HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » F-35 Marine Model Stress ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:55 AM

F-35 Marine Model Stress Testing Halted Over Cracks

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-12/f-35-marine-model-stress-testing-halted-over-cracks.html

Durability testing on the most complicated version of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s (LMT) F-35 was halted last month after “multiple” cracks were discovered in the fighter jet, according to the Pentagon’s testing office.

The previously undisclosed halt in high-stress ground testing involves the F-35B, the Marine Corps' version that must withstand short takeoffs and landings on carriers and amphibious warfare vessels, according to an annual report on the F-35 that Defense Department testing chief Michael Gilmore sent to Congress yesterday. Flight testing wasn’t affected.

Development of the F-35, the Pentagon’s costliest weapons system, has been marked by delays and cost increases. The Pentagon estimates the total cost for development and production of 2,443 F-35s will be $395.7 billion, a 70 percent increase since the initial contract with Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin was signed in 2001.

Durability testing is intended to stress an airframe, assessing its capability to achieve a projected aircraft lifetime of 8,000 “equivalent flight hours.”

24 replies, 2287 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply F-35 Marine Model Stress Testing Halted Over Cracks (Original post)
xchrom Jan 2013 OP
UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2013 #1
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #22
UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2013 #23
marmar Jan 2013 #2
UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2013 #4
2on2u Jan 2013 #3
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #5
Confusious Jan 2013 #6
caraher Jan 2013 #7
FarCenter Jan 2013 #12
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #16
FarCenter Jan 2013 #17
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #18
FarCenter Jan 2013 #20
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #21
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #24
Separation Jan 2013 #8
progressoid Jan 2013 #10
n2doc Jan 2013 #9
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #11
L0oniX Jan 2013 #14
L0oniX Jan 2013 #13
Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #15
cbrer Jan 2013 #19

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:19 AM

1. $395.7 billion for a jet we don't need.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:42 AM

22. That money...

would put just shy of 8 million kids through a state university (assuming $50k each).

That would pay for 8 Hurricane Sandy relief efforts.

That money could buy 5.2 million Habitat for Humanity homes.

That money would cover the property taxes at the Oswego (NY) City School District for a couple thousand years.

It would also buy the Army about 200 million new rifles, assuming we actually needed such things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:25 AM

23. You could go on and on.

 

Our aging and vulnerable electrical grid.

Our roads and bridges.

Our internet.

Our health care system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:37 AM

2. We can't afford unlimited MIC welfare anymore......

....... Not that we ever really could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:10 AM

4. It's worse than it sounds.

 

Other countries are canceling their orders.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014366865

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:54 AM

3. Quite an entitlement, too bad it only benefits a few. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:05 AM

5. The real problem

is that each branch wants its own Cadillac version of this warplane. The fact that the most expensive model is being designed for the Marine Corps is disturbing. Another aspect is the super plane, one size fits all, does everything development, that has never yet worked. The military currently has a stable of aircraft capable of any mission this craft is designed to do against any foe in the conceivable future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:20 AM

6. I think they were hoping for a plane

That would be the same across all branches, thus saving money on parts and maintenance.

Really not working out, at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:47 AM

7. Looks like the F-111 all over again

The '60s version of the same rationale - in the end it was just an Air Force bomber

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:46 AM

12. The F-35B is the vertical takeoff and landing version, so it differs from the others

The propulsion guts and flight controls are different, even though it looks the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:39 PM

16. The Marines already

have the Harrier, which is a proven aircraft and may explain why they are planning to buy 70 refurbished and updated ones as a hedge against further delays or possible cancellation of the F-35C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:53 PM

17. The Harriers are pretty old by now; OTOH they should be pretty well debugged

The basic problem is that if you carry enough propulsion equipment to do vertical takeoff and landing, you no longer have enough weight budget to carry a heavy load of armaments and/or fuel to give a reasonable combat radius.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:01 PM

18. Harriers

performed with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing the close air support for which they were designed. Unless we are planning a war with Russia or China, I see no need for the F-35C. I think the money could be better spent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:08 PM

20. Agreed, Harriers and Warthogs seem more suited to current tasks than F-35Cs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:48 AM

21. I don't think

plans to replace both these aircraft with the F-35 was wise, especially the Warthog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:33 AM

24. That was my favorite plane growing up...

Nothing like a plane when they designed the gun and the cockpit armor FIRST, and then designed the plane AROUND them . Add two of everything (engines, tail fins, wing spars) and make it so tough you can shoot an engine and half a wing OFF the plane and it will still fly home -- and be fixable.

The Russians ain't got nothing like it (The Su-25 is similar, but not as tough). It is the perfect ground attack and close support aircraft.

The only way you make it better is either a) get the pilot out and make it unmanned, or b) stop going to war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:13 AM

8. I hope this part is a typo

Durability testing is intended to stress an airframe, assessing its capability to achieve a projected aircraft lifetime of 8,000 “equivalent flight hours.”


Wow this is interesting. Its only expected to get a projected lifetime of 8000 hours? Hopefully this is wrong, or 8000hrs is where there will be an airframe lifetime mod to extend those hours. 8000hrs is nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Separation (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:47 AM

10. So that's about $20K an hour just for the plane.

That doesn't take into account the cost of pilots, training, fuel, maintenance, etc,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:22 AM

9. Rotten Pork

We can't afford heating oil subsidies for our poorest elderly. We can't afford to continue manned ocean exploration. We can't afford to repair our infrastructure. We can't afford to fund colliders, telescopes and space probes to improve our understanding of the Universe. Our brightest scientists write 10 proposals for research into diseases and how our cells operate, to the National Institutes of Health, in the hopes of getting 1 (maybe) funded. But we can 'afford' this.


The real problem is that the MIC can afford to buy congressmen, while NASA, Universities, the elderly and others can't. Our government is completely corrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:41 AM

11. Somehow there's ALWAYS money for this garbage.

 

Here's another money pit, the Littoral Combat Ship:

?w=360&h=240&crop=1

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/littoral-combat-ship/

I believe the cost, right now, is up to 1.8 billion per ship. Expected cost once the navy gets the 50ish they want will be about 700 million each.

Background: The Littoral Combat ship is designed to fight in the Littoral Zone, or close to shore. The navy wanted a new and improved warship capable of dealing with a variety of threats and missions in this dangerous environment. They wanted something fast, stealthy, and with a modular suite of weapons and accessories that could be swapped out depending upon the mission. Money, as always, was apparently no object.

What they have so far is are ships that are unbelievably expensive and that are literally falling apart in testing. Worse, if that's even possible, the ships themselves are grossly underarmed, vulnerable to bascially everything, and so expensive that no one would dare put one anywhere near the shore in the first place. It's an expensive toy. An increadibly expensive toy.

As is the F35.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:52 AM

14. OMG ...that is a horrable waste ...in the face of poverty and homelessness ...WTF

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence
than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:47 AM

13. Food ...not bombs.

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence
than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:58 AM

15. Manned fighter aircraft are no longer worth building.

The future is already here, and putting a pilot into an airframe is no longer part of it.

Enormous waste of money that benefits only a few, and does nothing to make this country safer in any way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:06 PM

19. In related headlines...

 

F-35 software integration testing had to be halted due to linked helmet software development and testing failure.

This boondoggle is just the waste we KNOW about. DOD never gives up all its secrets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread