via ELP
So, the change from 2011 is an increase in 17 F-35Bs and a decrease in 17 F-35Cs.Read the entire story here.
I suspect that with DOD budget cuts, the USMC figured one U.S. aircraft carrier was going away and thus wanted to get as many F-35Bs as they could for their fantasy.
So the USMC is cutting the number of F-35C's they're buying. We all know what that means. It means that the "C" version will cost even more. We also know that the US Navy is not enthused about the plane...which means that we could well see the F-35C canceled outright.
Crystal Ball time.
If the "C" is canned and the USMC is forced to buy the Super Hornet to gain compatibility with the Navy for the carrier mission, then how safe is the rest of the program?
Not safe at all.
Think about the economics. The US dollar is gaining even more strength against the Euro and other currencies. What was already an expensive plane is becoming even more expensive as governments wait to see if a production ramp up can lower cost.
The Joint Program Office is running into a perfect storm. Economic conditions are making export harder, while the US budget along with issues in development are causing the long anticipated ramp up impossible.
Too big to fail? How about too big to succeed.
In Powerpoint all projects can be made to look simple, in reality the situation is much more complex. Failure to see those complexities leads to the underestimation of schedule and budget, plus a host of other ailments...via Why Do Projects Fail?
There are all the JSF program problems and the cost, which are well explained above. Plus there is the crappy plane with a bum engine, and speaking of the engine we haven't heard a peep for nearly two months. There are two principal problems with the largest, heaviest and hottest engine ever put in a fighter plane -- excessive flex and poor containment, which led to the catastrophic failure on June 23. . What is the fix? news reports--
ReplyDeleteSep 4: U.S. officials said they were nearing a fix for the engine. Pentagon chief arms buyer Frank Kendall told reporters that the U.S. military was close to determining the root cause of a major engine failure in June, and test fixtures were being set up to ensure that Pratt's proposed corrective actions were acceptable and adequate.
Sep 15: Bogdan: “We’re hoping before the end of the year, we’ll have at least the prototype. If the prototype works, we’ll put that in.”
Oct 14: A joint team investigating the engine failure had met and agreed on the cause of the engine failure: “Prolonged rubbing into the material in the stator. No details were provided on the exact nature of the fix adopted, or its cost,
Oct 16: officials have not yet outlined a clear path forward to address the design issue that led to an engine fire that grounded the fleet of single-engine aircraft this summer.
Oct 29: The JPO and Pratt and Whitney have narrowed down the potential fixes to a single preferred one. A long-term solution for new production models will require more discussion, Bogdan said, noting that Pratt has five different possible solutions being looked at.
Oct 31: Bogdan, on the permanent fix: "We are going to take our time, and it probably won't be before the end of [December] where the enterprise -- and when I say enterprise, I mean the Navy, the Air Force [and] my engineering team -- get together and decide what is the best option for production cut-in."
Nov, Dec: the silence of the lambs -- while prototype production proceeds with the failed engine design
Poor guy, his airplane had just ine engine.
ReplyDeleteThe inflammable F-35 doesn't beed an extra one because it will explode any way once impacted by a manoad.
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30596474
Way before the Supossed F-22 debut in combat, the Navy was already doing recognizance mission in Syria
ReplyDeleteHow come?
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/12/attacking-islamic-state-navy-aircraft-carrier
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html
ReplyDelete