Top military pilots grounded by F-35 mess

[santana]

By MELISSA NELSON http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/sourceAP.gif


updated 2/27/2012 8:49:22 AM ET
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla.&sty=h&form=msdate) — The best fighter pilots from the Air Force, Marines and Navy arrived in the Florida Panhandle last year to learn to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive, most advanced weapons program in U.S. history. They are still waiting.
Concerns about the stealth jets' safety, cost overruns and questions about the entire program's feasibility have delayed the training and left about 35 pilots mostly outside the cockpit. The most the pilots do with the nine F-35s at Eglin Air Force Base is occasionally taxi them and fire up the engines. Otherwise their training is limited to three F-35 flight simulators, classroom work and flights in older-model jets. Only a handful of test pilots get to fly the F-35s.


"The most-frustrated pilot is one who isn't flying at all," said Marine Col. Arthur Tomassetti, vice commander of the fighter wing and a former test pilot for the F-35 prototype.


Built by Lockheed Martin under a 2001 contract, the F-35 is supposed to replace Cold War-era aircraft such as the Air Force's F-16 fighter and the Navy's and Marines' F/A-18 Hornet. It would also be sold to many NATO countries and other U.S. allies.
Costing between $65 million and $100 million each, depending on the version, the F-35 is described as a generational leap from older fighter jets. A single-seat aircraft, it can fly at about 1,050 mph and, officials say, fight both air-to-air and air-to-ground significantly better than its predecessors.


One version can land on an aircraft carrier while another can hover, landing on and taking off from a helicopter carrier. It carries more fuel and more ordnance internally than older fighter jets, allowing it to maintain stealth, and has the latest onboard computer systems, allowing the pilot to control the plane and communicate with other aircraft and interact with ground commanders like never before.
"From a flying perspective, what we call the stick and rudder is the same for any platform, but when you integrate the sensors, the pilot has the capability to make much better decisions and be much more precise," said Air Force Col Andrew Toth, the training wing's commander. His name adorns one of the school's F-35s.

And because it is to be used by all three branches of the U.S. military that fly fighter jets and by U.S. allies, training and maintenance could be handled jointly. That's intended to save money compared to having separate, parallel maintenance and training groups in each force.
But just as the program appeared to be taking off, it was grounded over a variety of concerns. They range from improperly installed parachutes under the pilots' ejector seats, to worries at the Pentagon that there has not been enough testing of the jets, to ongoing concerns by some in Congress that the entire F-35 program is too expensive. Its projected cost has jumped from $233 billion to an estimated $385 billion, including development. Forty-three F-35s have been built and another 2,443 have been ordered by the Pentagon.

full story
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46539898/ns/us_news-security#.T1C9hfVUX8s

[timetraveller]

Shouldn't it not say .. Pilots pissed off because the F35 program is a joke

[C.Puffs]

Shouldn't it not say .. Pilots pissed off because the F35 program is a joke

Compared to what?

[Reader I am]

Certainly not compared to the F/22.
Probably the costliest plane that will never see combat.


Sad afair. It is too late to stop the program because off all the money spent and the number of produced aircraft,but there is not any for further development.

[Dankster]

Certainly not compared to the F/22.
Probably the costliest plane that will never see combat.


Sad afair. It is too late to stop the program because off all the money spent and the number of produced aircraft,but there is not any for further development.

Never see combat? Really? So you can say for certain that the next thirty to forty years will never see them be used in any operations?

What a load of BS

[C.Puffs]

Never see combat? Really? So you can say for certain that the next thirty to forty years will never see them be used in any operations?

What a load of BS

x2 .............

[Winger]

Certainly not compared to the F/22.
Probably the costliest plane that will never see combat.



Deterrence is a powerful concept. If it doesn't see combat it will still be a worthy investment.....but not for the reasons you would state.

[Have Blue]

I get the too big to fail train of thought perchance; but not the lack of strategic forethought...??? I mean, do we normally develop and produce fighter-craft that we never fight with, much less exploit aging airframes?

[RandomlyGenerated]

Even though it has become a very costly project not just for the U.S but for countries like the U.K, italy, netherlands..etc but i still think it's a great fighter with loads of capabilities and probably the best option to get rid of all those f 16's for countries like holland...however I see a major decrease of initially purchased aircraft in the future...
P.S since this thrad is about aircraft would any of you mind helping me out by answering to this thread!!?? thanks if so
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?209638-Eyesight-to-enter-air-force

[C.Puffs]

I get the too big to fail train of thought perchance; but not the lack of strategic forethought...??? I mean, do we normally develop and produce fighter-craft that we never fight with, much less exploit aging airframes?

What the hell are you talking about?

[Chimera]

Compared to what?

Your're right. We ought to say all current military programs are jokes. And JSF is just the pinnacle of them all.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2012/03/01/DT_03_01_2012_p30-427618.xml&headline=Why%20Major%20Acquisition%20Programs%20Fail

[C.Puffs]

Your're right. We ought to say all current military programs are jokes. And JSF is just the pinnacle of them all.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2012/03/01/DT_03_01_2012_p30-427618.xml&headline=Why Major Acquisition Programs Fail

Troll on. 12345678

[kevlar308]

Seems to me that the title is misleading. Should be top Navy and Marine Corps pilots grounded by F-35 mess. Air Force top pilots are in F-22 and B-2, amiright?

[gastrion]

Seems to me that the title is misleading. Should be top Navy and Marine Corps pilots grounded by F-35 mess. Air Force top pilots are in F-22 and B-2, amiright?
B-2 is flown by computers. The pilots, as bomber crews, do need a long endurance.

[Have Blue]

What the hell are you talking about? Heh. Meaning we can/do use our airframes for a long wile, long after me and you will have passed. All appropriations, armchair general debates aside.

[mhpr262]

Its projected cost has jumped from $233 billion to an estimated $385 billion,

God knows I´m no treehugging dreadlocked pacifist, but holy crap what could have been done with that amount of money... several thousand dollars for every household in the US.

I wonder if the USA could have weaned themselves from foreign oil for that amount if they had invested that in sustainable energy, more efficient devices, better insulated housed and electric vehicles/battery development. If anything that would have created even more jobs.

[C.Puffs]

Heh. Meaning we can/do use our airframes for a long wile, long after me and you will have passed. All appropriations, armchair general debates aside.

Aircraft don't have infinite airframe hours.

[C.Puffs]

God knows I´m no treehugging dreadlocked pacifist, but holy crap what could have been done with that amount of money... several thousand dollars for every household in the US.

I wonder if the USA could have weaned themselves from foreign oil for that amount if they had invested that in sustainable energy, more efficient devices, better insulated housed and electric vehicles/battery development. If anything that would have created even more jobs.

Cut $385 billion from fighter procurement and very likely oil will be the least of your problems.

[timetraveller]

Compared to what?


Compare it to the F16XL , F20 Tigershark ... both projects might not have been successful by nations snappin em up but at least they weren't riddled with delays etc etc etc

[Have Blue]

Aircraft don't have infinite airframe hours. Agreed. Good thing nobody said that they did.

[tokengator]

I wonder if the USA could have weaned themselves from foreign oil for that amount if they had invested that in sustainable energy, more efficient devices, better insulated housed and electric vehicles/battery development. If anything that would have created even more jobs

oh, our president did attempt to invest in "other" options..to the tune of 20.5 billion dollars. 80% of those companies were Obama's top donors and a HUGE portion of those companies are no longer in business. Hooray green energy

http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011/11/16/80-of-green-energy-loans-went-to-obamas-top-donors/

[C.Puffs]

Agreed. Good thing nobody said that they did.


"Meaning we can/do use our airframes for a long wile, long after me and you will have passed."

No, but it's pretty obvious you don't understand the concept. We *may* use them for a long while but it's case-by-case and certainly doesn't mean that just because we're still using the B-52 we can use the F-16 for 60 years.

[Blue Monkey]

I fail to see the problem. It's a complex project. People are bitching way too much and expecting engineers to have magical powers.

[C.Puffs]

Compare it to the F16XL , F20 Tigershark ... both projects might not have been successful by nations snappin em up but at least they weren't riddled with delays etc etc etc

The F-16XL was smoked by the F-15E and the F-20 never had a chance against even the F-16 let alone the F-35.

[Have Blue]

"Meaning we can/do use our airframes for a long wile, long after me and you will have passed." No, but it's pretty obvious you don't understand the concept. We *may* use them for a long while but it's case-by-case and certainly doesn't mean that just because we're still using the B-52 we can use the F-16 for 60 years. Heh. Again with the assumptions... doesn't look good on anyone.

[C.Puffs]

Heh. Again with the assumptions... doesn't look good on anyone.

All I have to go on is what you say and what you've said indicates you don't seem to have a grasp of the concept of airframe hours.

[tea drinker]

Aircraft don't have infinite airframe hours.
And that's why initially costly programs with further cost overruns aren't helping, take a look at the B2 and F22, those airframes have to be held back as the short ordering has left same amount of work for less frames. The B-52 was built at a time of plenty and shedloads were made, different scenario.

Your point about cutting the project is valid, what will US and allies do for replacement? What do they need to do? Could a re-run on the F-22 and silent eagle production really fill the gap (which is empty today)

Look at Gripen and Rafale, even the Eurofighter is looking a better project than F-35. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm not saying they are equivalent in tech, but they have the equivalence of being leading edge fighter programs of their generation, and there's a few of them..... and they work. Then there is the singular, expensive F-35.

[C.Puffs]

And that's why initially costly programs with further cost overruns aren't helping, take a look at the B2 and F22, those airframes have to be held back as the short ordering has left same amount of work for less frames. The B-52 was built at a time of plenty and shedloads were made, different scenario.

Your point about cutting the project is valid, what will US and allies do for replacement? What do they need to do? Could a re-run on the F-22 and silent eagle production really fill the gap (which is empty today)

Look at Gripen and Rafale, even the Eurofighter is looking a better project than F-35. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm not saying they are equivalent in tech, but they have the equivalence of being leading edge fighter programs of their generation, and there's a few of them..... and they work. Then there is the singular, expensive F-35.

4th gen aircraft will have very short lifespans in areas defended by S-300/400/Flanker/T-50/J-20. Remember, we'll still be using F-35s 40 years from now.

[IconOfEvi]

The F-16XL was smoked by the F-15E and the F-20 never had a chance against even the F-16 let alone the F-35.

And I mourn for both...:(

While we're at planes that weren't adopted, if only the YF-23 had been picked...wah

[C.Puffs]

And I mourn for both...:(

While we're at planes that weren't adopted, if only the YF-23 had been picked...wah

I loved the F-16XL. I wish they'd have built that instead of the Block 50/52s. :-( Lot's of interesting planes got passed over over the years.

[Black_Beret]

The best fighter pilots from the Air Force, Marines and Navy arrived in the Florida Panhandle last year to learn to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive, most advanced weapons program in U.S. history.
Is it really the most expensive program in Us history because I thought the F-22 program was more expensive because it won't be sold to anyone (yet) and it's got more advanced tech

[C.Puffs]

Is it really the most expensive program in Us history because I thought the F-22 program was more expensive because it won't be sold to anyone (yet) and it's got more advanced tech

You know what kills me when people whine about "ZOMG MOST EXPENSIVE PROGRAM EVAR" is why wouldn't it be? What could be more expensive than replacing three types of fighters in three services? If you added the entire F-16/F-18/AV-8 buy up, guess what, they'd be "the most expensive program EVAH" as well.

[Dankster]

Exactly. Instead of comparing the F35 price tag to just the F16's or F18's, compare it to the combined AV-8, F-16, F-18, A-10, and Super Hornet. Those are what this sing aircraft type will replace.

Plus, we cannot expect to remain the worlds dominant air force if we abandon 5th gen fighters and continue to rely on30 going on 40 year old teen fighters for another 30 years. There is just no alternative the oft suggested Silent Eagle/Hornet ideas would still take ten years to fully develop and field, and could be obsolete just a few years after they are ready. More Raptors would certainly be nice but it simply isn't flexible enough to be a true Multirole fighter like the JSF is designed to be. Designing a new fighter from the ground up first of all wouldn't even happen, not in this budget climate. No JSF = no new fighters period. And even so, it would take at least another decade and a half and billions of dollars just to get it to where the JSF is now.

Point is, we're stuck with the F-35, love it or hate it. Personally I think the jet itself will do just fine on a technical/performance basis.

[archibald harry tuttle]

I fail to see the problem. It's a complex project. People are bitching way too much and expecting engineers to have magical powers.

You are wrong, in very first "introduction to engineering" class we were told engineers do have magical powers.

[C.Puffs]

You are wrong, in very first "introduction to engineering" class we were told engineers do have magical powers.

I think you're confusing that with a Star Trek episode.

[archibald harry tuttle]

4th gen aircraft will have very short lifespans in areas defended by S-300/400/Flanker/T-50/J-20. Remember, we'll still be using F-35s 40 years from now.

You are presumming a countermeasure will not be developed in 40 years. Imagine what will happens if someone invents a pod that can cancel most of the new tracking technologies or something like Gundam Minovsky particles emitter.

[archibald harry tuttle]

I think you're confusing that with a Star Trek episode.

Nope, that in was an actual college class in 1979. Also we were told "If its possible we can do it, if its impossible it takes us a litter longer".

[C.Puffs]

You are presumming a countermeasure will not be developed in 40 years. Imagine what will happens if someone invents a pod that can cancel most of the new tracking technologies or something like Gundam Minovsky particles emitter.

They've been trying that since the U-2. I'd rather not bank on imagination as reality will win in that contest.

[C.Puffs]

Nope, that in was an actual college class in 1979. Also we were told "If its possible we can do it, if its impossible it takes us a litter longer".

You left out the most important part: $∞

[Frank_Jamison]

2/28/2012 - WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS) -- Officials at the Aeronautical Systems Center here issued a Military Flight Release today that will allow the F-35A Lightning II fighter to begin initial operations at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

This decision was reached after an airworthiness board conducted an assessment that evaluated potential risks and the corresponding mitigation actions to conduct unmonitored flights.

Flying the Air Force variant of the joint strike fighter will increase pilot and maintainer familiarity with the aircraft, exercise the logistics infrastructure and continue to develop aircraft maturity. These initial F-35A flights will be limited, scripted, conducted within the restrictions and stipulations of the MFR and flown by qualified pilots, officials said.


http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123291745

For the record, I remember when the B-2 would melt in the rain, the only way the B-1 would make it to the Gulf was if we put in on a boat and sailed it there (well that one was probably correct in 1990), the Apache's rotors would disintegrate in the Iraqi desert sand, the Abrams' turbines would clog in the same (if they didn't run out of fuel getting over the berms first), the F-16 would kill its pilot during real ACMs, and on and on and on. I bet if we did deep enough, we could find some article from the early 1900s talking about the excessive cost of the program and how the Wright Military Flyer was a deathtrap with no real combat utility.

[C.Puffs]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123291745

For the record, I remember when the B-2 would melt in the rain, the only way the B-1 would make it to the Gulf was if we put in on a boat and sailed it there (well that one was probably correct in 1990), the Apache's rotors would disintegrate in the Iraqi desert sand, the Abrams' turbines would clog in the same (if they didn't run out of fuel getting over the berms first), the F-16 would kill its pilot during real ACMs, and on and on and on. I bet if we did deep enough, we could find some article from the early 1900s talking about the excessive cost of the program and how the Wright Military Flyer was a deathtrap with no real combat utility.

Don't forget, the Bradley was going to burst into flames and roast the guys inside the first time it was hit because it has aluminum armor. And they use aluminum in rocket fuel you know. roflroflrofl

[Blue Monkey]

You are wrong, in very first "introduction to engineering" class we were told engineers do have magical powers.

Yeah, they fed me that bullsh1t too. I found out that my magical powers would be to forget things at an amazing speed. And fall asleep at any possible classes.

[Dankster]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123291745

For the record, I remember when the B-2 would melt in the rain, the only way the B-1 would make it to the Gulf was if we put in on a boat and sailed it there (well that one was probably correct in 1990), the Apache's rotors would disintegrate in the Iraqi desert sand, the Abrams' turbines would clog in the same (if they didn't run out of fuel getting over the berms first), the F-16 would kill its pilot during real ACMs, and on and on and on. I bet if we did deep enough, we could find some article from the early 1900s talking about the excessive cost of the program and how the Wright Military Flyer was a deathtrap with no real combat utility.


So true. The JSF Will do just fine. The real problems with the program are political, not technical

[fiorellabel]

Compared to what?
Compared to ALL other fighters with a two seat trainer version,for begin with.
On the other hand it seems it would almost have a set of compatible datalinks, so it would be cleared to partecipate to joint NATO operations unlike the Raptor.

[ggk]

350 billion, just imagine what happen when america design a new aircraft to replace F35 in less than 40 years

[santana]

news update

Training Begins on Stealth Jet (http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/03/05/training-begins-on-stealth-jet/)



The U.S. military just took a big step towards fielding a new, stealthy jet fighter that proponents say will revolutionize U.S. combat power in the Pacific. The U.S. Air Force’s training command reportedly gave approval for a pair of experienced pilots to being flying F-35A stealth fighters on limited missions in the vicinity of Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, home to the 33rd Fighter Wing. The Wing will train Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps pilots on their different versions of the fighter. The test flights, approved on Friday (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2012/03/military-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-general-approves-flight-operations-030312d/), are meant to pave the way for full-scale training.



full story
http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/03/05/training-begins-on-stealth-jet/