Wednesday, December 07, 2011

F-35...the hot spots and the Admiral's statement.





A couple of things.

1.  I wrote Lockheed Martin for info about the good Admiral's statement about production slowdown and the hotspots and have yet to get an answer.  I DID get a response but just to acknowledge reciept of my e-mail and that they would be getting back to me....that was Monday.

2.  We have this statement by Sufa Viper on ARES...

Some food for thought, when thinking about the Cracks of doom (by they way they are hot spots at this point, not cracks).

The F-16 has a structural distinction known as Pre- and Post-Block. Pre-Block aircraft are considered to be structurally "flawed" and immature, where as Post-Block aircraft are considered structurally sound and mature.

The dividing line is Block 40. So that means that every Block 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30/32 is structurally "flawed." More than 2,000 of those blocks were built. And yet EPAF countries still fly Block 15 and USAF still flies Block 25/30/32.

Almost all have some form of structural repair on them, and that is long before they reach the design life of 8,000 FH. Yet, I think you would have to be nuts if you think the "flawed" F-16's aren't effective fighters.

Sufa Viper
Long story short.

I don't have an answer on this thing.  I'm confused as all out doors and I feel like I'm getting spun both ways by critics and supporters.

If Sufa Viper is right, then why is the Admiral so alarmed?  Why would he want production slowed?  This whole thing is starting to take on an air of gamesmanship and not having any basis in reality.


UPDATE:

Ok.

I'm heading toward becoming pissed.

I'm not ready to join the throngs of haters but I mean seriously?  Check out DoD Buzz for the story but this tidbit has me steaming.
How healthy is the world’s biggest defense program? Secretary Panetta himself plans to head down Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., for his first in-person encounter with the jet and the people who make it possible, DoD announced Wednesday. We just don’t know exactly when that’s going to happen.
The Pentagon first announced that Panetta was planning on heading to Pax River on Friday, but then it followed up with another announcement that something had come up and he had to postpone his trip until “early next year.” Still, it’s the thought that counts, right?
First we have the Program Manager saying that the program is FUBAR.

Then we have the SecDef planning a trip to PaxRiver. 

Can we all get on one page, get the messaging together and get me some fucking answers about the status of this program?

13 comments :

  1. Not all "flaws are created equal. The "flaws" on Pre-Block Vipers may have been more manageable than on current build F-35s.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would say that they are more manageable since they are being discovered in early LRIP cycles and will not affect FRP jets.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To reiterate what I said in the other thread: some "design changes" are as trivial as fixing a typo on a drawing, or updating a note, or a plethora of other things that in the grand scheme of things are utterly trivial. But those i's still need to be dotted so they require engineering changes to incorporate them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is all preparation before the public release of the bottom up review. The haters and fan boys both have it wrong. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the F-35 but there are fundamental problems with the entire conception of the program.

    Part of the supporting rationale for concurrent flight testing and production was that the computer modeling was so advanced that the aircraft would have fewer problems found in testing and require fewer changes. That's turned out to be false.

    Saying we're finding these problems in LRIP would be fine if the number of LRIP wasn't so large. Adm Venlet just stated the cost to rebuild the LRIP is taking his breath away. That's not some F-35 hater, critic, or non informed swivel seater but the three star in charge of the program.

    It's actually quite fascinating how many people are downplaying his statements or those made by him and Dr Carter in front of Congress a few months ago.

    The head of JPO and DOD are all talking about significant problems, unaffordable costs, and that the program has to be slowed down vs LM saying everything is fine, the costs are really still wonderful, and the program should be accelerated. Since DOD and LM are saying directly contradictory things one of them either has no clue or is mendacious. One or the other is creditable not both.

    Frankly given the long history of JPO and LM being in lock step and the "critics" of GAO, JET, etc., being proven correct (as stated by Dr Carter and others in direct Congressional testimony on multiple occasions) and now the head of JPO stating there are serious concerns in my view we all need to take a deep breath and reconsider the creditability of LM and what continue to tell us.

    Finally Solomon you should be pissed. A lot of people were dismissing JET, GAO, etc and buying the line from JPO and LM for years and it was a lot of mendacious happy talk. Now we need more time and dollars to fix a program in many ways set up to fail (in terms of affordability) by another slow down and re-emphasis on flight testing. The problem of course is the current budget crisis intersecting with all this. If anyone can right this ship Venlet can. Keep paying attention to what he says.

    ReplyDelete
  5. wow Lane.

    you answered the question that i keep asking yet no one else has answered.

    the Bottom up review! that makes sense!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Lane" (whoever he/she is) just built a GAO/JET/LRIP numbers strawman - A huge fricking strawman based upon what?...Venlet's cry-in-his-beer moment. Other than Venlet being shown to be unprofessionally emoting all over his interview with a jourmalist, I can see NO material surprises in the interview at all. It IS all about the politics though - but I and others have already noted that. The F-35 is the tall tree in the forest and the tallest tree always draws the woodsman's axe. The problem is feckless politicians and too many people who think technology is 'magic' that appears with the next IPhone or comes out of a tap that you turn on and off.

    Sufa Viper gets most of the F-16 history absolutely correct, some minor aspects of it can be amicably debatated among colleagues without hard feelings.
    But there is more in that story as well, as the 'Blocks' were more than just about the structure, but about the capability delivered in each block. I noted elsewhere a while back that there were 291 F-16 Block 1 and 5 deliveries before the first 'nominally' useful Block 10 was built. To keep perspective, the YF-16's first flight (official) was Feb 74, and the first definitive and fully capable Block 30/32 F-16s for the US first flew Feb 87. Counting all partner nation deliveries about 1800(!!!) F-16s were delivered before the fully capable Block 30/32s. Until the Block 30, all the Block 30s were the first F-16s with full Beyond Visual Range-engagement and night/precision ground/maritime attack capabilities. First with full AIM-7/AMRAAM/AGM-65D/HARM capabilities. First with Seek Talk secure voice comm, etc.
    Fielding 1800 aircraft before you reach a 'baseline' in Block 30/32? --Now THAT is 'concurrent development'. If the F-35 had followed the same 'approach' IOCs would have been declared with the F-35 Block 1s (which could spank most 4th Gen fighters out of the gate) and the services would have built a ton of those. I wish they had done it that way, but Congress didn't like paying for all those upgrades after the fact on earlier programs, so the F-35 program was structured differently.
    The F-16 is only one example. The evolution from the F/A-18A/B to the C/D was another. F-18E/F Block1 to Block2 is another (and they're still working on structural life issues). I can't think of any high performance aircraft program that doesn't go through this.

    BTW I think DoD is probably a little peeved with Venlet and doing damage control:http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-official-confident-no-cuts-for-fighter-jets-20111206-1oh9a.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is starting to remind me of the A-12 fiasco. Everything was running just fine according to the contractors right up to the point where they start doing "Um....we're going to need a bit more time. And money. Lots more money." Then it came out that the design was seriously over weight, the stealth skin wasn't working because of the salt air.

    The story goes that a big reason Sec Def Cheney canceled it was that they had lied to him repeatedly about the status.

    ReplyDelete
  8. RE: A-12 fiasco.
    The A-12 was fatally flawed, but for different reasons than you describe. In the end, the Government lost its case (See: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6595000&c=AME&s=SEA). Its pretty clear from the post-mortem that the real problem was the Navy didn't know what it was asking for, it blew off knowledgable bidders who knew what things should really cost, and it went with a bid from a supplier who didn't know any better.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually one does not need to focus on the recent comments by Venlet but rather the Congressional testimony given some months ago by Dr Carter, Venlet, and others. For around a year prior to this, and inclusive of that testimony, DOD had been saying that the JET forecasts were actually correct.

    My opinion isn't important nor the issue. DOD/JPO are saying divergent things from LM. Only one of them is correct.

    It's not the A-12. The A-12 never got to a flying technology demonstrator. The F-35 program has run past that and is well into testing and production. The main problem is that the program was structured with production taking place far too early compared to flight testing. That's not my opinion but the direct Congressional testimony of Dr Carter and Venlet some months ago. The F-35 is a game changing strike fighter and will have it's problems ironed out. The only two main questions are when and how much.

    The how much part, however, being more important and according to DOD months ago the current trends are not affordable. Dr Carter has said this many times this year. When the bottom up review is publicly released then everyone will know where the program really stands. Till then we'll continue to have both irrational critics and worshiping supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Concurrency" is a politician/'reformer' bogeyman used to scare the kiddies. You WANT a degree (about the level the F-35's) of concurrency. This is not just an opinion of mine either, but is backed up by solid research and study of the phenonemon as I noted recently: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/09/congressional-bloviation-on-concurrency.html

    The F-35 is merely a modern and particularly egregious example of how the use of 'concurrency' as a trigger word is a tactic used for purposes other than pure or virtuous, including by those who just don't want the F-35 (or for some, ANY defense spending) at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Concurrency use to happen all the time back in the day. Research the term "emergency capability". It's also why things like the F-4 went all the way to the "S" version. Kept finding things that needed to be tweaked/improved.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Re: F-4. Yes, and back in the 50s-early 60s when the mission need was seen as an imperative (vs. something to be marginalized) 'Concurrency' meant 1)put your conceptual (top level)designs on paper to meet requirement X then 2) we'll pay for the best idea to build it. First production contracts were awarded before developmental hardware was even finished (F-89 comes to mind). Now THAT is really, REAL 'concurrency'.
    Of course, the DoD that did that had a 'warrior' vs. 'corporate' soul.
    (Deleted original comment to add: Now, off to the woods to (hopefully) wreak havoc on the local Whitetail population!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.