09:54 GMT, October 21, 2011
Last week, on October 13, the Chairman of the JCS, General Martin
Dempsey, scared F-35 advocates with the statement, “I am concerned about
the three variants, whether as we go forward in this fiscal
environment, whether we can afford all three.”
This week (after a senior official’s visit on Saturday to the USS Wasp,
where the F-35B has been conducting “sea trials,” and where a decision
was made to gin up a “media day” to booster the F-35), the Marines
invited a gaggle of reporters out to the Wasp to show them how
wonderfully well the F-35B was doing in its sea trials. Several media
writers dutifully wrote about what they were shown and told—and little
else. In fact, what they wrote would have you think the F-35B’s
problems are all a thing of the past.
Given the Marines’ painfully obvious anxiousness to promote the F-35B
(and the interesting timing of their show-and-tell right after General
Demsey’s statement), it is especially depressing that no one went out to
the Wasp loaded for journalistic bear. Nor was there any apparent
follow up when they got back with questions to Joint Program Office head
Admiral David Venlet or the top Marine Corps F-35 advocate Commandant
James Amos.
Here are some issues that I am told the media writers missed:
1) Apparently, the two F-35Bs involved in the sea trials had been
diverted to Patuxent River to be repaired the previous week—presumably
for fixes the crew on the Wasp were unable to perform. One of the
aircraft flying the displays for the press, BF-4, broke (again) after
the media event. The upper lift fan door actuator—a component that was
supposed to have been fixed already—apparently had a problem. It turns
out the actuator has to be redesigned yet again.
2) When asked about maintenance on the Wasp, officials speaking on
behalf of the F-35 did not say that more maintenance had been taking
place than had been planned. It is not clear if that does or does not
mean the extra maintenance that took place at Patuxent River.
3) Despite at least one media writer’s descriptions of impressive
landing parameters during the displays, I am informed that the effects
of the Wasp’s structure were causing the ship to slow down because the
handling qualities resulting from the wind coming around that structure
were not what they expected.
4) The testing was planned for a two week period, but it ran on into a
third week. It would be interesting to know if there was anything
beyond the extra maintenance that explains this.
There also appear to be some issues with the Air Force’s “A” model:
1) It appears that the four Lot 2 F-35As at Eglin AFB are effectively
grounded. The USAF airworthiness authorities haven’t given the program
the flight clearance to start flying the jets. The jets may have been
cleared for ferry from the plant in July and August but not for training
operations at Eglin.
There has been pressure to clear the aircraft for training operations notwithstanding the following:
a. The ejection seat and pilot escape system in the jets have not passed
the required qualification tests. This is a particularly interesting
because one media writer just reported on how the Air Force’s Air Combat
Command is considering a change in the manufacturer for the ejection
seat, but the explanation is that it is for cost reasons. It is
asserted that a change at this late stage would save money, but how is
unclear and appears, at least to me, controversial.
b. There are problems with being able to restart the engine in flight if it flames out.
c. Braking on a wet runway is deficient—recently improved but not
resolved; so jets will be restricted from flying after it rains until
the runway dries out.
d. The airplane in the training configuration has about 70 hours on it.
If you count all JSF testing, it is about 1,000 hours. Legacy aircraft
training would start with at least twice that much on the fleet, and as
much as five times that much in the configuration meant for training.
e. All of this also applies to the Marines F-35B that is supposed to start flying at Eglin in January.
Finally, I am told the cost to modify jets in lots 2-5 is about $30
million each. Lockheed has said these costs are already accounted for in
the program. Specifically how this will be paid for, the impact on
deliveries, and the size of the fleet that is funded are all questions
that are unclear to me.
Happy hunting.
----
By Winslow Wheeler, Center for Defense Information (CDI)
Defpro News Oct 20, 2011
