Major engine issues have kept F-35 engine production halted for 3 months, but congress and foreign partners kept in the dark

[Adar]

As a major nerd in both business management and defense politics I just cannot let my eyes off the F-35 project. It's sheer size would make it interesting even without any major issues.

And with the amount of issues they got it is almost impossible to not be fascinated as well as somewhat disgusted. Apparently the engine fire that prevented the F-35 from making it's debut in Britain may have been caused by issues found out in May 2014 according to news from Bloomberg. The good news are that the issues seem to be manufacturing related rather than R&D related. But nevertheless the issue display both technical and political issues surrounding the F-35.

The manufacturing issue is hopefully caused by the gigantic supply chain necessary to provide all the parts of the F-35 and in this case one of the subcontractors of Pratt and Whitney may have delivered substandard Titanium alloys for critical engine parts. And the political problems are probably well known by now as officials and officers struggle to justify the delays and cost increases of the program.

Full article
Delivery of engines was halted in May after an in-house inspection and testing process “raised questions about the origin” of the titanium, spokesman Matthew Bates said in an e-mailed statement. The company replaced all the suspect engine parts in its inventory for failing to meet specifications, but determined that the metal in 147 F-35 engines already delivered didn’t pose a flight-safety risk, he said.
Pratt & Whitney, the sole provider of engines for the F-35, has faced criticism from Pentagon officials for failing to reduce prices quickly enough and for lapses in quality. The engine accounts for $68.4 billion of the $398.6 billion projected cost of the F-35 being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)
After the company’s internal review raised doubts about the titanium’s origin, Pratt & Whitney “immediately reported its concern” to the Justice Department, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Bates said. The suspension affected 10 engines that probably would have been delivered by now and four more that are not yet under contract. The titanium is also used on some parts of commercial engines made by Pratt & Whitney Canada.

Full article
PARIS --- Pratt & Whitney waited three months to publicly admit it had suspended deliveries of the engine that powers the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and only went public on Aug. 30, the day after Bloomberg News broke the story.

Pratt also waited until Aug. 29 to file suit against the supplier it accuses of having supplied sub-standard materials, which it says it detected in late May. Pratt’s statement also says it “is conducting a rigorous analysis of the material in question,” so it is not clear on what grounds it states “we are no longer accepting parts made from material provided by this company.”

Whatever the details, it is stunning to think that this delivery freeze has been kept secret for over three months, given this engine’s long history of problems, and the entire F-35 program’s troubled history of under-performance, cost over-runs and long delays.

Furthermore, it is of huge concern that it was covered up by government agencies named in Pratt’s statement: Defense Criminal Investigation Services, US Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the agencies they report to.

In an Aug 29 story, Defense News quoted US Air Force chief of staff, Lt Gen Walsh, as saying that Pratt & Whitney was working on a fix to whatever malfunction had caused the June 23 fire, but apparently forgot to mention Pratt’s suspension of engine deliveries.

Nor was the problem mentioned by Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan, head of the Joint Program Office which runs the F-35 effort, and other government and industry officials who extensively briefed the media at the July 4 christening ceremony, at the RIAT air show and at the Farnborough air show.

Bogdan’s silence on this issue is likely to cost him whatever credibility he had gained by publicly criticizing the performance of Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney when he took over the program.

The fact that the story finally leaked over the Labor Day holiday adds insult to injury.

This is one of the major holiday week-ends in the US, when public attention is at ebb – so leaking the story at that time clearly implies that maintaining secrecy was a concerted effort by the government agencies and industry involved to minimize public reaction.

And, of course, the reasons for the June 23 fire have still not been made public even though, as mentioned above, Pratt is working on a fix.

So the story now is as much about a cover-up as it is about management and supply chain lapses and failures at the two firms making the F-35 fighter and its engine.

Why cover up?

Avoiding more bad news over the summer was crucial to the program, as the F-35 was due to make its international début in July. Two F-34Bs were scheduled to appear at the christening of a Royal Navy aircraft carrier on July 4 in Scotland, and at two English air shows, where the British government was due to sign an order for 14 more aircraft.

All of the above paints a pretty dismal picture of the credibility of the F-35 program and of the ease with which it manipulates the media. But the media is not alone is having been misled:

-- Witnesses during June-July hearings by four congressional panels on the FY2015 budget also neglected to mention the engine delivery freeze. The cover-up is a slap in the face of these panels, whose reaction this week will be indicative of how seriously they take their oversight role.

-- Was the British government, the biggest foreign partner in the F-35 program, informed of this latest setback, and did it join the cover-up? Was this the reason it didn’t sign the 14-aircraft order, as expected?

-- Was the Italian government, the second-largest foreign partner, informed, and were the six other foreign partners who have contributed to funding development? Were they kept deliberately in the dark, or did they join the cover-up?

In other words, is this an international conspiracy to protect the F-35 from parliamentary and public scrutiny, or is it simply a domestic cover-up in the US?

[paleologos]

Sounds like the scheme of the millenium in terms of dollars.

[Love Mountain]

A scheme to build an unnecessary fighter for a conflict that will never exist.

[Adar]

A scheme to build an unnecessary fighter for a conflict that will never exist.

Meanwhile in Ukraine:



I am willing to bet that you didn't forsee that a year ago. The simple fact is that we are notoriously bad at predicting the future and that is why it is necessary to maintain a certain level of readiness regarding of the short term outlook.

[paleologos]

A scheme to build an unnecessary fighter for a conflict that will never exist.

Necessities and conflicts can be arranged.
War is a racket.

[Azog 150]

The engine accounts for $68.4 billion of the $398.6 billion projected cost of the F-35 being built by Lockheed Martin Corp.

What a truly mind boggling waste of money.

[Knight_Of_Ne]

It was a stupid idea to axe the second engine option for the F-35, all the eggs have been thrown into one basket and most have broken. This is the biggest white elephant in 'probably' defence history. If it ain't the engines, it's something else, the whole programme just needs to be scrapped.

[Markas]

I blame Pratt, the clue is in the name. Whitney is blameless.

So has A&P Alloys been supplying sub-par Titanium? It strikes me as odd they provided conflicting documentation when asked. As they have been contractors for fifty years it's equally odd they are suddenly blamed for this (yet another) problem with the F-35 program. I sense an incoming cluster.

[Love Mountain]

Meanwhile in Ukraine:



I am willing to bet that you didn't forsee that a year ago. The simple fact is that we are notoriously bad at predicting the future and that is why it is necessary to maintain a certain level of readiness regarding of the short term outlook.

I suppose so. But I doubt that there will be a conflict that will justify the use of f35s over advanced f16s or other excellent next gen fighters such as the ef, gripen, or rafale.

[hellheaven1987]

I suppose so. But I doubt that there will be a conflict that will justify the use of f35s over advanced f16s or other excellent next gen fighters such as the ef, gripen, or rafale.

Right, until Russia throws out PAK.



Anyway:

[paleologos]

Right, until Russia throws out PAK.

PAK is not that expensive, it is far more recent and is proceeding much more smoothly.

I'm not a big fan of militarism wherever it comes from but in the case of the F35 it really is about getting the taxpayer dollar for minimum return.
The program is the biggest money trap ever as it has become "too big to fail".

[Love Mountain]

PAK is not that expensive, it is far more recent and is proceeding much more smoothly.

I'm not a big fan of militarism wherever it comes from but in the case of the F35 it really is about getting the taxpayer dollar for minimum return.
The program is the biggest money trap ever as it has become "too big to fail".

His point was that the next gen f35 will be needed to defeat the next gen threat of Pak Fa. Which is unlikely to be bought by anyone than India IMO.

[Condottiere 40K]

If anyone remembers the crap that Boeing went through trying to get the Dreamliner into commercial service, most of which seems traceable to their massive outsourcing of parts, you can't be too surprised that the F-35 seems to be following a similar path.

But since the DoD is sucking on the public teat, and defense industrial post retirement employment at stake, not to mention cushy assignments and promotion prospects controlled by those with vested interests, carpet sweeping of unfavourable news seems foreseeable.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I believe the F-35's primary purpose is to answer ground side threats like SAMs as opposed to Russia or China's next generation fighters which no one is likely to buy but India (the idea being that if you find yourself at war with China or Russia themselves, things will go nuclear anyway and everyone's screwed).

SAMs and the like actually are a likely challenge western forces will have to face no matter where they deploy, so there is some justification.
Pretty easy to forget that once you start looking at all the problems the program had though...

[paleologos]

I believe the F-35's primary purpose is to answer ground side threats like SAMs as opposed to Russia or China's next generation fighters which no one is likely to buy but India (the idea being that if you find yourself at war with China or Russia themselves, things will go nuclear anyway and everyone's screwed).

SAMs and the like actually are a likely challenge western forces will have to face no matter where they deploy, so there is some justification.
Pretty easy to forget that once you start looking at all the problems the program had though...

I don't quite agree.
From what I've read the F-35's primary purpose is to be the versatile replacement of the F-16, the A-10 and the Harrier, a stealth complement to the F-22 and a stealth aircraft available for exports.
A jack of all trades that is having a very hard time becoming a master of any.

The Russian PAK will be available for exports right away, it will be a worthy adversary of the F-22 at a fraction of the cost and more than a match for the F-35.

[Mangalore]

...
The Russian PAK will be available for exports right away, it will be a worthy adversary of the F-22 at a fraction of the cost and more than a match for the F-35.

How do you know any but the export bit? Yes, the PAK can fly, with engines from another aircraft. How stealthy, maneuverable, effective etc. it is is so far just claims by the company building it and why should a Russian aviation company be any better than US one in telling the truth?

[Condottiere 40K]

Maybe the Russians can try to get the British to send them another copy of a jet engine.

[paleologos]

How do you know any but the export bit? Yes, the PAK can fly, with engines from another aircraft. How stealthy, maneuverable, effective etc. it is is so far just claims by the company building it and why should a Russian aviation company be any better than US one in telling the truth?

By "worthy adversary" I meant it would give the F-22 a serious run for it's money.
I don't suppose it will be stealthier, or more advanced in any other technology, but it will be more maneuverable because of different design goals.
The F-22 aerodynamics were optimized for a combination of stealth and supercruise with maneuverablility taking the backburner in comparison to the first two.
It turned out in a recent Red Flag meeting that the F-22 squadrons were equally successful with the Luftwaffe Typhoons when it came to dogfights.
The PAK aerodynamics don't sactifice maneuverablility, the aircraft is intended to be able to at least hold it's own in a dogfight versus the F-22.
I am not expecting anyone to consider me an authority on the matter, I am not.

[humvee2800]

y "worthy adversary" I meant it would give the F-22 a serious run for it's money.
I don't suppose it will be stealthier, or more advanced in any other technology, but it will be more maneuverable because of different design goals.

Good thing dog fights are still relevant then

The F-22 aerodynamics were optimized for a combination of stealth and supercruise with maneuverablility taking the backburner in comparison to the first two.
It turned out in a recent Red Flag meeting that the F-22 squadrons were equally successful with the Luftwaffe Typhoons when it came to dogfights.

Which the Germans also admitted that they could never get to dogfighting distance, or indeed even within 20 miles of the american planes without the exercise stipulating it.

The PAK aerodynamics don't sactifice maneuverablility, the aircraft is intended to be able to at least hold it's own in a dogfight versus the F-22.
I am not expecting anyone to consider me an authority on the matter, I am not.

So we have a plane that has not been tested, which you argue might be able to "hold its own" in a dogfight that is likely to never happen as the plane can not get within 20 miles. On top of that the Russian air force is vastly outnumbered by the United States.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I don't quite agree.
From what I've read the F-35's primary purpose is to be the versatile replacement of the F-16, the A-10 and the Harrier, a stealth complement to the F-22 and a stealth aircraft available for exports.
A jack of all trades that is having a very hard time becoming a master of any.

The Russian PAK will be available for exports right away, it will be a worthy adversary of the F-22 at a fraction of the cost and more than a match for the F-35.

That was the original purpose of the F35, yes, though the production problems seem to have set it back so far its actually more expensive then the F-22.
As a Western nation I'd still take it over the Russian competition for the simple reason that air to air combat isn't nearly as great a concern as ground side threats unless you're fighting another major power (which is a scenario there's no point planning much conventional fighting for anyway). Seeing as the first line of defense against SAMs and the like is stealth, I'd still rather have an F-22 (not really an export option) or an F-35 over a Russian equivalent.

There's a strong case for making more versatile aircraft as opposed to specialized ones, however. Say you make a dedicated interceptor, then find yourself at day 4 of the fighting when there are no more enemy aircraft to take out... its just going to sit there useless. Or dedicate a long range bomber, to find that all your targets are up close and you've just ended up buying a much more expensive plane for nothing. The F-15 also started out as an interceptor, and it didn't take long for it to get adapted to multi-role use that a cheaper F-16 might have been more suited for.
It also allows you to move around aircraft where they're most needed. Say in day 1 of a conflict you need a lot more interceptors then day 14. You could buy more dedicated interceptors to cover your day 1 quota, but getting a few extra multi-purpose aircraft and switching them out to ground attack a few days later seems more economical.

The concept behind the F-35 program was quite sound. Getting all branches of service and most NATO members to share the same logistical pool for their aircraft could have actually saved a lot of money and logistical problems, and the aircraft design itself is well suited for what it was meant to do.
Its the execution with its endless delays and budget overruns that's the problem.