
F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO - julio_iglesias
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-27/f-35-engines-from-united-technologies-called-unreliable-by-gao
======
mangeletti
I think the F-35 isn't real, that all the videos of it are CGI, and that all
these reports are supposed to convince us that this money has been lost, all
while the government is secretly using the entire F-35 budget to build a flock
of flying drones, walking and talking robots, and rail guns for the next major
war.

I have to believe such contrivances to avoid thinking about how my tax dollars
are wasted.

~~~
Shivetya
The X-47B is pretty damn cool, makes one wonder with the rate of advancement
they had why we would need to develop manned craft much longer.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B)

~~~
protomyth
The US Navy has said the F-35 is probably that last manned fighter for them.
The X-47B is done after the refuel testing so it makes one wonder what is the
next test aircraft.

~~~
greedo
No, the USN has said the F-35 will be the last manned "strike" aircraft for
them. They are developing the F/Axx to replace the F-18, and this will
definitely be manned.

~~~
protomyth
Yes, I should have added strike fighter, but the F/Axx is listed as manned or
unmanned. I have my doubts about the duality they think they are going to get.
On the technical side the F-35 is replacing the F/A-18C while the F/Axx is
replacing the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

~~~
greedo
The problem for the USN is that the F-35 isn't coming along fast enough, and
the cost will make the airwing even smaller than currently deployed. I think
they Navy would love to ditch the F-35, let the Marines suffer with the F-35B,
and push on to F/Axx. Of course the really smart thing would be pushing UCLASS
hard, but that would conflict with a lot of their ideas about piloted
aircraft.

~~~
protomyth
At this point, they might as well buy the newer F-18 until they can get a
decision. It looks like Boeing needs orders or it will shutdown the line.

------
Lancey
We could clear out all student debt in the United States and have a handful of
change left over...

...or we could build a plane that doesn't fly.

~~~
exelius
The plane flies; but I wonder what we're doing putting humans in an airplane
at all at this point. The amount of additional engineering that has to be done
to support a human in the cockpit is crazy -- life support systems, multiple
redundant flight control systems, etc. All of these have maintenance
schedules, checklists and protocols that make them very expensive to operate.
By the time this weapons system is operational, it will be obsolete.

I would maybe understand if the goal of this program was to produce a weapons
system that was a great leap forward in performance, but the F-35 was never
designed to be that. It was supposed to remove the need for 3 or 4 different
specialized aircraft by creating a general-purpose platform that can serve in
multiple roles. It's essentially a cost-reduction program that basically fails
at reducing costs because of the additional overhead some of the requirements
brought.

In its current iteration, it doesn't do that, and having a single-engine
fighter jet is a colossally stupid idea. In the event of engine failure, the
pilot has no choice but to eject because fighters are far less aerodynamically
stable than passenger planes, and with no engine power, the plane wouldn't be
controllable. You don't have these problems in two-engine fighters -- if one
engine goes out, you can still limp back to base and land the plane. So your
single engine has to be that much more powerful and reliable, which leads to
an engine that is more expensive to buy and that needs to be maintained more
often. So they ultimately fail in reducing cost and complexity.

For the roles the F-35 will be appropriate for by the time it's finished,
drones will be a much better option. The F-35 is explicitly not an air
superiority fighter (a role human pilots are still better suited for, and for
which the F-22 is a far superior aircraft), and most of the ground support and
reconnaissance roles the F-35 is supposed to play are already handled by
drones today.

The program only exists because big defense programs are parceled out to
congressional districts, whose representatives are loathe to lose the jobs. I
don't think the military even wants it that badly at this point.

~~~
DominikR
A human pilot can't be simply disconnected of reprogrammed to turn around and
bomb Washington. I think that's a major consideration.

Yes, there are drones that work quite well against countries like Afghanistan
but good luck using these against China or Russia. (not that I'd want to see
that ever happen)

~~~
exelius
Drones, like any other aircraft, would be used only after air superiority has
been established.

That means that by the time we're sending drones in, the enemy doesn't even
have sufficient radar capabilities to know what planes are there. Radar sites
are one of the first targets in the process of establishing air superiority
because they direct anti-aircraft defenses. They wouldn't even know there are
drones to hack, just that missiles are raining down from above.

If we haven't established air superiority yet, we just use cruise missiles.
But a cruise missile looks a lot like a missile fired from a drone if you're
standing on the ground.

------
frandroid
It's kind of amusing that the one Air Force in the world that has the most
means to have different super-specialized planes for every use case has
decided to sink a historic amount of money into an all-purpose plane that's
not particularly good at one task. You would understand if a place like Panama
decided "We can only afford 6 fighter jets and one maintenance
team/infrastructure, so let's get F-35s because they'll cover multiple needs",
but these are absolutely not the constraints of the United States.

~~~
josefresco
We had a specialized plane, the F22- but it cost $150M each and people thought
"that's crazy" so they said: let's save money by building a new plane in bulk
that can be customized for each branch! So while the costs upfront were/are
high, in the end once we start stamping them out in bulk the price per place
will be much lower.

And here we are. Intentions were good, execution has been bad.

------
gcv
This happens over and over again.

Oh no, the Sea Wolf works, but is too expensive at $2B/boat! Let's scrap the
working program, use "lessons learned" to build a cheaper attack submarine.
Years of delays and cost overruns follow, and we get the inferior Virginia
class, at a bargain-basement price of $3B.

Oh no, the F22 works, but is too expensive at $150M/plane! (Would have been
less over time, but who's counting?) Let's scrap the working program, use
"lessons learned" to build a cheaper fighter. Years of delays and cost
overruns follow, no working plane in sight, but if it ever flies, we will get
the inferior F35, at a bargain-basement price of $350M/plane.

I can't wait to see what happens when the Ohio-class replacement program
starts for real. Also can't wait to see what happens when healthcare is fully
nationalized — I'm sure the bureaucracy in charge will be so much sleeker and
more efficient than the Pentagon, and special interests so much less
influential in Congress. Oh, wait: annual US military spending is about $750B,
and healthcare adds up to $3.5T.

------
bhouston
UAVs are the future. They are more affordable, they can be stealther, they can
be smaller, they can stay flying for longer, and they require less ground
support.

I can not believe the F-35 hasn't been completely cancelled yet. Every partner
of the US doesn't really want these expensive beasts.

~~~
Jtsummers
Not trying to justify the F-35, it's a cluster fuck, but manned aircraft will
be around for a while. Unless the operator is local, the communication latency
for UAVs makes them unsuitable for some types of combat missions.

~~~
outworlder
For some types, not all of them.

Also, 'Unmanned' does not necessarily means "remote-controlled". They can be
autonomous.

We are making progress: [http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsus-
navys-x-47b-cond...](http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsus-
navys-x-47b-conducts-first-autonomous-aerial-refuelling-4560861)

This is after carrier landings and takeoffs and formation flying with manned
aircraft.

And all that developed at a fraction of what the F-35 program will spend on
_engines alone_

~~~
josefresco
If you think drones, or autonomous planes will fix what governments spend (and
waste) on military projects - you're in for a huge disappointment. If
anything, "drone" type weapons have meant an increase in budgets.

While the F-35 budgets looks atrocious now - in a couple decades we'll look
back and think "how cheap!".

~~~
outworlder
You have a point.

I remember reading a couple of years ago that the thing causing F-35's biggest
delays was software, not the hardware. The software for the radar alone is
reported to be a few millions of lines of C++ code.

~~~
Jtsummers
[http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/aviation/softw...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/aviation/software-
testing-problems-continue-to-plague-f35-joint-strike-fighter-program)

An article on the topic. The summary, IMO, is that no one acquiring major
systems (defense or otherwise) seems to properly understand the costs and
risks of software. More money spent up front on their design, development and
test framework would have significantly reduced the risks while (naturally)
costing more early on, but should reduce costs over the lifetime. They ignore
this and spend more after the deadlines have passed as a consequence.

------
sremani
F-35 tries doing so many things and fails in almost all of them. The
complexity of engine given the whole STOVL based frame and design is the
culprit here. One plane to rule them all is still a bad idea, given the
complexity of these machines. There are many lessons for any kind of system
design and development in this whole story.

------
unreal37
I realize "mean time between failures" doesn't mean what I think it means, but
holy moley. The engine can only go 25 hours between failures instead of the
120 they're aiming for? That's a pretty big gap in performance and I wouldn't
want to be flying one of these things.

"As of late December, engines on the Marine Corps’ complex version of the
F-35, designed for short takeoffs and vertical landings, flew about 47 hours
between failures caused by engine design issues instead of the 90 hours
planned for this point, according to GAO officials. Air Force and Navy model
engines flew about 25 hours between failures instead of the 120 hours
planned."

------
knowuh
90 - 120 hours is the _target_ MTBF for a jet engine? _mind blown_ glad I am
not in aeronautics.

~~~
userbinator
An engine for a military application has _very_ different characteristics from
that of a commercial passenger plane. The MTBF for the latter is in the 100k+
hours, with servicing usually performed around 10k.

~~~
chefkoch
you service an aircraft engine after 416 days of non stop flying?

~~~
dbloom
In this case, "servicing" was probably referring to a heavy maintenance check.

There are several different tiers of checks, ranging from short frequent ones,
to expensive, time consuming, infrequent ones:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks)

Usually, older aircraft that are being phased out are mothballed shortly
before their next heavy maintenance check. And the resale value of used
aircraft, especially older ones, is heavily influenced by how soon the next D
check is.

------
wehadfun
Starting to think it is time for defense contractors to be disrupted. How many
multibillion dollar fuckups of public money have these guys had.

~~~
noobermin
What idea do you have?

------
kenrikm
Let us not forget that the "backup" engine program was cut

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/house-votes-to-
kill...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/house-votes-to-
kill-f35-second-engine-program_n_824177.html)

Not looking like such a great idea now ehh?

Oh yeah, we're supposed to forget these things.

~~~
jgrowl
I was about to point out the same thing. I left shortly before the program got
cut. Everyone saw the writing on the wall.

I remember some talk about it being more about politics than saving money. I
can't remember what politician it was, but they were one of the big pushers of
closing down GE's alternative engine program, which was convenient since they
were from Connecticut where Pratt & Whitney is located (If I remember
correctly).

Basically they wanted their state to benefit exclusively.

Not to say GE's engine would be in much better shape right now either. I am
really not sure what the right decision would have been.

------
justinator
Would the F-35 be a good example of The Swamp of Commitment? [0]

* [0] [http://www.amazon.com/Sway-Irresistible-Pull-Irrational-Beha...](http://www.amazon.com/Sway-Irresistible-Pull-Irrational-Behavior/dp/0385530609)

------
dsr_
Is there anyone happy with the F35 program who does not have a
fiscal/political stake in it?

~~~
HeXetic
Is there anyone unhappy with the F-35 program who _does_ have a
fiscal/political stake in it?

~~~
wlesieutre
I mean, we're all paying for it, so sure.

From what I understand, the F-35 is trying to be a single airframe that
functions as both an air superiority fighter and ground support. Designed
around things like vertical landing and short takeoff, which are frequently
unnecessary and add complexity and design compromises elsewhere. And as far as
actually being ground support, it's not an A-10. It's behind schedule and over
budget. And there's the debate over what war this plane would be useful in
(having a stick to wave at Russia?), because it's certainly not the kind of
war we've been seeing recently.

There are a lot of better things we could do with my tax dollars. Like having
a slightly less enormous national debt, if nothing else. Or having slightly
more solvent social security so I can retire before I croak.

------
Gravityloss
They are already planning on using more advanced adaptive engine technology
from the ADVENT program for future F-35 engines, since the program is going to
last for quite a long time.

This could be related to campaigning against the current F135 engine.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Versatile_Engine_Tech...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Versatile_Engine_Technology)

