More bad F-35 news

[Chris Kennedy]

Tail hook design issues with the C-model.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html

Another article about various problems.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3abcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997

[Chris Kennedy]

I read through the report that is mentioned in the articles, and it's pretty bad. The government can't be very happy that it got out. It's going to take a lot of time and a whole lot of money to fix these problems. They are not trivial ones that are being blown up by political considerations.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/274217/dod-quick-look-ahern-report.pdf

We're all going to be a lot older when F-35's arrive at Luke, if they ever do.

[Joe Copalman]

This brings to mind what Bill Cosby said about success:

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."

Not sure I agree that we won't see them at Luke in the near future.  The F-35A seems to be the least problematic of the three variants, but that's not saying much.

The more I learn about the B, the more I find myself kinda-sorta wishing that variant gets scrapped in favor of a less-ambitious replacement for the Harrier with an updated pegasus-type engine, greater range, longer loiter time, and heavier warload than the F-35B - something the Marines ashore can actually rely on, especially if only in a six-plane detachment aboard an LHD.  Also something that is simpler than the Harrier to maintain in the "austere" conditions the Marines supposedly need it for, rather than more complex.  Hell, collaborate with the Air Force on it as a credible follow-on platform to replace the A-10 with (versus the Air Force's current, ridiculous claim that the F-35 will take on the A-10's mission) and you kill two . . . er . . . stones with one bird.

[Chris Kennedy]

The A still has most of the problems mentioned in the report.

The only major issue in the report that is specific to one model is the tail hook problem. They tested it at Lakehurst and didn't get a single catch in eight tries.

[Joe Copalman]

Just finished the report.  Not trivial at all, and it looks like you're right about us being much older by the time they get to Luke.  Amazing how much testing still remains, and with it, how many further undiscovered problems are waiting to be found.  

[Rob Silliman]

The F-35 program has turned into a CF.  But you have to wonder what classified miracle is being built into (or the plane is prepared for), due to the number of countries that have signed on to buy it.

There isn't really any option/fallback for the 'A' or 'B'.  The only realistic option out there - is the Super Hornet (for the 'C' versions).  Maybe the -15 (Silent Eagle) for the 'A's, but there is nothing like the Harrier.

[Joe Copalman]

Actually, the Block 60 Viper is a solid fall-back option to the A, especially for the ANG and the Reserve.  If Boeing had won the JSF competition and was having the development problems with the F-32 that Lockheed is having with the F-35, it's a good bet they'd be aggressively pushing the F-16E/F as a proven, cost-effective alternative to the F-35.  But since Lockheed is heading the F-35 program, the Block 60 alternative is a non-starter, unless Congress gets that party started.

[Chris Kennedy]

Just finished the report.  Not trivial at all, and it looks like you're right about us being much older by the time they get to Luke.  Amazing how much testing still remains, and with it, how many further undiscovered problems are waiting to be found.  

What's really annoying from a taxpayer standpoint is the fact that they are now delivering production aircraft that are all going to have to go back for expensive modifications once the testing identifies all of the issues.

[cpasley]

Just lighten the mood, the first F-35B was delivered to the corps!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrkZMkQ0wqY&feature=g-all-u&context=G2654b96FAAAAAAAACAA

[Joe Copalman]

What's really annoying from a taxpayer standpoint is the fact that they are now delivering production aircraft that are all going to have to go back for expensive modifications once the testing identifies all of the issues.

I was never a fan of the concurrency concept for this very reason, especially for something this ambitious, and with so many critical subsystems that are new and untested.  With so many nations relying on this as a replacement for their F-16s or similar aircraft, you'd think there would have been more of a focus on optimizing proven off-the-shelf components, instead of tying so many new-concept systems into such a critical weapons system.