Lockheed’s stealthy F-35 breaks down too often, Pentagon says. So argue with the Pentagon not me

[esalla]

Lockheed’s stealthy F-35 breaks down too often, Pentagon says

None of the Air Force, Marines and Navy variants of the Lockheed Martin fighter is meeting its five key “reliability or maintainability metrics,” according to a Pentagon spokesman.

www.stripes.com

The Pentagon’s chief weapons tester said the next-generation F-35 jet continues to fall short of full combat readiness targets and, despite some progress on reliability issues, all three versions of the fighter are breaking down “more often than planned.”

None of the Air Force, Marines and Navy variants of the Lockheed Martin fighter is meeting its five key “reliability or maintainability metrics,” Robert Behler, the Pentagon’s director of operational testing, said in prepared remarks Wednesday before two House Armed Services Committee panels.

The House subcommittees are reviewing the $428 billion program’s status and progress recovering from years of cost overruns and production delays.

“The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains at a level below service expectations,” Behler said in the prepared remarks. “In short, for all variants, aircraft are breaking down more often than planned and taking longer to fix.”


Conclusion, it's a hunk of shit, but hey we were selling them to Turkey before they cancelled the deal

 

[DGS49]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

 

[Likkmee]

The Taiwanese will give better quality at half the price, better employees

 

[esalla]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship. As such this jet is garbage which is why we sell it to whoever

 

[KissMy]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The legacy systems can be reduced to make room. Like replacing the large heavy communications, computer & controlling systems with a much smaller, lighter, lower power consumption & more reliable I-Phone type. The real problem is the generals revolving door into the "Military Industrial Complex" stuffing their pockets.

 

[esalla]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The legacy systems can be reduced to make room. Like replacing the large heavy communications, computer & controlling systems with a more reliable I-Phone. The real problem is the generals revolving door into the "Military Industrial Complex" stuffing their pockets.

Yea i phones are reliable.

For making me money anyway

 

[Dayton3]

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship.

Vertical landing yes. Vertical take off, no. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to take off from a ski jump.

 

[esalla]

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship.

Vertical landing yes. Vertical take off, no. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to take off from a ski jump.

Lol too bad the usa has no ski jump carriers and no plans to build any so why design a jet that can not be used as designed? Also if what you say is true then navy f35s have no tailhook

So try again kid and remember that the pentagon agrees with me

 

[Dayton3]

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship.

Vertical landing yes. Vertical take off, no. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to take off from a ski jump.

Lol too bad the usa has no ski jump carriers and no plans to build any so why design a jet that can not be used as designed? Also if what you say is true then navy f35s have no tailhook

So try again kid and remember that the pentagon agrees with me

Stop calling people "kid" you asshole.

All U.S. allies operate carriers with ski jumps. And in field operations, F-35s can be operated from naturally occurring ski jumps on land.

The STO/VL F-35 is NOT THE SAME as the F-35 built for operations from U.S. carriers.

And the Pentagon has several million people there. You can find someone to agree with nearly anything.

 

[esalla]

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship.

Vertical landing yes. Vertical take off, no. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to take off from a ski jump.

Lol too bad the usa has no ski jump carriers and no plans to build any so why design a jet that can not be used as designed? Also if what you say is true then navy f35s have no tailhook

So try again kid and remember that the pentagon agrees with me

Stop calling people "kid" you asshole.

All U.S. allies operate carriers with ski jumps. And in field operations, F-35s can be operated from naturally occurring ski jumps on land.

The STO/VL F-35 is NOT THE SAME as the F-35 built for operations from U.S. carriers.

And the Pentagon has several million people there. You can find someone to agree with nearly anything.

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs, so the usa built a fighter that needs a ski jump that no American carrier has. Dude, see I switched kid to dude, so dude by the time the f18 is phased out the f35 will never even have been fully phased in.

But you know better than the pentagon

I call you kid because you are acting like one

 

[esalla]

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship.

Vertical landing yes. Vertical take off, no. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to take off from a ski jump.

Lol too bad the usa has no ski jump carriers and no plans to build any so why design a jet that can not be used as designed? Also if what you say is true then navy f35s have no tailhook

So try again kid and remember that the pentagon agrees with me

Stop calling people "kid" you asshole.

All U.S. allies operate carriers with ski jumps. And in field operations, F-35s can be operated from naturally occurring ski jumps on land.

The STO/VL F-35 is NOT THE SAME as the F-35 built for operations from U.S. carriers.

And the Pentagon has several million people there. You can find someone to agree with nearly anything.

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs, so the usa built a fighter that needs a ski jump that no American carrier has. Dude, see I switched kid to dude, so dude by the time the f18 is phased out the f35 will never even have been fully phased in.

But you know better than the pentagon

I call you kid because you are acting like one

Whaaaaaaas

Naturally occurring ski jumps on land

Yup there is one of those just everywhere a military jet needs to land and takeoff.

Hell james bond did it in Goldeneye anyway

 

[Dayton3]

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship.

Vertical landing yes. Vertical take off, no. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to take off from a ski jump.

Lol too bad the usa has no ski jump carriers and no plans to build any so why design a jet that can not be used as designed? Also if what you say is true then navy f35s have no tailhook

So try again kid and remember that the pentagon agrees with me

Stop calling people "kid" you asshole.

All U.S. allies operate carriers with ski jumps. And in field operations, F-35s can be operated from naturally occurring ski jumps on land.

The STO/VL F-35 is NOT THE SAME as the F-35 built for operations from U.S. carriers.

And the Pentagon has several million people there. You can find someone to agree with nearly anything.

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs, so the usa built a fighter that needs a ski jump that no American carrier has. Dude, see I switched kid to dude, so dude by the time the f18 is phased out the f35 will never even have been fully phased in.

But you know better than the pentagon

I call you kid because you are acting like one

Whaaaaaaas

Naturally occurring ski jumps on land

Yup there is one of those just everywhere a military jet needs to land and takeoff.

Naturally occurring ski jumps were mentioned in the entry for the Harrier in the oversized book "Combat Aircraft". IIRC, that part of the book was written by long time aviation writer Bill Gunston.

 

[Dayton3]

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs,

You really don't know do you?

 

[esalla]

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship.

Vertical landing yes. Vertical take off, no. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to take off from a ski jump.

Lol too bad the usa has no ski jump carriers and no plans to build any so why design a jet that can not be used as designed? Also if what you say is true then navy f35s have no tailhook

So try again kid and remember that the pentagon agrees with me

Stop calling people "kid" you asshole.

All U.S. allies operate carriers with ski jumps. And in field operations, F-35s can be operated from naturally occurring ski jumps on land.

The STO/VL F-35 is NOT THE SAME as the F-35 built for operations from U.S. carriers.

And the Pentagon has several million people there. You can find someone to agree with nearly anything.

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs, so the usa built a fighter that needs a ski jump that no American carrier has. Dude, see I switched kid to dude, so dude by the time the f18 is phased out the f35 will never even have been fully phased in.

But you know better than the pentagon

I call you kid because you are acting like one

Whaaaaaaas

Naturally occurring ski jumps on land

Yup there is one of those just everywhere a military jet needs to land and takeoff.

Naturally occurring ski jumps were mentioned in the entry for the Harrier in the oversized book "Combat Aircraft". IIRC, that part of the book was written by long time aviation writer Bill Gunston.

Great now read Harry Pothead

 

[esalla]

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs,

You really don't know do you?

I know that naturally occurring ski jumps never happen where you need to land and takeoff a military jet. But it always happens in the movies

Sheesh kids

 

[Dayton3]

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship.

Vertical landing yes. Vertical take off, no. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to take off from a ski jump.

Lol too bad the usa has no ski jump carriers and no plans to build any so why design a jet that can not be used as designed? Also if what you say is true then navy f35s have no tailhook

So try again kid and remember that the pentagon agrees with me

Stop calling people "kid" you asshole.

All U.S. allies operate carriers with ski jumps. And in field operations, F-35s can be operated from naturally occurring ski jumps on land.

The STO/VL F-35 is NOT THE SAME as the F-35 built for operations from U.S. carriers.

And the Pentagon has several million people there. You can find someone to agree with nearly anything.

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs, so the usa built a fighter that needs a ski jump that no American carrier has. Dude, see I switched kid to dude, so dude by the time the f18 is phased out the f35 will never even have been fully phased in.

But you know better than the pentagon

I call you kid because you are acting like one

Whaaaaaaas

Naturally occurring ski jumps on land

Yup there is one of those just everywhere a military jet needs to land and takeoff.

Naturally occurring ski jumps were mentioned in the entry for the Harrier in the oversized book "Combat Aircraft". IIRC, that part of the book was written by long time aviation writer Bill Gunston.

Great now read Harry Pothead

I don't like Harry Potter or similar works.

Now I'll admit Bill Gunston has always had an obsession with the Harrier but I've no reason to think anything he published about the program was false.

What you don't know is that STO/VL aircraft like the Harrier and that variant of the F-35 are fully capable of taking to the air with a rolling take off.

Now, using a ski jump helps increase the takeoff weight the jets can carry but there is nothing to prevent them from simply rolling down the runway (or carrier deck), reaching rotation speed and becoming airborne. In fact there are advantages to such as it means less wear and tear on the plane.

 

[Dayton3]

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs,

You really don't know do you?

I know that naturally occurring ski jumps never happen where you need to land and takeoff a military jet.

A bulldozer can take care of that easily enough. You do know what bulldozers are don't you?

 

[esalla]

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship.

Vertical landing yes. Vertical take off, no. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to take off from a ski jump.

Lol too bad the usa has no ski jump carriers and no plans to build any so why design a jet that can not be used as designed? Also if what you say is true then navy f35s have no tailhook

So try again kid and remember that the pentagon agrees with me

Stop calling people "kid" you asshole.

All U.S. allies operate carriers with ski jumps. And in field operations, F-35s can be operated from naturally occurring ski jumps on land.

The STO/VL F-35 is NOT THE SAME as the F-35 built for operations from U.S. carriers.

And the Pentagon has several million people there. You can find someone to agree with nearly anything.

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs, so the usa built a fighter that needs a ski jump that no American carrier has. Dude, see I switched kid to dude, so dude by the time the f18 is phased out the f35 will never even have been fully phased in.

But you know better than the pentagon

I call you kid because you are acting like one

Whaaaaaaas

Naturally occurring ski jumps on land

Yup there is one of those just everywhere a military jet needs to land and takeoff.

Naturally occurring ski jumps were mentioned in the entry for the Harrier in the oversized book "Combat Aircraft". IIRC, that part of the book was written by long time aviation writer Bill Gunston.

Great now read Harry Pothead

I don't like Harry Potter or similar works.

Now I'll admit Bill Gunston has always had an obsession with the Harrier but I've no reason to think anything he published about the program was false.

What you don't know is that STO/VL aircraft like the Harrier and that variant of the F-35 are fully capable of taking to the air with a rolling take off.

Now, using a ski jump helps increase the takeoff weight the jets can carry but there is nothing to prevent them from simply rolling down the runway (or carrier deck), reaching rotation speed and becoming airborne. In fact there are advantages to such as it means less wear and tear on the plane.

The f35 can not roll off of a carrier.

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship.

Vertical landing yes. Vertical take off, no. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to take off from a ski jump.

Lol too bad the usa has no ski jump carriers and no plans to build any so why design a jet that can not be used as designed? Also if what you say is true then navy f35s have no tailhook

So try again kid and remember that the pentagon agrees with me

Stop calling people "kid" you asshole.

All U.S. allies operate carriers with ski jumps. And in field operations, F-35s can be operated from naturally occurring ski jumps on land.

The STO/VL F-35 is NOT THE SAME as the F-35 built for operations from U.S. carriers.

And the Pentagon has several million people there. You can find someone to agree with nearly anything.

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs, so the usa built a fighter that needs a ski jump that no American carrier has. Dude, see I switched kid to dude, so dude by the time the f18 is phased out the f35 will never even have been fully phased in.

But you know better than the pentagon

I call you kid because you are acting like one

Whaaaaaaas

Naturally occurring ski jumps on land

Yup there is one of those just everywhere a military jet needs to land and takeoff.

Naturally occurring ski jumps were mentioned in the entry for the Harrier in the oversized book "Combat Aircraft". IIRC, that part of the book was written by long time aviation writer Bill Gunston.

Great now read Harry Pothead

I don't like Harry Potter or similar works.

Now I'll admit Bill Gunston has always had an obsession with the Harrier but I've no reason to think anything he published about the program was false.

What you don't know is that STO/VL aircraft like the Harrier and that variant of the F-35 are fully capable of taking to the air with a rolling take off.

Now, using a ski jump helps increase the takeoff weight the jets can carry but there is nothing to prevent them from simply rolling down the runway (or carrier deck), reaching rotation speed and becoming airborne. In fact there are advantages to such as it means less wear and tear on the plane.

Actually the f35 can not take off vertical or with a ski jump with a full fuel and weapons load.

So try again

 

[esalla]

Lol so you are claiming that ski jumps are needed for vertical takeoffs,

You really don't know do you?

I know that naturally occurring ski jumps never happen where you need to land and takeoff a military jet.

A bulldozer can take care of that easily enough. You do know what bulldozers are don't you?

Kid you claimed that natural ski jumps were everywhere. Furthermore the f35 needs a full runway and or catapult with a full fuel tank and weapons load. Just the way it is

 

[AZrailwhale]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship. As such this jet is garbage which is why we sell it to whoever

ONE VERSION of the F-35 was designed for vertical take off with a minimal warload. Just like the Harrier and Sea Harrier were. I believe a F-35 is perfectly capable of vertical take off with internal fuel and internal weapons only. Most jets aren't capable of taking off with max fuel and weapons loads. That's why Air Force jets take off with minimal fuel loads and refuel shortly after takeoff. I think the last US aircraft capable of taking off with full fuel and weapons loads was the B-36 which was designed before aerial refueling was practical.