| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Panetta to lift threat of axing Marine F35B |
| 2012-01-20 |
| Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is giving fresh backing to the Marine Corps' version of the next-generation strike plane, the F-35, a U.S. defense official said. During a visit Friday to the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland, where the F-35 program is run, Panetta will announce that the Marines' version is no longer on what Panetta's predecessor, Robert Gates, called "probation," according to a U.S. defense official with knowledge of the decision. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #11 IIRC, the USMC is on record as not wanting this aircraft due to cost and logistics; I expect that lift fan to prove a maintenance nightmare. My former employer does the 5 axis CNC trim and drill on many of the composite skin panels for all 3 variants. true position error tolerance of 0.004" is the max; the CNC machines have a tolerance of 0.003" and the laser/radar trackers used to measure the finished parts also have a 0.003" error tolerance. do the math, you can have a part deadnutz on and still report it out of tolerance. and Lockheed Martin, (bless their little government contract driven heart) have to do a full scale Material Review Board to determine if the eror ( any error) is reworkable. that costs huge. but the one that really takes the cake is that these panels have many rivet holes. the CNC program only drills the pilot holes; they are taken up to full size later in Fort Worth. if we drilled a PILOT hole oversize, we had to report that to LM for the MRB to review and disposition. and the damnthing was going to be drilled out later so any oversize would disappear!!!! in fairness to LM, these requirements were contractually driven, so this is the gov't driving this gold plated bus. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2012-01-20 22:33 |
| #10 When I was working on the B-1, the Air Force insisted on going from 99% to 99.9% on one component, even though it made the part 30x more expensive. This was a backup component that would be used only a couple of times in its lifetime. You do that with enough parts and the cost of the entire system spirals out of control. In wartime, a lot of these practices will go by the wayside, given body counts that become part of the background noise. In peacetime, however, accidents due to under-spec'ed items are a PR nightmare. I understand where the brass are coming from. Take the F-22. Supposedly gold-plated every which way, but still vulnerable with respect to its oxygen supply. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2012-01-20 22:09 |
| #9 That is why I suspect we will see more and more weapons systems that begin with the letter U. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-01-20 16:08 |
| #8 Pushing things past the 99% is what makes our weapons so expensive. Nothing can be adequate, because of the hue and outcry and the political and legal fallout when things fail. "It's wasn't the pilot's fault - it was the aircraft she was given to fly." "Yes, the weapon hadn't been cleaned in a while- it still should have fired." "It wasn't a mishandling of the ammunition - it was the weapon's loading system." "The truck should have been designed not to roll over at high speed. Obviously the procurement system failed." |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-01-20 13:23 |
| #7 Nimble, Pushing things past the 99% is what makes our weapons so expensive. When I was working on the B-1, the Air Force insisted on going from 99% to 99.9% on one component, even though it made the part 30x more expensive. This was a backup component that would be used only a couple of times in its lifetime. You do that with enough parts and the cost of the entire system spirals out of control. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2012-01-20 13:08 |
| #6 The UK/CON and Italy need a replacement for the Harrier. It isn't just the US Marines who need the F-35B. I expect problems in a complicated procurement like the F-35. Lockheed-Martin needs to show that they are on top of the situation. BTW, are the F-22's flying yet? |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2012-01-20 09:57 |
| #5 If you look at a lot of what the pentagon is sourcing these days it is clear we are pushing technologies to the 99th percentile, like 35" color CRTs. Will the F-35 be more successful than the F-15? The Ford over the Nimitz? The Zumwalt over the Burke? The Seawolf over the Los Angeles? But bureaucratic inertia will keep us polishing the technology until it is proven past its prime by failure in combat. There is a lot of waste here and Panetta has missed a chance to curb it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-01-20 09:50 |
| #4 From the right angle, everything looks like a bat. |
| Posted by: Burt Ward 2012-01-20 02:53 |
| #3 Is it me, or does the video on the bottom make the F-35 look like a bat? :-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2012-01-20 02:32 |
| #2 "Have the problems for the Marine version been fixed already?" Do you think this problem has been fixed at all? I do not. |
| Posted by: newc 2012-01-20 01:50 |
| #1 This is a joint airframe. Other "joint" versions have stress-related problems. Have the problems for the Marine version been fixed already? |
| Posted by: gorb 2012-01-20 01:36 |