Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Tests Suspended Over System Failure  
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3210 posts, RR: 26
Posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8536 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

per http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...pe=RSS&feedName=companyNews&rpc=43

"The department acted after the failure on Tuesday of one aircraft's "integrated power package", a turbo-machine that starts the engine and cools the plane, the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office said.

The office said in a statement that the suspension was a precautionary measure until experts understand the root causes of the failure aboard an F-35 conventional takeoff and landing variant at Edwards Air Force Base, California."

the article is long on the usual background PR and short on details... it's impossible to tell whether this is a major or minor hick-up

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1545 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8097 times:

The F-35 program is becoming more and more a nightmare, how much it does have to fail and cost to rise until the goverment stops to pay?
I really, really doubt the aquisition costs will be ever justifiable to the capabilities of this unaffordable plane. More costs does not mean the customer gets a more powerful figther.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8018 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 1):
The F-35 program is becoming more and more a nightmare, how much it does have to fail and cost to rise until the goverment stops to pay?
I really, really doubt the aquisition costs will be ever justifiable to the capabilities of this unaffordable plane. More costs does not mean the customer gets a more powerful figther.

You are right, they should just cancel the F35 program and stop building fighters altogether. This is the first project since the Korean war that has gone overbudget and delayed. Right?  


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7882 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 1):
The F-35 program is becoming more and more a nightmare, how much it does have to fail and cost to rise until the goverment stops to pay?
I really, really doubt the aquisition costs will be ever justifiable to the capabilities of this unaffordable plane. More costs does not mean the customer gets a more powerful figther.

The last time there was a IPP failure on a test F-35, they determined that the cause of the failure was because someone overfilled the engine with oil.

And also of note, the aircraft involved in this failure was the one that had the earlier IPP failure as well. Either a mechanic screwed up this time, or this particular F-35 happens to be a lemon.


User currently offlineyanqui67 From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2005, 508 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7545 times:

All F-35 and F-22s grounded

http://rt.com/usa/news/f22-f35-fleet-grounded/


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3210 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7431 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Flight Global has an interesting pice on the system that failed in the DEW Line Blog

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...-short-history-of-the-subsyst.html

it includes two nice pictures and word that there is a media blackout on the subject.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6830 times:

Seems like the Aussies may be getting cold feet over the F-35:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...Future%20in%202012&channel=defense

I have for quite some time thought a follow-on order for F-18E/Fs and perhaps EF-18Gs was in the cards. Like another 24. And a consequent reduction in F-35 purchases, if not outright dropping the thing altogether. They have committed to 14, but I'm sure these can be cancelled at some cost.

I wonder who will be next to back out, either partly or fully ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2378 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6613 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 2):

I hear what you're saying, but there comes a time when you have to evaluate where we are after all this time and cut your losses. I'm a believer of having the best equipment there is for our forces, but we can't just keep pouring corn down a rat hole like this.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6505 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 7):
I hear what you're saying, but there comes a time when you have to evaluate where we are after all this time and cut your losses. I'm a believer of having the best equipment there is for our forces, but we can't just keep pouring corn down a rat hole like this.

The thing is that F-35 has many revolutionary systems that have never been tried before in a fighter aircraft. The IPP system is revolutionary as other fighters never had what is essentially a APU onboard, not to mention the very high level of integration of electrical system verses hydraulics and pneumatics. For example, the X-35's control systems were lifted from the old YF-23 prototypes, and were mostly conventional hydraulic flight control actuators. F-35 uses state-of-the-art self-contained electrohydrostatic actuators for improved long term reliability and serviceability, the first for any combat aircraft, and the second production aircraft in existence to use such systems (the Airbus A380 was the first).

The removal of the old hydrazine system emergency power unit in favour of the IPP means less maintenance in the long run, and less hazards for maintenance crews because hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable if mishandled.

Not only does the IPP provide emergency power and engine start, the IPP also provides environmental control for the cockpit and various systems. The X-35 used the environmental control system packs from the F/A-18 with heat exchanger scoops on the left side of the fuselage and under the wing. An additional heat exchanger was mounted on the belly of the X-35B during the flight test phase to provide cooling for hydraulic system oil. The demonstrators had ram air scoops that fed cooling air through the heat exchangers in the roll post bays for the X-35 aircraft or centerline heat exchanger for X-35B. The F-35 IPP provides the legacy ECS functionality, providing conditioned air and liquid cooling to aircraft systems. A unique feature of the F-35 cooling system is the integration of the IPP with the engine using engine fan-duct heat exchangers as a cooling source to the hot air side of the IPP.

When you are trying to do so many things for the first time, bugs will develop. The IPP is a leap forward in vehicle sub systems architecture. It combines what used to be three federated systems, which in turn makes it very complex. Once the kinks are worked out, it will pay dividends for the pilot and maintainer, as it will cheaper and easier to maintain and operate.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2378 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6370 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):

Question - were these systems ever tested on a "test bed" system before the bid?



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6265 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 9):

Question - were these systems ever tested on a "test bed" system before the bid?

Nope. While all of the systems were used before or tested on other platforms, to put them all together in a combat aircraft was something completely new.


User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6247 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
The thing is that F-35 has many revolutionary systems that have never been tried before in a fighter aircraft. The IPP system is revolutionary as other fighters never had what is essentially a APU onboard, not to mention the very high level of integration of electrical system verses hydraulics and pneumatics. For example, the X-35's control systems were lifted from the old YF-23 prototypes, and were mostly conventional hydraulic flight control actuators. F-35 uses state-of-the-art self-contained electrohydrostatic actuators for improved long term reliability and serviceability, the first for any combat aircraft, and the second production aircraft in existence to use such systems (the Airbus A380 was the first).

The removal of the old hydrazine system emergency power unit in favour of the IPP means less maintenance in the long run, and less hazards for maintenance crews because hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable if mishandled.

Not only does the IPP provide emergency power and engine start, the IPP also provides environmental control for the cockpit and various systems. The X-35 used the environmental control system packs from the F/A-18 with heat exchanger scoops on the left side of the fuselage and under the wing. An additional heat exchanger was mounted on the belly of the X-35B during the flight test phase to provide cooling for hydraulic system oil. The demonstrators had ram air scoops that fed cooling air through the heat exchangers in the roll post bays for the X-35 aircraft or centerline heat exchanger for X-35B. The F-35 IPP provides the legacy ECS functionality, providing conditioned air and liquid cooling to aircraft systems. A unique feature of the F-35 cooling system is the integration of the IPP with the engine using engine fan-duct heat exchangers as a cooling source to the hot air side of the IPP.

When you are trying to do so many things for the first time, bugs will develop. The IPP is a leap forward in vehicle sub systems architecture. It combines what used to be three federated systems, which in turn makes it very complex. Once the kinks are worked out, it will pay dividends for the pilot and maintainer, as it will cheaper and easier to maintain and operate.

You must be a LockMart public affairs person! Or do you work for them?


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6206 times:

Quoting JohnM (Reply 11):
You must be a LockMart public affairs person! Or do you work for them?

Line by line, go through his argument and explain why you think he's wrong. Because reading over what TPB has written, he is 100% right.

Since he's Canadian, I doubt he works for Lockheed.

  B4e-Forever New Frontiers  


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6205 times:

Oh, it also appears that the F-35s are flying again...

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20110818_FLIGHTOPS.pdf

I remember when the 787 had that in-flight fire during its flight test program. So many A.netters screamed that it meant it was unsafe and shouldn't be certified, willfully unaware that flight test programs are meant to ferret out and fix such issues.

  B4e-Forever New Frontiers  


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2378 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6121 times:

Quoting JohnM (Reply 11):
You must be a LockMart public affairs person! Or do you work for them?

Or maybe, just maybe, he's an A.netter that knows what he's talking about.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 13):
I remember when the 787 had that in-flight fire during its flight test program. So many A.netters screamed that it meant it was unsafe and shouldn't be certified, willfully unaware that flight test programs are meant to ferret out and fix such issues.

Correct me if I'm wrong - and I have eaten crow before - but we tax payers aren't picking up the bill for the 787 program.

I admit, I don't know very much about the F-35 program outside of the basic knowledge. Guess I've been sucked in to the dark side of the media by only hearing about the bad stuff. But when the bad stuff is the majority, somethings gotta give. I hope they figure it out soon. If they don't, a tough decision has to be made.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6113 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 14):
Correct me if I'm wrong - and I have eaten crow before - but we tax payers aren't picking up the bill for the 787 program.

Technological development doesn't become smoother just because the dollars are coming from a different source. Whether airlines are paying for a flight test program, or the taxpayer, a flight test program is still designed to mete out issues and address them. And that has happened in both cases.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 14):
I admit, I don't know very much about the F-35 program outside of the basic knowledge. Guess I've been sucked in to the dark side of the media by only hearing about the bad stuff. But when the bad stuff is the majority, somethings gotta give. I hope they figure it out soon. If they don't, a tough decision has to be made.

It's no different from the 787 issues. Or the A380 before that when the majority of stories were negative. Good news isn't news. It doesn't make money for journalists. I made a point before in another thread that if the F-14 were being developed today, people would be screaming that it be axed. It crashed after all on its second flight, and suffered numerous issues related to its engines even after IOC. We've come a long way from that era. But the internet tends to facilitate bitching rather than knowledge enhancement.  

  B4e-Forever New Frontiers  


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 6013 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 14):
Guess I've been sucked in to the dark side of the media by only hearing about the bad stuff. But when the bad stuff is the majority, somethings gotta give.

The media only reports on the "bad stuff" when in fact they are nothing more than testing issues. If the headline in your news paper read "F-35 features cutting-edge technology" no one would buy it. Fact is, those who know something about fighters and are actually in aviation, know just how good the JSF is. The mindless sheep trolls who have nothing to do with aviation are usually the ones who get headlines in the media. So called "experts" are nothing more than idiots with big mouths - aka Steven Staples.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5819 times:

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 15):
I made a point before in another thread that if the F-14 were being developed today, people would be screaming that it be axed.

BTW there were a whole lot of people looking to have the F14 axed, it only barely made it across the line and then in a castrated form (F14A was only suppose to be an interim model).

A lot of similarities there and it seems that a lot of lessons hard learned on that program have been forgotten. The F14 was born from a failed multi purpose Jack-Of-All-Trades master of none platform- F111B. The F35 is far more ambitious than the F111.

The F-35 seems to be the mother of all JOAT's. So the F35 has to beat a lot of historical concept failures (I don't actually think there has been a single example of a top class fighter designed from the outset as a multi role platform, loads of single concept fighters going on to multi careers but none the other way). With all the talk of abandoning the VTOL model I don't hear anyone asking what compromises its incorporation into the design has foisted on the other two. In every study done in the F14/F15 and F16/F18 debates, just the 'carrierising' of the Land based models made them inferior (ok I should note that Navy politics would have come into play here too) to the ones developed as carrier capable from the outset. Now put VTOL on top of that!!

The next lesson learned was the development of only one engine. There were over 40 F14's lost directly to TF30 engine failure. Imagine what losing 10 F22's to a known engine problem would do to that program today! The cost of 'fixing' the bad engine (not even counting the attrition losses as a direct result of the engine problem) was more than it would have been to continue development of the alternate engine. One would have thought that this would have weighed heavily on the minds of those cancelling the F35 alternate engine. Obviously not heavily enough.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5658 times:

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 12):
Line by line, go through his argument and explain why you think he's wrong. Because reading over what TPB has written, he is 100% right.


Even if the technologies mentioned make it cheaper to operate (not knowable at this point), it is still a very expensive plane to operate:


http://www.flightglobal.com/Features...-special/military-programmes/F-35/


"The F-35 is still expected to cost significantly more to operate than the aircraft it replaces. "Sustainment seems like years away," Carter said, "but now is the time to face that bill and begin to get that under control."

Perhaps the most alarming figure yet associated with the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme is in the last line of a 53-page cost estimate prepared in late 2010 by the US Department of Defense.

The figure on the page reads: "1005342.0". Given the million-dollar unit, this translates in rounded figures to $1.01 trillion, and represents what the DoD expects to pay in inflation-adjusted dollars to operate and sustain 2,443 F-35s over a planned 50-year service life.

It is a figure that even Vice Adm David Venlet, F-35 programme chief, has described as rendering his customers in three US armed services "weak in the knees".


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5543 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):

Even if the technologies mentioned make it cheaper to operate (not knowable at this point), it is still a very expensive plane to operate:


http://www.flightglobal.com/Features...-special/military-programmes/F-35/


"The F-35 is still expected to cost significantly more to operate than the aircraft it replaces. "Sustainment seems like years away," Carter said, "but now is the time to face that bill and begin to get that under control."

Perhaps the most alarming figure yet associated with the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme is in the last line of a 53-page cost estimate prepared in late 2010 by the US Department of Defense.

The figure on the page reads: "1005342.0". Given the million-dollar unit, this translates in rounded figures to $1.01 trillion, and represents what the DoD expects to pay in inflation-adjusted dollars to operate and sustain 2,443 F-35s over a planned 50-year service life.

It is a figure that even Vice Adm David Venlet, F-35 programme chief, has described as rendering his customers in three US armed services "weak in the knees".

So, $20 billion dollars a year to operate and sustain 2443 F-35's, or $8.27 million per aircraft, a year, all in (including upgrades, overhauls, plus god know what else)? Sounds reasonable to me. Life cycle costs should be a little more than the purchase costs for 20 years of service according to guidelines for procurement.

The estimated purchase of around purchase 2,400 aircraft is expected to cost around $323 billion. So roughly 2.5 times $323 billion dollars is $807.5 billion, and the $1 trillion dollars thrown around is still very reasonable according to the guidelines.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2378 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 15):
Technological development doesn't become smoother just because the dollars are coming from a different source. Whether airlines are paying for a flight test program, or the taxpayer, a flight test program is still designed to mete out issues and address them. And that has happened in both cases.

True, but the 787's problems are not being funded by me directly.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 15):
It's no different from the 787 issues.

Technologically, yes. But the 787's problems were quickly identified and dealt with.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 16):
The media only reports on the "bad stuff" when in fact they are nothing more than testing issues.

Problem is, I've heard a hell of a lot more "bad stuff" than good.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5521 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 17):
A lot of similarities there and it seems that a lot of lessons hard learned on that program have been forgotten. The F14 was born from a failed multi purpose Jack-Of-All-Trades master of none platform- F111B. The F35 is far more ambitious than the F111.

So the non-JOATs F-14 still suffered. The F-111B was a poor attempt at taking a heavy strike aircraft and making it into a carrier based fleet air defense fighter. The F-35 is a different piece of fruit.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 20):
True, but the 787's problems are not being funded by me directly.

Wow, you just totally ignored the "Technical development doesn't change because of where the funding comes from point." I was going to be civil, but you admit you don't know what you are talking about, yet you persist with incorrect statements in spite of being corrected.

For the record, if you ever buy a plane ticket, yes you do fund the 787. We could also open up the tax break/subsidies can of worms if you really want a party. A flight test program is a flight test program, be it civil or government.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 20):
Technologically, yes. But the 787's problems were quickly identified and dealt with.

The 787's grounding IIRC was longer than the current grounding of the F-35s which was lifted last week. You have no proof that the F-35's problems weren't identified quickly or dealt with. They know what caused the IPP failure. So what exactly are you basing this assertion on?

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 20):
Problem is, I've heard a hell of a lot more "bad stuff" than good.

Then this problem is yours, and a result of a failure to do proper research. No offense, but this is the truth.

The F-35 program isn't perfect, but it certainly is better off in this part of its development than the F-14 was, or even the 787 when you consider the F-35 is a higher performance and far more advanced machine.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
Even if the technologies mentioned make it cheaper to operate (not knowable at this point), it is still a very expensive plane to operate:

That needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I've done aircraft operating cost prediction before and it is really difficult. It's even more difficult for military aircraft since it depends on utilization rate. F-35s will not operate near round-the-clock like 737s, and their missions and deployments will vary almost on a whim. What is also sorely missing in that article is a comparison of the life cycle cost of all the types the F-35 is slated to replace.

  B4e-Forever New Frontiers  


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2378 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5516 times:

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 21):
I was going to be civil, but you admit you don't know what you are talking about

(sigh) I said I didn't know much, but I know enough.

Check please..........



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5377 times:

wow this is a shock (I cant even say it with a straight face anymore) I wonder which congressman is getting rich off this white elephant.

I say screw it cancel it and either build more F-22's or purchase the more advanced F-15 silent eagles and be done with it.

[Edited 2011-08-23 07:15:45]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3210 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 23):
I say screw it cancel it and either build more F-22's or

yeh right.. all F-22's have been grounded for 4 months now.... and no report of progress on the problem.

re: bad stuff... how about the computer system software that won't be available for another 3 years...


25 Post contains images mffoda : I'm not picking on you tommytoyz... But, anyone who really thinks these numbers are an accurate accounting of ANY military program? One should at les
26 Post contains links ThePointblank : The main thing with F-35 is that it is a totally different aircraft from legacy fighters. The technical changes, especially with the avionics and sen
27 tommytoyz : You mean like the KC-135s, B-52s, C-5s, T-38s and probably others that have already been operating for that long? In case none of you have read the a
28 ThePointblank : 50 years is an eternity in cost calculations. A whole lot can change over time that can affect the assumptions made.
29 tommytoyz : Rarely cheaper than initial assumptions.
30 ThePointblank : It can be; for example, the exchange rate can swing in your favour during delivery, resulting in a net savings. This has happened recently for Canada
31 Post contains links SP90 : Sounds like the F-35B or C could be on the chopping block. Navy Official Questions Need For JSF Variants
32 Bennett123 : My understanding is that the F35B has had more problems and is proposed to be ordered in smaller quantities. IMO it will be axed, how this will impact
33 XT6Wagon : yes, so far its looking like a F18 with slightly better range for many times the cost. Its looking like an A10 thats been neutered for many times the
34 Post contains links ThePointblank : Wrong, 600nm range for the A variant (C's have even more range), AND carry 2 AIM-120's, and 2 Mark 84 2,000lb bombs at the same time. For a small ran
35 Powerslide : It's looking like you need to educate yourself.
36 Post contains images spudh : While I agree with most of what you are saying I'm going to be a little pedantic, and correct you to 'currently flying'. I don't know if all the F14-
37 GST : Well, one did quite literally fly a pursuing mirage into the ground in the first gulf war.
38 SP90 : I thought the RN is going with the F35C and a CTOL carrier with catapults and arrestor cables now.
39 Post contains images Boeing4ever : Once again, someone already replied point by point. The F-35 is a different piece of fruit. It has GREATER payload range than the F/A-18. It has abou
40 Post contains images Boeing4ever : Oh, and take up the A-10 issue with the USAF separately. They're not getting rid of that one for awhile anyway if they wish to continue anti-insurgent
41 Post contains links Spacepope : And while everyone here is arguing, the F-35 fleet has been cleared to return to flight. http://warnerrobinspatriot.com/bookm...but-IPP-problem-still-
42 Post contains images HaveBlue : The USAF had the curious habit of categorizing 'tactical' bombers as fighters... ala the F-111 and F-117 while the USN used the A prefix as in the ca
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35 Tests Suspended Over System Failure
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iran Shoots Down US UAV Over Nuclear Plan posted Wed Jul 20 2011 11:59:39 by bjornstrom
Brazil Prefers F-18 Over Rafale posted Sat Jul 9 2011 23:33:01 by Chamonix
Air Force Two In HLN Over The Weekend posted Wed Jul 6 2011 07:52:53 by HLNspotter
LM May Offer F-35 To India On Fighter Deal posted Mon Jun 20 2011 13:53:14 by comorin
RAN Opts For SH-60R Over NH-90 posted Wed Jun 15 2011 20:26:19 by Ozair
Midair Refuling Over Cleveland Or What Was It? posted Fri Jun 10 2011 06:34:33 by rohanghosh
Fighters Over Chicago On 5/28 posted Sun May 29 2011 20:33:40 by ericaasen
F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots posted Tue May 17 2011 21:06:40 by ThePointblank
More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met posted Fri May 13 2011 17:02:50 by kanban
More F-35 Cost Problems posted Thu Apr 21 2011 18:19:10 by kanban

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format