DailyTech - F-35 Fleet Flies Again, Second Engine Killed

Submit News

Science F-35 Fleet Flies Again, Second Engine Killed
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - March 28, 2011 11:56 AM

35 comment(s) - last by ekv.. on Mar 31 at 1:09 PM

F-35 soars again (Source: Lockheed)

GE Aviation sees hopes of second engine for F-35 dashed

The F-35 Lightning II is one of the most expensive weapons program ever and has been plagued with cost overruns and delays since it launched. New details on the generator failure that caused an emergency landing and the subsequent grounding of the F-35 fleet have been unveiled.

Defense News reports that the generator failure that affected test aircraft AF-4 has been determined to be the result of an improper maintenance technique that goes along with a new generator layout in some of the newer F-35 fighters. Once the problem was traced to the new generator layout in newer aircraft, the F-35s using the older generator layout were cleared to resume flight operations.

The earlier aircraft that resumed flight operations included three F-35As and four F-35Bs. Defense News reports that the maintenance procedure has now been revised and that the full fleet of F-35s are now back to operation. The aircraft with the older generator layout resumed flights on March 14. The cause of the generator failure in the test aircraft was traced back to an excess of oil inside the generator.

The excess oil circulation inside the generator after maintenance caused the generator to overheat and fail. Lockheed claims that the loss of flight time has not impacted the test flight schedule. The F-35 program is still ahead of its flight schedule for the month.

The F-35's have taken back to the air, but AMD Online reports that the second power plant for the F-35 has officially been killed. We reported in February that the House was set to vote on the bill to kill the second engine.

The stop work order was announced last Thursday. GE Aviation in Ohio was developing the second engine.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: About time...

By Iaiken on 3/28/2011 1:19:50 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
In fact they probably could take on some the B2's target load.

Sorry Dog, but do you really think that?

B-2A - 60,000lb payload
F-35C - 3000lb internally + 15000lb externally

For them to retain their limited stealth, you would need 20 F-35C's for each B-2A that you wanted to supplant and they would be limited to 6 500lb bombs.

If you didn't care about stealth, it would still take 3 F-35C's and you still wouldn't be able to carry individual ordinance larger than a pair of 2000lb bombs externally and several 1000lbs in addition to the internal capacity. This means you cannot carry the abundance of 2000lb bombs that would be required for the hardened targets that the B2 was likely after. In this case, you'd be better off sending in a B1 with it's 180,000lbs of guided munitions payload.

Parent

RE: About time...

By Smartless on 3/28/2011 3:12:40 PM , Rating: 2

Agreed. Plus the F35 was designed to be a best in the world multi- role aircraft. It will be awhile before the plane sees active duty with pilots experienced in its capabilities. Besides, Libya is a short-sighted opponent with coalition help. Weapons like the F35 are a deterrent against countries like Russia or China. What if China decides to elevate its border disputes with its neighbors like Japan, India, or Tibet? War-mongering aside this aircraft better be at least as good as we paid for.

Parent

RE: About time...

By Iaiken on 3/28/2011 4:07:54 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
Weapons like the F35 are a deterrent against countries like Russia or China.

The fact that you think Russia would ever want to attack the US frightens me far more than the remote possibility that they actually would...

Parent

RE: About time...

By ekv on 3/29/2011 4:41:41 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
the remote possibility that they actually would

Granted still remote. However ... you've seen the latest aircraft under development by them. Perhaps you've even seen the latest tv commercial by CAGW ["...now they work for us"].

There are implications and consequences for having a perceived bumbler in the White House. Whether he is naive or not is besides the point here. It is the perception that counts. Just sayin'

Parent

RE: About time...

By Iaiken on 3/29/2011 12:52:55 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
However ... you've seen the latest aircraft under development by them.

So let me flip that on you so you can see how absurd that statement is. Are they not supposed to develop advanced weapons, if so, then perhaps the US is not supposed to either?

It's circular reasoning that ends in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We think: "They are going to develop newer advanced fighters, so we need to develop newer advanced fighters."

Meanwhile they think: "They have developed newer advanced fighters, so we need to develop newer advanced fighters."

Which results in us thinking the same ad infinitum. I don't think either side can stop, I don't think either side should stop because it gives people purpose. Americans get to feel "we're the good guys" the Russians get to feel "we're the good guys". It simply can't stop until both sides recognize that they are just "guys", neither good, nor bad, just different.

Parent

RE: About time...

By ekv on 3/29/2011 4:05:07 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
So let me flip that on you

So you haven't seen the latest aircraft under development by them.

I understand the argument you're making re: "circular reasoning". I won't be so hostile as to label it a standard-Liberal-canard, though be assured I am not a mad-man.

If you think about it, my point was, the U.S. still has a position of leadership. What isn't being addressed is how tenuous that position is and how easily it is being squandered. I have a gut feeling that some camel jockey sees this and is emboldened. Or instead of a camel jockey, some Chinese General with a triple PhD in economics, law and cyber-warfare. Take your pick.

quote:
It simply can't stop until both sides recognize that they are just "guys", neither good, nor bad, just different.

If we can't be the good guys then we're going down the wrong road. Stop. Turn around. Head the right direction. Not easy, but better than a mere illusory sense-of-purpose.

Parent

RE: About time...

By Iaiken on 3/30/2011 11:02:31 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
standard-Liberal-canard

You'll find that I have a much more astute view. My point is not to say that the US or the Russians are wrong, but rather to say that they can have reasons that don't fit in with traditional lines of thinking. Afghanistan taught both nations valuable lessons in the futility and expense of attacking even small nations, let alone large ones.

The problem is, the old concept of winning and losing doesn't really fit in modern warfare.

Hypothetical: If the US leaves Afghanistan and they have a civil war that causes them to fall back into Taliban control, the US loses, Afghanistan loses. If the nation holds a referendum to become an Islamic republic, the US loses and Afghanistan loses in the eyes of the American people.

Even when you go back to the Soviet-Afghan war, I would argue that both the US lost and Afghanistan lost. When the US refused to arbitrate a Soviet withdraw and to oversee the installation of the democratic government that the moderates wanted, they left the door open for the bloody civil war that followed.

The Taliban that won the civil war were largely just as foreign as the Russians. They came from Pakistan, Chechnya, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi, Iraq, and so on, the only difference being that they were Muslims oppressors who believe that participating in freedom and democracy is against Islam. A haven for Islamic extremism was born and the US lost because they had to come back later to deal with the problem.

quote:
So you haven't seen the latest aircraft under development by them.

I've seen it, but I have a different outlook on it than you do. If you look at a lot of what the Russians offer in the way of future military tech, they are mostly what I'll call "capability denial" systems. Many are defensive systems that deny the US access to it's most vital capabilities, such as air superiority. Even the new fighter has a place in these newer integrated air defensive systems.

The aims of these systems are ultimately to generate revenue for Russia through their sale to nations that feel a US invasion is possible, or even inevitable. In this regard, the US plays the part of the bogey man and the Russians go into the business of building night lights so they can sleep soundly.

The real beauty of this system is that the US will always find a way for their offensive capabilities to outstrip them. Thusly, they will need newer and better systems to deny those expanding capabilities. It's a race condition from which the Russians benefit greatly and the other participants lose financially.

quote:
If we can't be the good guys then we're going down the wrong road. Stop. Turn around. Head the right direction. Not easy, but better than a mere illusory sense-of-purpose.

Again, I was merely pointing out what my life experience has taught me on the subject. I see this as a problem for both sides, however, I cannot offer up a solution because I am just one person and this is something that both groups have to come to grips with as nations, that each person within those nations will have to come to terms with.

How can one expect the people of either nation to come to similar conclusions? You can't. It's feels good to think that our side is good and that by extension we're participants in good things and therefor good ourselves. We are used to it and as you've stated, it gives people a sense of purpose. Even if they do, then what?

Definitely not easy...

Parent

RE: About time...

By ekv on 3/31/2011 3:16:46 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
You'll find that I have a much more astute view.

And if I don't? I mean, just suppose for a second, that's all it'll take, just suppose that it's not really an astute view at all. You just think it is. Suppose I think you're just a typical over-confident American, all bluster and no brains, wouldn't it be my responsibility to knock that chip off your shoulder? Take you down a notch or two?

Hypothetical: my nickname is Dr. Dr. Dr. Firesale. I helped write the book on asymmetric warfare. You can define "is" however you want to, so long as you're working for me. Maybe not today, nor tomorrow, but soon. And I'll fly commercial all the way to Washington to prove my point.

http://www.cagw.org/

And you don't even know HOW to call me an enemy ... because, after all, I'm just trying to edumacate you, right? It's all relative. The only bad guys are easily spotted, since they're the absolutists trying to point out who the "enemy" is. Etc.

Not. 8)

Parent

RE: About time...

By Iaiken on 3/31/2011 10:08:03 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
You'll find that I have a much more astute view.

I don't think I really communicated my meaning with regard to astuteness...

What I meant was that I have a view of the Russians being much more astute than we typically give them credit. Not that I see my own personal point of view as being more astute. I freely admit that I am often wrong and that I could be wrong here. I also do my best to remind myself that; as an individual, I simply cannot know what is best for anyone other than myself.

My apologies if I was not clear on the matter.

Parent

RE: About time...

By ekv on 3/31/2011 1:09:01 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I simply cannot know what is best for anyone other than myself.

Not exactly frightening, but it does raise the question ... What am I supposed to do with that statement? What am I supposed to make of it?

I suspect Russian or Chinese or, hell, Libyan leadership for that matter doesn't really hold to such a statement. Nature abhors a vacuum. I don't care for our leadership being imposed on me, much less theirs.

Parent

RE: About time...

By FITCamaro on 3/29/2011 10:38:15 AM , Rating: 2

Yes because the US and Russia are the best of friends, always have been, and always will be.

/rolleyes

Parent

RE: About time...

By Iaiken on 3/29/11, Rating: -1

By Iaiken on 3/29/2011 12:20:37 PM , Rating: -1

So you're denying that Russia has changed for the better with regards to US interests? You're also passive-aggressively asserting that that these nations are enemies and always will be. That one is good and the other is evil?

Personally, I really don't know what to tell you. If the US insists upon viewing Russia as 'the enemy', then that is what Russia will become because they will reject that assertion. The US thinks they are a force for good, but in reality it's just a nation capable of both good and of unspeakable evil.

Now hindsight is 20-20 and when you look back on it all, you realize that these changes have long been forthcoming, but largely ignored by US politicians to their own benefit.

Even at the end of the Nixon administration there was meaningful progress towards coming to terms with this to the benefit of both nations with Détente. Gorbachev had realized (long before they had entered Afghanistan) in his own words that "we can't go on living like this any longer". This was a specific recognition of how damaging the idea of "us vs. them" along with the fear and uncertainty that came with it had been to both nations.

However, much of this progress by Kissinger was ignored by the government after Nixon left office. Not simply ignored, but instead undermined by convenient fictions that were created by the neoconservatives who would soon take powerful positions in the Reagan administration (specifically Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz and Pipes).

Suddenly the concessions of Détente were being ignored and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union was just a clever ruse. The CIA's facts had no place in this new administration and soon Team B (headed by a neoconservative) was set up and the outcome of their findings were a foregone conclusion. Some of their assertions were completely absurd, ranging from anti-ballistic laser beam weapons to non-acoustic means of detecting the US submarine fleet. For Team B, the very absence of evidence of these items existence was proof enough of their existence.

When we look through soviet histories on the subject now, we find that the CIA was right and that Team B had spun an elaborate fantasy to support their prescribed conclusion. The Soviet economy was collapsing, none of these technologies espoused by Team B existed, their air defenses were in disarray and the politicians who would soon take power were reformists who wanted the Soviet Union to become a socialist representative democracy. All of this was on file and available to the government at the time and they simply chose to disregard it.

To take things further into the realm of absurdity, the neoconservatives then bought into a book called 'The Terror Network'. This book asserted that the Soviets were behind global terrorism and William J. Casey (head of the CIA at the time) was hooked. The problem is, the CIA had made it all up. They demonstrated to Casey that the books author had mistakenly rounded up CIA black propaganda by showing him the mission files that corresponded to each example in the book, but they were dismissed. The US government was now buying their own manure and the only people who had produced it had been fired or resigned.

Enter Afghanistan. At the end, the Russians had come to the US and told them that they wanted to leave and they wanted the US to arbitrate then handover of power. Perle basically told them to go f*** their hat and that the freedom fighters would work that out for themselves once the Russians were gone. Gorbachev immediately sent a secret message to Reagan through the KGB that explicitly stated (paraphrased) 'Allowing the Mujahideen to take control of Afghanistan will not produce democracy. Instead, the most extreme forms of Islamism will rise up and triumph.' This warning was ignored.

The problem that Gorbachev pointed out was that the Mujahideen was no longer primarily made up of Afghani irregulars, but of foreigners from Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others. Many of these were extremists specifically let out of prisons in their home country and shuffled off to the jihad with the fondest hope that they would be killed in the fighting.

One of these criminal extremists was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who would later become mentor to Osama bin Laden. His Islamist ideas had come to dominate the Taliban (mostly non-afghans at the time) forces that would later take power in the coming civil war. These ideas were completely contrary to the political ideas of the moderates lead by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. When Azzam was assassinated, his non-terrorist ethos for affecting change died with him.

How'd that all work out for the US anyway?

Parent

RE: About time...

By FITCamaro on 3/29/2011 2:47:20 PM , Rating: 2

Russia and the US coexist because they have to for now.

They are not friends and never have been. They are just as against us putting anti-ballistic missile systems in Western Europe as Iran is.

Look at when Russia attacked Georgia. Were we agreeing with them? No.

If anything, Russia is getting more hostile than peaceful.

Parent

RE: About time...

By Iaiken on 3/29/2011 3:32:25 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
If anything, Russia is getting more hostile than peaceful.

So would you then say that they are an enemy that needs to be vanquished?

If so, I feel sorry for you...

Parent

RE: About time...

By ajfink on 3/29/2011 4:33:04 PM , Rating: 2

As I recall, Russia was actually thumbing a rather corrupt government in the eye and defending ethnic Russians from persecution.

Just as the US or EU can be justified in military action, so, too, can Russia.

Parent

RE: About time...

By Iaiken on 3/29/2011 5:32:08 PM , Rating: 2

I am not sure if could have laughed harder when George Bush Jr. said:

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."

Parent

RE: About time...

By SunTzu on 3/28/2011 5:02:10 PM , Rating: 2

Remember that outside of the early phase of a war, ground support is the most common job. You dont *need* a 60k pound payload, when all you need to do is loiter and place a few JDAMs where they're needed.

Parent

RE: About time...

By Master Kenobi

(blog) on 3/28/2011 6:05:41 PM , Rating: 5

The A-10 for that job, to hell with the F-35.

Parent

RE: About time...

By eZEKIEL on 3/28/2011 6:30:10 PM , Rating: 2

unfortunately the A10 has several limitations compared to F35:
-not stealth
-no litening pod (older targeting)
-top speed <400kts
-combat range of <250nm
-flown by AF (which presents many other limitations i.e.carrier/sourcing)

so no, not really

Parent

RE: About time...

By CharonPDX on 3/28/2011 8:37:29 PM , Rating: 2

Already in use in Lybia.

I'll be sad to see the A-10 go. It really should have all its inventory transferred to the Army, since it is used entirely as a tactical Army ground support aircraft.

Selling points:
-Operates low-and-slow, is *VERY* quiet. Excellent for use against lower-tech ground troops.
-Uses very cheap ammunition, aimed by the best smarts around - a human pilot.
-Fuel efficient allows long loiter times
-VERY resilient. Can operate with large portions of the wings and stabilizers destroyed.

Parent

RE: About time...

By ekv on 3/29/2011 4:48:18 AM , Rating: 2

We need an A-10 replacement.

Start with the gun, like Fairchild did originally, and build from there. Triple redundancy, lots of shiny new avionics, etc.

[And tell General Charles A. Horner to shove-it-where-t-s-d-s]

Parent