Wednesday, January 29, 2014

F-35. "...a bulkhead "severed."

via Standard.net
In a full-page discussion of durability testing and cracking, Gilmore disclosed an incident in late September when a bulkhead "severed." He said "analysis and corrective actions" were continuing.
Aircraft based in Florida, Arizona, California and Nevada for pilot training missions continue "to be immature" and rely "heavily on contractor support and workarounds unacceptable in combat operations," Gilmore wrote.
Reliability measures "are all below" target goals for the current stage of development, he said.
The aircraft's weight stabilized last year, with little margin for growth without exceeding contractually binding limits that would jeopardize meeting combat requirements, Gilmore said.
What should F-35 supporters be saying?



8 comments :

  1. I'm beginning to wonder if this is a "hole in the bucket" scenario where extra reinforcement is needed... Adding more weight... Which causes more stress... Resulting in more cracks... Requiring extra reinforcement.... Which adds more weight...

    Then the whole mess needs additional changes in the flight control software each time...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, engineers call it "chasing the problem" -- making one link stronger causes a failure in the next link, etc. Sometimes it's better to keep the weakest link where it is and change it frequently. You chase it all the way into the frame by adding weight, as you describe, you have made a problem worse.

      Of course, in the beginning, having Lockheed as the general contractor didn't help, along with shoddy government project management. It'll give them a case study in the DOD project manager's college -- don't do it this way.

      from the vanity Fair article:
      At the time the F-35 contract was written, the Pentagon was operating under a principle called Total System Performance Responsibility. The idea was that government oversight was unduly burdensome and costly; the solution was to put more power in the hands of contractors. In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter, Lockheed was given near-total responsibility for design, development, testing, fielding, and production. In the old days, the Pentagon would have provided thousands of pages of minute specifications. For the Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon gave Lockheed a pot of money and a general outline of what was expected.

      Delete
    2. So, basically the only other option here is to increase the amount of maintenance on the aircraft during its lifetime? Doesn't that contradict the JSF's original mandate of being "supportable" and "affordable"?

      The F-35 is supposed to be a workhorse. It's looking more and more like a hanger queen.

      Delete
  2. Availability

    FY2013 DOT&E Report
    p.47

    F-35 Fleet Availability
    • Average F-35 availability rates for operational units are below established threshold values. (Availability is not a meaningful metric for aircraft dedicated to test, and thus SDD aircraft are not included in this section.)
    -- The program established an availability threshold rate of 50 percent and an objective rate of 75 percent to track fleet performance for Performance Based Logistics agreements.
    -- Aircraft availability rates by operating location from November 2012 through October 2013 are summarized in the following table. The first column indicates the average availability achieved for the whole period, while the maximum and minimum columns represent the range of monthly availabilities reported over the period.

    F-35 Availability from Nov 2012 -- Oct 2013
    Operational Site / Average / Maximum / Minimum

    Eglin F-35B /39% / 54% / 22%
    Eglin F-35C / 32% / 61% / 13%
    Yuma F-35B / 29% / 45% / 6%

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Michael Rein, a Lockheed spokesman, said in an emailed statement that Gilmore's report outlined 'a tremendous amount of positive information.'"

    The F35 program is Doubeplusgood

    Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/01/29/navy-set-to-accept-first-virginia-class-block-iii-submarine/?comp=1198882887570&rank=3

    I'm just going to toss out there that the Navy signed a contract for the new block III Virginia Classes in 2008, and the first one is ready for sea trials and soon active service 2 months ahead of schedule....and we still can't figure out how to make an F-35 fly (yes I am aware that the other VAs are at sea and its not a completely new design, but still....)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Greetings Chaos56, You may want to see what the latest DOTE report says about the Acoustic Rapid Commercial Off‐the‐Shelf (COTS) Insertion (A-RCI) and AN / BYG‐1 Combat Control System. It isn't pretty. I figure we (as taxpayers) will be spending more to make sure our nuke attack sub crews have the tactical info they need to deal with whole layers of Chicom threats. Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the F-35 was software like a video game, we call it "another of that games that never go beyond Beta" testing. But the amazing part is that the producing company is asking money for allow gamers to enjoy playing an unfinished "next generation game" full of bugs.

    Even if they fix the new problems the F-35 is not going to be in time for replace our F-4 before they fall apart from old age.

    ReplyDelete

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