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 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