While no one is predicting any drastic changes to the program, defense and congressional sources said the F-35's current engine problems could lead to a revival of the battle over whether General Electric and Rolls Royce should build a second engine for the plane. The effort had been deeply controversial within the Pentagon, where senior leaders like then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates derided it as a waste of taxpayer money. The effort was finally killed by Congress in 2011.

    If it turns out that there is a serious problem with the Pratt & Whitney engine, though, you can expect to see an explosion of advertisements from GE-Rolls Royce in the Pentagon's metro station, one former defense official said. "There will be a lot of I-told-you-sos," he said

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._plane_nowhere

  2. #2
    Banned alihamza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,506
    Thanks
    411
    Pakistan UK

    Re: The Pentagon's 399 billion plane nowhere

    The amount of money they've spent on trying to make the F-35 work is simply disgusting and appalling.

  3. #3
    Facebook Editor safriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    5,658
    Thanks
    5027
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Is F-35 a blunder?

    Americans should be worried.

    The U.S. military has grounded all its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters following an incident on June 23, when one of the high-tech warplanes caught fire on the runway of a Florida air base. The no-fly order — which affects at least 50 F-35s at training and test bases in Florida, Arizona, California and Maryland — began on the evening of July 3 and continued through July 11.

    All those F-35s sitting idle could be a preview of a future in which potentially thousands of the Pentagon’s warplanes can’t reliably fly.

    Handout photo of three F-35 Joint Strike Fighters flying over Edwards Air Force BaseTo be fair, the Pentagon routinely grounds warplanes on a temporary basis following accidents and malfunctions to buy investigators time to identify problems and to give engineers time to fix them.

    But there’s real reason to worry. The June incident might reflect serious design flaws that could render the F-35 unsuitable for combat.

    For starters, the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 — which can avoid sensor detection thanks to its special shape and coating — simply doesn’t work very well. The Pentagon has had to temporarily ground F-35s no fewer than 13 times since 2007, mostly due to problems with the plane’s Pratt & Whitney-made F135 engine, in particular, with the engines’ turbine blades. The stand-downs lasted at most a few weeks.

    “The repeated problems with the same part of the engine may be indications of a serious design and structural problem with the F135 engine,” said Johan Boeder, a Dutch aerospace expert and editor of the online publication JSF News.

    Pratt & Whitney has already totally redesigned the F135 in an attempt to end its history of frequent failures. But there’s only so much engineers can do. In a controversial move during the early stages of the F-35′s development, the Pentagon decided to fit the plane with one engine instead of two. Sticking with one motor can help keep down the price of a new plane. But in the F-35′s case, the decision proved self-defeating.

    Handout photo of workers on the moving line and forward fuselage assembly areas for the F-35 JSF at Lockheed Martin Corp's factory located in Fort Worth, TexasThat’s because the F-35 is complex — the result of the Air Force, Marines and Navy all adding features to the basic design. In airplane design, such complexity equals weight. The F-35 is extraordinarily heavy for a single-engine plane, weighing as much as 35 tons with a full load of fuel.

    By comparison, the older F-15 fighter weighs 40 tons. But it has two engines. To remain reasonably fast and maneuverable, the F-35′s sole F135 engine must generate no less than 20 tons of thrust — making it history’s most powerful fighter motor.

    All that thrust results in extreme levels of stress on engine components. It’s no surprise, then, that the F-35 frequently suffers engine malfunctions. Even with that 20 tons of thrust, the new radar-dodging plane is still sluggish. The F-35 “is a dog … overweight and underpowered,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington.

    In 2008, two analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank that works closely with the military, programmed a computer simulation to test out the F-35′s fighting ability in a hypothetical air war with China. The results were startling.

    “The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.

    Handout photo of workers on the moving line and forward fuselage assembly areas for the F-35 JSF at Lockheed Martin Corp's factory located in Fort Worth, TexasYet the F-35 is on track to become by far the military’s most numerous warplane. It was designed to replace almost all current fighters in the Air Force and Marine Corps and complement the Navy’s existing F/A-18 jets. The Pentagon plans to acquire roughly 2,400 of the radar-evading F-35s in coming decades, at a cost of more than $400 billion.

    Like it or not, the stealthy F-35 is the future of U.S. air power. There are few alternatives. Lockheed Martin’s engineers have done millions of man-hours of work on the design since development began in the 1990s. Starting work on a new plane now would force the Defense Department to wait a decade or more, during which other countries might pull ahead in jet design. Russia, China and Japan are all working on new stealth fighter models.

    The Pentagon sounds guardedly optimistic about the current F-35 grounding. “Additional inspections of F-35 engines have been ordered,” Rear Admiral John Kirby, a military spokeman said, “and return to flight will be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data.”

    Minor fixes might get America’s future warplane flying again soon — for a while. But fundamental design flaws could vex the F-35 for decades to come, forcing the Pentagon to suspend flying far too often for the majority of its fighter fleet, potentially jeopardizing U.S. national security.
    The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to safriz For This Useful Post: ArshadK,Red Dragon,T-123456


  4. #4
    Elite Member T-123456's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks
    4227
    Turkey Netherlands

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    You know what i think of this ''flying'' duck,but what other 5th gen choice do we have?
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to T-123456 For This Useful Post: ArshadK,Red Dragon

    Last edited by T-123456; 15th July 2014 at 08:23.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Red Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,616
    Thanks
    2648
    China China

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by T-123456 View Post
    You know what i think about this ''flying'' duck,but what other 5th gen choice do we have?
    lol you can buy some jets from China!
    The Following User Says Thank You to Red Dragon For This Useful Post: T-123456


  6. #6
    Elite Member T-123456's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks
    4227
    Turkey Netherlands

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dragon View Post
    lol you can buy some jets from China!
    Which one 5th gen?
    J-60,J-31 or another ready?
    Indigenous engine ready?
    No,so buy what?
    Btw,isnt one called Red Dragon? [MENTION=2569]Red Dragon[/MENTION] ,no answer?
    Last edited by T-123456; 15th July 2014 at 09:23.

  7. #7
    Senior Member ArshadK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,860
    Thanks
    1378
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by T-123456 View Post
    Which one 5th gen?
    J-60,J-31 or another ready?
    Indigenous engine ready?
    No,so buy what?
    Btw,isnt one called Red Dragon? [MENTION=2569]Red Dragon[/MENTION] ,no anwer?
    they have more under development. I think RD was joking but maybe a JV?
    The Following User Says Thank You to ArshadK For This Useful Post: T-123456


  8. #8
    Elite Member T-123456's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks
    4227
    Turkey Netherlands

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArshadK View Post
    they have more under development. I think RD was joking but maybe a JV?
    Yes under developement,it will take at least 7 to 10 years before they are ready.
    So we have no choice other then the F-35.
    The Following User Says Thank You to T-123456 For This Useful Post: Red Dragon


  9. #9
    Senior Member Red Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,616
    Thanks
    2648
    China China

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by T-123456 View Post
    Yes under developement,it will take at least 7 to 10 years before they are ready.
    So we have no choice other then the F-35.
    I was joking we dont have anything off the shelf. But China is working on a number of projects and we are increasing investment in Turkey and we should look at joint ventures for the future
    The Following User Says Thank You to Red Dragon For This Useful Post: T-123456


  10. #10
    Elite Member T-123456's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks
    4227
    Turkey Netherlands

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dragon View Post
    I was joking we dont have anything off the shelf. But China is working on a number of projects and we are increasing investment in Turkey and we should look at joint ventures for the future
    I like this one.

    But only with indigenous engine,not Russian.
    Lets see what happens with the FD-2000.
    The Following User Says Thank You to T-123456 For This Useful Post: Red Dragon


  11. #11
    Senior Member manuu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,711
    Thanks
    1626
    Pakistan Ireland

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    I cant understand if it dont do the job why are so many countries buying it

  12. #12
    Elite Member Agnostic_Indian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,027
    Thanks
    611
    India India

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by manuu View Post
    I cant understand if it dont do the job why are so many countries buying it
    F 35 is a damn good fifth generation fighter jet.. those who say otherwise are just ignorant or are biased.
    *Be able to defend your arguments in a rational way. Otherwise, all you have is an opinion.
    Marilyn vos Savant

  13. #13
    Senior Member Alpha1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Elysium
    Posts
    2,634
    Thanks
    2202
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    If we look at the history Tomcat, Eagle or the Viper, they were all called 'too expensive, too complicated, and unreliable' not to mention they would 'never deliver' as promised.
    Plus IMO It is not proceeding too worse than other modern fighters of similar category, but YES it has a much greater engineering challenge to achieve compared to most types.
    In short I think we should give it a chance
    “Pursue one great decisive aim with force and determination.”
    - Carl von Clausewitz

  14. #14
    Senior Member Amjad Hussain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    4,762
    Thanks
    2241
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic_Indian View Post
    F 35 is a damn good fifth generation fighter jet.. those who say otherwise are just ignorant or are biased.
    Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’By David Axe

    JULY 14, 2014[

    Americans should be worried.

    The U.S. military has grounded all its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters following an incident on June 23, when one of the high-tech warplanes caught fire on the runway of a Florida air base. The no-fly order — which affects at least 50 F-35s at training and test bases in Florida, Arizona, California and Maryland — began on the evening of July 3 and continued through July 11.

    All those F-35s sitting idle could be a preview of a future in which potentially thousands of the Pentagon’s warplanes can’t reliably fly.



    To be fair, the Pentagon routinely grounds warplanes on a temporary basis following accidents and malfunctions to buy investigators time to identify problems and to give engineers time to fix them.

    But there’s real reason to worry. The June incident might reflect serious design flaws that could render the F-35 unsuitable for combat.

    For starters, the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 — which can avoid sensor detection thanks to its special shape and coating — simplydoesn’t work very well. The Pentagon has had to temporarily ground F-35s no fewer than 13 times since 2007, mostly due to problems with the plane’s Pratt & Whitney-made F135 engine, in particular, with the engines’ turbine blades. The stand-downs lasted at most a few weeks.

    “The repeated problems with the same part of the engine may be indications of a serious design and structural problem with the F135 engine,” said Johan Boeder, a Dutch aerospace expert and editor of the online publication JSF News.

    Pratt & Whitney has already totally redesigned the F135 in an attempt to end its history of frequent failures. But there’s only so much engineers can do. In a controversial move during the early stages of the F-35′s development, the Pentagon decided to fit the plane with one engine instead of two. Sticking with one motor can help keep down the price of a new plane. But in the F-35′s case, the decision proved self-defeating.



    That’s because the F-35 is complex — the result of the Air Force, Marines and Navy all adding features to the basic design. In airplane design, such complexity equals weight. The F-35 is extraordinarily heavy for a single-engine plane, weighing as much as 35 tons with a full load of fuel.

    By comparison, the older F-15 fighter weighs 40 tons. But it has two engines. To remain reasonably fast and maneuverable, the F-35′s sole F135 engine must generate no less than 20 tons of thrust — making it history’s most powerful fighter motor.

    All that thrust results in extreme levels of stress on engine components. It’s no surprise, then, that the F-35 frequently suffers engine malfunctions. Even with that 20 tons of thrust, the new radar-dodging plane is still sluggish. The F-35 “is a dog … overweight and underpowered,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington.

    In 2008, two analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank that works closely with the military, programmed a computer simulation to test out the F-35′s fighting ability in a hypothetical air war with China. The results were startling.

    “The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.



    Yet the F-35 is on track to become by far the military’s most numerous warplane. It was designed to replace almost all current fighters in the Air Force and Marine Corps and complement the Navy’s existing F/A-18 jets. The Pentagon plans to acquire roughly 2,400 of the radar-evading F-35s in coming decades, at a cost of more than $400 billion.

    Like it or not, the stealthy F-35 is the future of U.S. air power. There are few alternatives. Lockheed Martin’s engineers have done millions of man-hours of work on the design since development began in the 1990s. Starting work on a new plane now would force the Defense Department to wait a decade or more, during which other countries might pull ahead in jet design. Russia, China and Japan are all working on new stealth fightermodels.

    The Pentagon sounds guardedly optimistic about the current F-35 grounding. “Additional inspections of F-35 engines have been ordered,” Rear Admiral John Kirby, a military spokeman said, “and return to flight will be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data.”

    Minor fixes might get America’s future warplane flying again soon — for a while. But fundamental design flaws could vex the F-35 for decades to come, forcing the Pentagon to suspend flying far too often for the majority of its fighter fleet, potentially jeopardizing U.S. national security.


  15. #15
    Senior Member Alpha1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Elysium
    Posts
    2,634
    Thanks
    2202
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    ^^^^
    The Abrams MBT would never work in anything but a sterile cold environment where it's electronics wouldn't be fouled, and it's engine received nothing but cold fresh air.
    The Apache helicopter will never be able to fight in hot conditions
    the worthless M16 rifle will be if the Army continues to insist on it's use; CAL .223 what kind of round is that?
    Simon Newcomb, professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Side-lights on Astronomy and Kindred Fields of Popular Science, 1906 wrote:
    The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be
    — Lord Haldane, Minister of War, Britain, 1907 (yes, 1907 more than 3 years AFTER the powered flight at Kitty Hawk!). wrote:
    The aeroplane will never fly.
    — Marshal Ferdinand Foch, professor of strategy, Ecole Superiure de Guerre, 1911 wrote:
    Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
    the point of these quotes is that there are always 'nay-sayers' and 'experts' on any given topic who will quote themselves to sound very important on the topic even if they have no true grasp of the situation. so i will say again, lets give it a chance
    “Pursue one great decisive aim with force and determination.”
    - Carl von Clausewitz

  16. #16
    Elite Member Agnostic_Indian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,027
    Thanks
    611
    India India

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amjad Hussain View Post
    Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’By David Axe

    JULY 14, 2014[

    Americans should be worried.

    The U.S. military has grounded all its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters following an incident on June 23, when one of the high-tech warplanes caught fire on the runway of a Florida air base. The no-fly order — which affects at least 50 F-35s at training and test bases in Florida, Arizona, California and Maryland — began on the evening of July 3 and continued through July 11.

    All those F-35s sitting idle could be a preview of a future in which potentially thousands of the Pentagon’s warplanes can’t reliably fly.



    To be fair, the Pentagon routinely grounds warplanes on a temporary basis following accidents and malfunctions to buy investigators time to identify problems and to give engineers time to fix them.

    But there’s real reason to worry. The June incident might reflect serious design flaws that could render the F-35 unsuitable for combat.

    For starters, the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 — which can avoid sensor detection thanks to its special shape and coating — simplydoesn’t work very well. The Pentagon has had to temporarily ground F-35s no fewer than 13 times since 2007, mostly due to problems with the plane’s Pratt & Whitney-made F135 engine, in particular, with the engines’ turbine blades. The stand-downs lasted at most a few weeks.

    “The repeated problems with the same part of the engine may be indications of a serious design and structural problem with the F135 engine,” said Johan Boeder, a Dutch aerospace expert and editor of the online publication JSF News.

    Pratt & Whitney has already totally redesigned the F135 in an attempt to end its history of frequent failures. But there’s only so much engineers can do. In a controversial move during the early stages of the F-35′s development, the Pentagon decided to fit the plane with one engine instead of two. Sticking with one motor can help keep down the price of a new plane. But in the F-35′s case, the decision proved self-defeating.



    That’s because the F-35 is complex — the result of the Air Force, Marines and Navy all adding features to the basic design. In airplane design, such complexity equals weight. The F-35 is extraordinarily heavy for a single-engine plane, weighing as much as 35 tons with a full load of fuel.

    By comparison, the older F-15 fighter weighs 40 tons. But it has two engines. To remain reasonably fast and maneuverable, the F-35′s sole F135 engine must generate no less than 20 tons of thrust — making it history’s most powerful fighter motor.

    All that thrust results in extreme levels of stress on engine components. It’s no surprise, then, that the F-35 frequently suffers engine malfunctions. Even with that 20 tons of thrust, the new radar-dodging plane is still sluggish. The F-35 “is a dog … overweight and underpowered,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington.

    In 2008, two analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank that works closely with the military, programmed a computer simulation to test out the F-35′s fighting ability in a hypothetical air war with China. The results were startling.

    “The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.



    Yet the F-35 is on track to become by far the military’s most numerous warplane. It was designed to replace almost all current fighters in the Air Force and Marine Corps and complement the Navy’s existing F/A-18 jets. The Pentagon plans to acquire roughly 2,400 of the radar-evading F-35s in coming decades, at a cost of more than $400 billion.

    Like it or not, the stealthy F-35 is the future of U.S. air power. There are few alternatives. Lockheed Martin’s engineers have done millions of man-hours of work on the design since development began in the 1990s. Starting work on a new plane now would force the Defense Department to wait a decade or more, during which other countries might pull ahead in jet design. Russia, China and Japan are all working on new stealth fightermodels.

    The Pentagon sounds guardedly optimistic about the current F-35 grounding. “Additional inspections of F-35 engines have been ordered,” Rear Admiral John Kirby, a military spokeman said, “and return to flight will be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data.”

    Minor fixes might get America’s future warplane flying again soon — for a while. But fundamental design flaws could vex the F-35 for decades to come, forcing the Pentagon to suspend flying far too often for the majority of its fighter fleet, potentially jeopardizing U.S. national security.

    1) f 35 as well as it's engine is at its beginning stage so it's natural to have flaws, it's same with every new platform.
    2) as for f 35 can't turn , climb etc..
    well unlike 4 gen platforms it doesn't need to rely heavily on kinamatics, instead it relay heavily on stealth and electronic warfare, f 35 is going to be a jack of all trades like f 16, for purely air superiority role there is f 22 with all the kinamatics.
    3) simulation engagements and results mean nothing unless we know about missions objectives , rules, numbers, etc. There is no 4th gen fighter which can take down f 35 if everything else is equal.
    Last edited by Agnostic_Indian; 15th July 2014 at 19:09.
    *Be able to defend your arguments in a rational way. Otherwise, all you have is an opinion.
    Marilyn vos Savant

  17. #17
    Elite Member T-123456's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks
    4227
    Turkey Netherlands

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic_Indian View Post
    F 35 is a damn good fifth generation fighter jet.. those who say otherwise are just ignorant or are biased.
    And why would i be ignorant or biased,not a fan of Russian fighters,nothing else left.
    Japan,South-Korea even Turkiye all going for indigenous 5th gen,if the F-35 is that good,why do they all need another one?
    Air superiority will be a thing of the past with all the stealth features and missile tech,so thats not it.

  18. #18
    Elite Member Agnostic_Indian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,027
    Thanks
    611
    India India

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by T-123456 View Post
    And why would i be ignorant or biased,not a fan of Russian fighters,nothing else left.
    Japan,South-Korea even Turkiye all going for indigenous 5th gen,if the F-35 is that good,why do they all need another one?
    Air superiority will be a thing of the past with all the stealth features and missile tech,so thats not it.
    going indigenous because of price, tot issues, as well as a push for self reliance. For other nations who are likely to face a airforce with 5 gen platforms with better kinamatics then the f 35 might not be enough because of average kinamatics performance.
    *Be able to defend your arguments in a rational way. Otherwise, all you have is an opinion.
    Marilyn vos Savant

  19. #19
    Elite Member T-123456's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks
    4227
    Turkey Netherlands

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic_Indian View Post
    going indigenous because of price, tot issues, as well as a push for self reliance. For other nations who are likely to face a airforce with 5 gen platforms with better kinamatics then the f 35 might not be enough because of average kinamatics performance.
    ToT yes but price no,overall the F-35 is cheaper the $80 billion for the TFX without the indigenous engine.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Fassi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,774
    Thanks
    1828
    Pakistan France

    Re: Is F-35 a blunder?

    Quote Originally Posted by T-123456 View Post
    Air superiority will be a thing of the past with all the stealth features and missile tech,so thats not it.
    With drones and lasers satellites you are right current thinking might already be in the past

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. ECNEC approves multi-billion projects of Rs 440 billion
    By cb4 in forum Economy & Development
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 4th July 2014, 02:16
  2. Pentagon developing combat chewing gum
    By Nabeel in forum U.S. Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22nd March 2014, 22:08
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 9th February 2014, 03:21
  4. Pentagon F-35 Cancellation
    By Amjad Hussain in forum Global Military Developments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 5th August 2013, 17:12
  5. US to retain presence in Afghanistan: Pentagon
    By Superkaif in forum Afghanistan Affairs
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 5th February 2013, 14:43

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us on twitter Follow us on twitter