Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New GAO Report On F-35: Outlook Improving  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1554 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6542 times:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-309?source=ra
Overall, according to the GAO, substantial progress has been achieved, with 7 objectives met out of 10, and 1 close. The 3 failed objectives are as follows:
- the delivery of 40 aircraft (only 30 were delivered)
- the completion of an audit from the Defense Contracting Management Agency (DCMA)
- the completion of Block 3 Critical Design Review (CDR) 1

However, GAO notes that the program completed the CDR in January, just two months after it was supposed to have been finished. Also of note, regarding the delivery of 40 aircraft, Lockheed Martin had a strike which affected deliveries.

Also regarding production, the GAO notes that F-35 manufacturing and supply processes are improving. The key metrics for this is as follows:
- Reduction in labor hours; the first Air Force production jet was delivered in May 2011 and required about 149,000 labor hours at the prime’s plant to build, while an Air Force jet delivered in December 2012 only required about 94,000 labor hours.There was a 37 percent reduction in direct labor during 2012.
- Labor efficiency: Labor efficiency on the first production aircraft was 6 percent and improved to 13 percent for the 31st production aircraft. While still low, Defense Contract Management Agency officials stated that the rate should continue to improve with increased production due to work force learning and factory line enhancements.
- Span times: The decrease in span times—the number of calendar days to manufacture aircraft in total and in specific work staging areas. The aircraft contractor is altering assembly line processes to streamline factory flow. As a result, for example, span time in the final assembly area declined by about one-third in 2012 compared to 2011.
- Increase in factory throughput: The increase in factory throughput as the contractor delivered 30 production aircraft in 2012 compared to 9 in 2011. During our plant visit in 2012, we observed an increased level of activity on the manufacturing floor as compared to 2011. The contractor had more tooling in place, had altered and streamlined processes, and had factory expansion plans underway.
- Decrease in out-of-sequence work: The decrease in traveled work (work done out of sequence or incomplete items moving to the next work station), parts shortages on the line, and product defects. For example, traveled work declined 90 percent and the defect rate declined almost 80 percent in 2012 compared to 2011. Other quality indicators such as scrap rates and non-conformances also improved from prior years and are trending in a positive direction. These have all been major contributors to past cost increases and schedule delays.


Costs, as mentioned frequently, are of concern and will be a concern in the future. However, labour hours to manufacturer F-35's have decreased, which will help reduce costs, and the DOD and contractor officials also expressed confidence that contracts for the 6th and 7th annual buys will reflect the efficiencies gain during production.

89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1800 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6498 times:

Still massively over budget and under-performing. How much more will the DoD take before they throw in the towel? How many more military personnel will be cut to pay for this lemon?

User currently offlineANZUS340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6464 times:

I suppose when you hit the bottom of the elevator shaft the only way to go is up.

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6368 times:

From the same report:

Once acquired, the current forecasts of life cycle sustainment costs for the F-35 fleet are considered unaffordable by defense officials. Efforts are under way to try and lower annual operating and support costs.

............

The rebaselined program will require an average of $12.6 billion annually through 2037, an unprecedented demand on the defense procurement budget. Maintaining this level of sustained funding will be difficult in a period of declining or flat defense budgets and competition with other “big ticket items” such as the KC-46 tanker and a new bomber program.

..................

Some international partners are also expressing concern about F-35 prices and schedule delays. Besides the consequences for international cooperation and fighter force commonality, there are at least two other important financial impacts. First, U.S. future budgets assume the financial quantity benefits of partners purchasing at least 697 aircraft. Second, the current procurement profile for the F-35 projects a rapid buildup in partner buys—195 aircraft through 2017 that comprise about half the total production during the 5-year period 2013 through 2017. If fewer aircraft are procured in total or in smaller annual quantities, unit costs paid by the U.S. and partners will likely rise.

.....................

F-35 operating and support costs (O&S) are currently projected to be 60 percent higher than those of the existing aircraft it will replace. Using current program assumptions of aircraft inventory and flight hours, CAPE recently estimated annual O&S costs of $18.2 billion for all F-35 variants compared to $11.1 billion spent in 2010 to operate and sustain the legacy aircraft. DOD officials have declared that O&S costs of this magnitude are unaffordable and are actively engaged in evaluating opportunities to reduce F-35 life-cycle sustainment costs, such as basing and infrastructure reductions, competitive sourcing, and reliability improvements.

..................

DOD provided comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in appendix III. DOD concurred with the report’s findings and conclusions.


[Edited 2013-03-13 19:21:13]

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4069 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6337 times:

This lemon must rank as one of the biggest, if not the biggest waste of taxpayers money ever.


Seriously, is there a worse example ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6229 times:

On the issue of long term sustainment costs:

http://www.asdnews.com/news-48155/F-...n_on_Track,_Program_Chief_Says.htm

Quote:
Production costs are only part of the puzzle, however. About 70 to 80 percent of any program’s costs are in the long-term operation and sustainment phase, the general said. What’s unique about the F-35 is that the Defense Department has never had to estimate the costs of a 50-year aircraft life cycle, he said. Adding to the complications of producing such a cost estimate is that the department hasn’t had an aircraft program this large since World War II, Bogdan said.

“So, lots of airplanes over a very long period of time, with inflation added in, you can understand how the (Office of the Secretary of Defense) guys come up with a number like $1.1 trillion,” he said. “That's an astronomical number; it's based on a lot of assumptions. I'm not saying that that's a bad number; I'm just saying we need to take that number with a grain of salt.”

What he does know, he said, is that action must be taken soon to reduce the F-35’s long-term sustainment costs. Without it, the general said, a time will come when the services decide that the aircraft is no longer affordable.

“So we have to start doing things today,” Bogdan said. He said there is already interest from industry in a competitive bidding process to produce, deliver and operate support equipment and pilot and maintenance training centers, administer the logistics and information technology systems and manage the global supply chain.

“The other thing is we've got to work on the reliability and the maintainability of the airplane,” he said, a process he described as “Whack-a-Mole.”

“You'll take care of those first 10 or 20 cost drivers in reliability and maintainability, and then the next 20 will show up,” he explained. “You keep doing that until you get to a point where the reliability and maintainability of the airplane is up where you expected it to be, and in the long term, you can reduce the costs on the airplane.”[/quote]


[quote=Max Q,reply=4]This lemon must rank as one of the biggest, if not the biggest waste of taxpayers money ever.


Seriously, is there a worse example ?

F-14? How many prototypes crashed, and how many subsequent production aircraft crashed or had various serious incidents due to various design flaws with the F-14? Hint: We crashed 141 F-14's in USN service. We had 632 in service with the USN. Clearly, the F-14 needed further development work...

How about F-16? Engine issues early in development and in service. Not to mention the FLCS power supply failures... in the end, the F-16's technical issues got sorted out.

[Edited 2013-03-14 06:10:50]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11925 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6199 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
Maintaining this level of sustained funding will be difficult in a period of declining or flat defense budgets and competition with other “big ticket items” such as the KC-46 tanker and a new bomber program.

Everything else will be sacrificed for the fighter programs.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
What he does know, he said, is that action must be taken soon to reduce the F-35’s long-term sustainment costs. Without it, the general said, a time will come when the services decide that the aircraft is no longer affordable.

It already is unaffordable.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
“So we have to start doing things today,”

Why not yesterday, or the over the last oh seven years or so?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
He said there is already interest from industry in a competitive bidding process to produce, deliver and operate support equipment and pilot and maintenance training centers, administer the logistics and information technology systems and manage the global supply chain.

Really? Industry wants to bid on government contracts? Guess why...

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
“The other thing is we've got to work on the reliability and the maintainability of the airplane,”

Why? All that will do is cut LM's future profits, some of which go to support retired generals.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3884 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6071 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):

You know, I don't have strong opinions about the F-35. But your zealous posting in defence of the thing ('problems with the prototype are good news!') hardly will win anyone over I think.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6054 times:

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 1):
Quoting ANZUS340 (Reply 2):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
http://whythef35.blogspot.com.au/201...eware-of-critics-without-clue.html

Quote:
Unfortunately when talking about the F-35, the discussion has become very polarized. And just as unfortunately, those who are critics of the program tend to do a lot of talking about a subject they seem to know little about or are prone to misrepresent it or both. It would be nice, for once, to see a critic take on the real F-35 and talk about it's capabilities and it's purpose instead of, as usual, tearing into a straw F-35 they invent out of their ignorance.


EDIT: Didn't mean to put Tommy in that quote. I would edit the post but the coding is a rats nest of non sense.

[Edited 2013-03-14 12:46:00]

User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6053 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 7):
But your zealous posting in defence of the thing ('problems with the prototype are good news!') hardly will win anyone over I think.

Same goes for those who start threads whenever a F35 bounces on landing.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6053 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 7):
You know, I don't have strong opinions about the F-35. But your zealous posting in defence of the thing ('problems with the prototype are good news!') hardly will win anyone over I think.

Peter

I'm pointing out that problems in develop is natural and expected. There hasn't been a fighter program that ever existed that DIDN'T have any problems technically and with the budget since we first took to the air. I am pointing out that criticism of F-35 should be tempered with the proper context of past programs. We've had aircraft enter service before that required significant rework before, or had major design flaws, or blown the planned budget or all three, and yet they are considered to be 'successful' aircraft by everyone.

Is criticism warranted for F-35? I will state that there is lots to criticize about the management of the project, and how Lockheed, the DoD, Pentagon, have handled the project. Frankly, all three are guilty of various aspects of incompetence regarding F-35. But you need to understand where the criticism is coming from, and the context.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15470 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6037 times:

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 1):
How much more will the DoD take before they throw in the towel?

They can't. You can't go around cutting programs in attempts to punish contractors and it would be exceptionally dumb here, for several reasons:
1. Lockheed and the rest of the industry team got a ridiculous order. Design a plane to replace a bunch of other planes, give it the latest avionics, make it stealthy, and do it cheaply. Good luck with that. I've always said that had Boeing won, they'd have the exact same problems for the exact same reasons. Don't let politicians and bureaucrats design planes.
2. Cancelling doesn't solve anything. The F-16s don't get younger if the F-35 gets cancelled. You still have the exact same problem and less time to solve it.
3. You don't really punish the contractors anyway. Instead, you go right back to them for a different solution, as in the A-12 and Super Hornet. Dick got pissed and and threw his toys out of the crib and McDonnell Douglas ended up starting a different program and the Navy got a less capable plane.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
Seriously, is there a worse example ?

EAS by a mile.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6022 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):

I'm pointing out that problems in develop is natural and expected.

where I disagree with this is lumping the aircraft and program in the same bucket.. yes the plane has engineering problems that a good test program will isolate and resolve. However the Program is a disaster and the attitude that we should condone the gross contract mismanagement, cost overruns, and poor engineering because that's the history of LM and it's predecessors is absurd. When we tolerate and condone crap we get crap.. There is absolutely no reason to accept sub standard management because 'it's traditional' and quote examples.

I would have much more tolerance to some of the Rah Rah posts on the plane if they agreed that management incompetence should not be compensated or justified.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 790 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6013 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 7):
You know, I don't have strong opinions about the F-35. But your zealous posting in defence of the thing ('problems with the prototype are good news!') hardly will win anyone over I think.

Peter

Great idea Peter, lets try and silence the guy who posts clear and accurate information supported by facts and sourcing.

Instead we can listen to the one liner brigade who contributions really enhance the debate, or the "I think I know better than the combined militaries of the world" posters who, having watched every episode of The Unit and own Behind Enemy Lines and Top Gun on Blu-ray, think they actually have an idea of how a military fights a conflict. Don't forgot the "LM is evil" crowd because LM are somehow different to every other defence contractor on the planet.

If we must put up with the above, at least let there be one guy who actually posts reasonable and sensible information....


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4069 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5901 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):

F-14? How many prototypes crashed, and how many subsequent production aircraft crashed or had various serious incidents due to various design flaws with the F-14? Hint: We crashed 141 F-14's in USN service. We had 632 in service with the USN. Clearly, the F-14 needed further development work...

How about F-16? Engine issues early in development and in service. Not to mention the FLCS power supply failures... in the end, the F-16's technical issues got sorted out.

THE F14 and THE F16 turned out to be brilliant, unbeatable fighters in their specific roles.


THE Tomcat would still be around if it weren't for budget cuts, the -D version was superb, and of course THE F16 IS still going strong and will for many years.



THE F35 will always be a lemon.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4773 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5813 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
We crashed 141 F-14's in USN service. We had 632 in service with the USN. Clearly, the F-14 needed further development work...

They were in service for a long time and deployed mostly at sea (not many other fighter aircraft in the world had such a hard life). Carrier landings take a huge toll on an airframe not to mention being dangerous. Granted it did have quite a high occurence of incidents over its life.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):

THE F14 and THE F16 turned out to be brilliant, unbeatable fighters in their specific roles.


THE Tomcat would still be around if it weren't for budget cuts, the -D version was superb

   yes if the funding had been available they were due to get new frames and a massive overhaul which would have reduced their hanger queen title massively and increased their capabilities further. The new engines alone would have provided much less maintenance, much reduced fuel burn, far greater power and been more reliable.



54 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13796 posts, RR: 63
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5790 times:

Latest news:
Canada mulls the aquisition of the Rafale acc. to Dassault:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...le-warplane-as-jsf-costs-soar.html

Quote:


Dassault Aviation SA (AM), maker of the Rafale combat jet, said Canada has commenced talks about an order for the plane as it reviews options amid mounting costs for the Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Discussions began in January, and Dassault considers the chances of Canada making a purchase sufficiently good that it’s willing to spend the money to undertake a sales campaign, the French company’s Chief Executive Officer Eric Trappier said.

Canada’s minister of public works and government services, Rona Ambrose, said Dec. 12 that the country had “hit the reset button” on a deal for 65 JSFs after consultant KPMG said the estimated $25 billion bill could jump to $46 billion.

My bold


Jan


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5738 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 16):
Latest news:
Canada mulls the aquisition of the Rafale acc. to Dassault:

Just a hint of things to come for the F-35 program, IMHO. My speculation is the US DOD will buy maybe 500 total of the planes - at the most - and likely fewer. I would be surprised if total production gets to 1,000, IMHO.

Forget about the purchase price of the F-35, if not even the US DOD can afford to operate them, as the DOD agrees is true, why buy them? Why would anyone?

And we will soon hear from supporters that major operating and sustainment savings for the F-35 can be had. I ask that when these arguments are put forward, that hard specific changes and hard numbers are put forward too, so everyone can see, specifically, what is being proposed. Anyone can just generalize.

I for one, don't think that not much can be done to save F-35 operating and sustainment costs, except fly it a lot less. Other than that, nothing much will help in any significant way.

Pilot training for instance. To transition and qualify on the F-35 takes a pilot 6 flights. How are those 6 flights going to be made cheaper? The land and the infrastructure it operates from is already owned by the Federal Government - how much cheaper than free can it get (for the base)?

There may be some savings to be had somewhere, but not enough to make a difference, IMHO. When we are talking about 60% in higher operating costs than what you are replacing, the only solution is either 1) procure fewer F-35s or 2) increase the operating budget by 60%. While #2 is possible, I don't think it's probable with any of the customers, the US DOD included, and the GOA concurs in the latest report.

Matter of fact budgets are going down, not up.


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5734 times:

Quote:
Discussions began in January, and Dassault considers the chances of Canada making a purchase sufficiently good that it’s willing to spend the money to undertake a sales campaign, the French company’s Chief Executive Officer Eric Trappier said.

We are also discussing it with the makers for the Gripen, Super Hornet and Eurofighter. Trappier is getting ahead of himself. No one wants his expensive POS.

Quote:
that the country had “hit the reset button” on a deal for 65 JSFs after consultant KPMG said the estimated $25 billion bill could jump to $46 billion.

Different cost estimates were used, as already pointed out several times. Price for operating a fleet per year has always been the same.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 17):
Forget about the purchase price of the F-35, if not even the US DOD can afford to operate them, as the DOD agrees is true, why buy them? Why would anyone?

Because somewhere in a crap hole country, a mud hut needs to be vaporized from 35,000ft. The F35 is the best tool for that job going forward into the future.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5723 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
THE F14 and THE F16 turned out to be brilliant, unbeatable fighters in their specific roles.

The F-14 from the get go was a compromised fighter for the intended role of fleet defence interceptor and fighter. It was also a maintenance hog, and its systems never worked right. When the aircraft's systems worked, it was a good aircraft. However, it was a very unforgiving aircraft to fly if something went wrong.

The F-16 had major show-stoppers from the beginning, and it took years until all of the bugs were worked out and it became a true multirole fighter.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
THE Tomcat would still be around if it weren't for budget cuts, the -D version was superb, and of course THE F16 IS still going strong and will for many years.

Get over Top Gun.

F-14 costs were considered outrageous at the time of introduction, and it proved to be dramatically expensive aircraft to own and operate over time. It was the high end of the Navy's hi-lo mix (what came to be a pejorative term). High procurement costs, high maintenance man-hours, and high accident rates. Unless an aircraft has a really useful capability that can be used day to day to justify the high costs, it won't last long in service.

The F-14 was costly to maintain compared to other aircraft in USN service, and with the post-Cold War era, the role that it had was gone. The USN needed a multi-role, high tech fighter that could do multiple missions well and they got that in the Super Hornet. They will soon get a stealth fighter capable of ground attack and air superiority in a few years with the F-35C.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
THE F35 will always be a lemon.

What makes you think that the F-35 won't be a good fighter in the future? Provide details on why, and justifications.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 15):
They were in service for a long time and deployed mostly at sea (not many other fighter aircraft in the world had such a hard life). Carrier landings take a huge toll on an airframe not to mention being dangerous. Granted it did have quite a high occurence of incidents over its life.

The F-4 Phantom (even with its service in Vietnam) and the F/A-18 didn't have a remotely similar accident rate as the F-14.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 15):

yes if the funding had been available they were due to get new frames and a massive overhaul which would have reduced their hanger queen title massively and increased their capabilities further. The new engines alone would have provided much less maintenance, much reduced fuel burn, far greater power and been more reliable.

However, the avionics, and the hydraulic were other sources of maintenance headaches. The Hornet was a much easier aircraft to work on because maintainability was a key design feature compared to the F-14. You could replace both of the Hornet's engines one by one easily within the same time you could replace one of the F-14's engines.

Canceling the F-14D was justifiable because the F-14's primary mission, that of a fleet defence fighter, no longer existed. The F-14's primary role became obsolete at the end of the Cold War, and the aircraft became a solution in search of a problem. A number of aircraft ended their service lives in a similar situation.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4069 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

The F14 was undefeated in combat.


Enough said.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15470 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5686 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
The F-14 from the get go was a compromised fighter for the intended role of fleet defence interceptor and fighter.

Pointing out shortcomings of the F-14 really doesn't help make your case when you remember why it was built in the first place, namely because the F-111 was never going to be able to do the job despite being conceived in much the same vein as the JSF. The F-35 has already eclipsed it in that respect, so I guess you can count that as a win.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):
The F14 was undefeated in combat.

That doesn't really mean a whole lot, and for what it's worth, nobody's gotten an F-35 yet and probably won't for some time.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5682 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):
The F14 was undefeated in combat.


Enough said.

The F-14 was never really put on the front lines in USN service in a real shooting war, beyond the two Gulf of Sidra incidents where F-14's, heavily backed up by AEW shot down Libyan fighters, two of which were not fighters at all, and the other two older MiG-23's.

During Operation Desert Storm, F-14's never really engaged in air superiority missions over Iraq until very late in the war, where the bulk of the Iraqi Air Force had fled. And I do believe one F-14 was shot down during ODS by a SAM.

A lack of tasking of the F-14 during ODS can be attributed to a number of factors, some of which was USAF-based (lack of procedures regarding handling of USN aircraft in particular), some of which on technical grounds; the F-14 lacked IFF systems, among other technical issues.

For what was a fleet defence fighter to serve the majority of its life as a bomber isn't a very sterling service record.

The Iranians lost a couple of F-14's during the Iran-Iraq War in a number of engagement, but they appear to have shepherded their F-14's and protected them very carefully with escorting aircraft.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5669 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 18):
We are also discussing it with the makers for the Gripen, Super Hornet and Eurofighter. Trappier is getting ahead of himself. No one wants his expensive POS.

Minor nit: Ind ia, ordered 126 with 63 options that it looks like taking up. Discussions with Brazil still open. Personally, I wouldn't think Rafale would have a real chance for the Canadian mission, as its' primary role is A2G, not A2A.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
The F-14 from the get go was a compromised fighter for the intended role of fleet defence interceptor and fighter. It was also a maintenance hog, and its systems never worked right. When the aircraft's systems worked, it was a good aircraft. However, it was a very unforgiving aircraft to fly if something went wrong.


Largely agree. It was a big, complicated a/c, with systems that were more discrete components rather than micro-electronics. The original TF30 engines were, in particular, a real headache both for the aircrew and the mx crew.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4069 posts, RR: 19
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5597 times:

I'd like to see an F35 against an F14 in a close in dogfight.


I think the Tomcat would easily prevail !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
25 BMI727 : First that would never happen. The Tomcat would get shot down five times before they could even hope to close enough for an actual dogfight. If by so
26 Oroka : The biggest problem is those who go into a frenzy of excitement every time there is even the smallest hick-up with the F-35, and that includes politic
27 tommytoyz : That is a good and legitimate question. I think one very likely possibility will be that the F-35 will be way outclassed by those frames and we will
28 Oroka : The F-35 never was intended to be, and never will become a pure bred air dominance fighter. Making it have to stand shoulder to shoulder with the F-2
29 BMI727 : At this point the JSF has passed peak shittiness, so cancelling it would ultimately be counterproductive. Hopefully the lessons on how not to design
30 kanban : Yup... the bill. and 360+ going straight to the desert if and when they can figure out how to build complete serviceable units.
31 Powerslide : I don't think you understand how modern wars are fought. The days of dogfighting are coming to an end. One who can target the enemy first, shoots and
32 Max Q : I disagree, discounting the possibility of And so it has been said, time after time history has proven this wrong, just look at the US experience in V
33 kanban : Yes it is a US problem.. however if we cut the numbers, it will become everybody's. Plus as I read the notes only late foreign buys or late deliverie
34 ThePointblank : Disagree. There will always be close in fights from time to time. What happens during a merge is going to change however. We've seen the first iterat
35 kanban : I fail to see this continued reference to botched programs as a justification for continuing with botched programs.. Of course being Canadian the cos
36 BMI727 : Like we haven't heard that before. After the "F-14 could beat an F-35" comment, that's the second silliest thing written here. Seriously, how many pe
37 ThePointblank : I am pointing out that you should never expect the first versions of a combat aircraft to work the way it is intended to from the get go. The F-16 wa
38 kanban : This is not a standard that we should propagate.. it's like saying (crudely) it's OK to get cold coffee from Starbucks because they are opening a new
39 ThePointblank : It is a development process that is accepted by the DOD and by software developers. It's a way to get new equipment out to its users quickly. After a
40 tommytoyz : Thus far, the program has made little progress on block 3.0 software. The program intends initial block 3.0 to enter flight test in 2013, which will b
41 Oroka : Not so much how to design a plane as how to manage a large aviation project, but in Lockheeds defence, Boeing is struggling with the 787, and Airbus
42 Powerslide : I'm not saying that we should stop training for dogfights, I'm saying the likely hood of one happening in a modern battlefield is slim. If in 2020 a
43 BMI727 : That's exactly what the JSF was. The politicians and bureaucrats thought it would be really cool to have one cheap airframe offer all the services an
44 Max Q : I still say the Tomcat could beat the Lemon in a dogfight. Guns only, missiles in visual range. No problem !
45 kanban : Spiral development is a public relations gimmick to make poor management look intentionally brilliant when trying to baffle Congress. It is an insipi
46 Powerslide : I still say your posts are borderline trolling. Not all of them just some. Really !
47 tommytoyz : Don't mean to argue, but you would have to assume that: 1. A2A missiles could never be defeated once fired and have a 100% kill rate (It's less than
48 Oroka : Okay, but the F-35 gets the AIM-9X and HMDS. Yes, but the current design cycle for a fighter is 20 years. UCAVs are still little more than a flying c
49 Post contains images SCAT15F : Since we're going down this road, lets have some fun with it and give the F-14 F135 engines (which btw would fit in the F-14's engine bays) and then y
50 Post contains images Max Q : I love it Scat, what a dream machine !
51 Post contains links ThePointblank : The first RAF operational F-35 pilot has taken to the skies: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...lies-first-training-sortie-383642/ Also of note, B
52 connies4ever : Have to disagree strongly. And having been deeply involved in developing nuclear safety software for a very long time, I have some creds in this area
53 fbwless : I would assume that the software developer has been audited and has some kind of quality assurance that software has passed all necessary QC trials b
54 connies4ever : Quite right. s/w development follows a quality program compliant with CSA N.286.2 & .7 (compatible with 10CFR50 in the US and also ISO-compliant)
55 tommytoyz : Read carefully. Nothing there says anything about the F-35 being operational. It's the pilot who is operational, not the plane.
56 ThePointblank : Spiral development is used by the DOD to help combat the ever increasing development times that has become prevalent in development. Basically, a des
57 XT6Wagon : This has been said pretty much every time a plane is designed since the dawn of the A to A missile. Every time they have been proven wrong every sing
58 sovietjet : This is true. Many people incorrectly compare the F-22 to the T-50. In reality the T-50 is somewhere in between the F-35 and F-22. And it is certainl
59 Oroka : The J-20 is sized and its configured to be a tactical bomber, or maybe a pure interceptor. Large size + sub standard engines will keep this thing fro
60 BMI727 : The B-1R concept is basically that.
61 Powerslide : The F-35 will target the tumblers long before they have time to do their airshow routines. They'll fall out of the sky with a AMRAAM up the ass. That
62 BMI727 : People have been saying that for the last sixty years and every last one of them has been wrong. Who ever said a pilot was a requirement in the futur
63 Powerslide : The earth was flat for how many years? They were all proven wrong too.
64 Max Q : Fact is the only modern fighter so compromised in maneuverability and acceleration is the F35. No other manufacturer is producing or planning a fighte
65 ThePointblank : Disagree. F-35 is just as maneuverable, and accelerates just as well as the aircraft it it is supposed to replace; the F-16 and the F/A-18. It can mi
66 Max Q : This is just not true, latest information has all models of the F35 limited to under 5G's Great performance, for an F4.. You know what Mike Tyson use
67 ThePointblank : Incorrect, that's the sustained G level, and that's partially because we haven't fully expanded the full flight envelope yet. Remember we are still i
68 sovietjet : And when it does target them they will know the F-35 is there. You seem to be obsessed with airshows. These planes have capabilities far beyond airsh
69 kanban : interesting for a long period you were not on the LM payroll, nor you are?... And as such do they realize the amount of limited information being spe
70 tommytoyz : - Only in your world, does reducing the sustained G load limit, due to issues discovered in testing of the F-35, mean an expansion of the envelope. F
71 ThePointblank : We still haven't finished testing and opening up the flight envelope on the F-35. I will tell you right now that current F-35's are still software li
72 Post contains links tommytoyz : I'll try again. The new limit is the absolute maximum sustained G load limit. Not just some sustained G limit at some specific configuration. It is t
73 Powerslide : The only thing the T-50 will eat up for lunch are airshow spectators, because that's the only 'kills' Russian fighters are known for. Just you.
74 Post contains links tommytoyz : http://timemilitary.files.wordpress....35-jsf-dote-fy12-annual-report.pdf So much denial... The program announced an intention to change performance s
75 Max Q : That acceleration is so abysmal it's laughable and it's not the total time from .8 to 1.2 mach it's the additional time over spec ! Unbelievable, I ca
76 Powerslide : Cancel the program. People on the internet who'll never fly the thing don't like it.
77 ThePointblank : Do you even have a clue what the sustained G load limit means in comparison to other aircraft in a comparable state? They specced F-35 to be equivale
78 BMI727 : That's what you get when you cancel the better plane that was on the drawing board.
79 ThePointblank : We can discuss this in another thread if you wish, but the A-12 was a complete and unmitigated failure and disaster. A aircraft that was almost 2 yea
80 Post contains images tommytoyz : The F-35 will not be combat ready until 2019 at the earliest due to the software, assuming all goes perfect from here on out with zero delays and iss
81 Max Q : [quote=tommytoyz,reply=80] The F-35 will not be combat ready until 2019 at the earliest due to the software, assuming all goes perfect from here on ou
82 Powerslide : Maybe you should pitch your concerns to the Defence Department since you obviously know so much more than they do. Somehow I doubt they will or shoul
83 ThePointblank : Incorrect. There is a reason why the USMC has already stood up the first F-35 operational squadron, VFMA-121, ahead of the other 2 services. The Mari
84 Post contains images tommytoyz : No. The T-50 was never even entered or offered to the Koreans. Check again. And seriously, would you expect South Korea to go with Russian metal? Or
85 Powerslide : Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, U.K., Japan, SK and the US think otherwise.
86 SCAT15F : Getting the F-135 certified at the 50,000 lb + thrust level demonstrated by Pratt would go a long way to improving acceleration and kinematics. Sure,
87 Powerslide : Who says they want to?
88 sovietjet : I am so glad someone as naive as you doesn't make the decisions. Keep underestimating your opponent. Even ignoring the fact that Russian fighters hav
89 Powerslide : Only piece of truth when discussing the F-35 on this forum. No one here is qualified so it makes their opinion worthless. I just get a kick of the ho
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic New GAO Report On F-35: Outlook Improving
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...
GAO On F-35, June 2012 posted Fri Jun 29 2012 13:37:21 by tommytoyz
China's New Y-20 Pictures On Internet posted Mon Dec 24 2012 12:10:35 by fly828
New A.NET Article On The Nasa 747 SCA Is Up! posted Tue Nov 20 2012 12:20:53 by eksath
Air Force Association Magazine On F-35 posted Tue Oct 2 2012 20:48:37 by ThePointblank
National Audit Office Report On UK Tankers posted Tue Mar 30 2010 04:24:09 by Bongodog1964
Spies Get Terabytes Of Info. On F-35 posted Mon Apr 20 2009 22:30:26 by Greaser
Israel Wants Own Technology On F-35's posted Fri Oct 3 2008 17:29:59 by Blackbird
Bush, Blair Agree On F-35 Technology Transfer posted Sat May 27 2006 21:35:17 by Lumberton
F-35 On Exhibition In Front Of Oslo Town Hall posted Fri Aug 31 2012 15:43:25 by Mortyman
LM F-35/F-16 Fort Worth Plant On Strike posted Mon Apr 23 2012 05:02:19 by KC135TopBoom

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format