Lockheed Martin says F-35 back on track after years of delays and budget increases. Marines, Navy & AF agree... Do you?

2015-12-16T00:07:18-05:00

"The project has gotten a boost recently after years of trouble. The Marine Corps gave its initial okay to the plane over the summer, and the Air Force and Navy are expected to follow suit over the next two years. Lockheed officials hosted a demonstration of the F-35's technology for local politicians and reporters Monday to draw attention to its progress."

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (Tribune News Service) — Daniel Conroy knows the F-35 Lightning II program has had its problems, delayed for years and costing far more than first expected.

But the Pentagon's ambitious fighter jet project is finally back on track, says Conroy, director of the Air Force F-35 program for Lockheed Martin, which is building the plane.

"The program has been challenging, flight test has been difficult, but we've worked through a lot of issues," Conroy said Monday at Lockheed Martin's facility here. "We can see the light at the end of the tunnel."

Once it ramps up to full-scale production, Lockheed will make close to 200 of the fighter jets a year, up from the 45 it expects to build this year. The Government Accountability Office, initially forecast it would reach full production in 2012, but now says that won't happen until 2019.

Eventually, the company's Pinellas Park factory will start working two shifts to make the airplane's canopy — the windshield and the frame that keeps it in place. About 30 people work on the production line now, but the project will employ close to 200 at full capacity, said Scott Williams, Lockheed's Pinellas Park production manager.

Statewide, the impact will be much larger. More than 100 of the F-35's suppliers are based in Florida, and Lockheed Martin is making sensors and developing computer systems for the fighter jet in Orlando, Conroy said. In all, the company says the program will bring 13,000 jobs to the state.

The project has gotten a boost recently after years of trouble. The Marine Corps gave its initial okay to the plane over the summer, and the Air Force and Navy are expected to follow suit over the next two years. Lockheed officials hosted a demonstration of the F-35's technology for local politicians and reporters Monday to draw attention to its progress.

Its pitch: The F-35 is hugely complicated — and important. It's designed to replace the military's aging fleet of fighter jets with a plane that can be used for decades, one that combines stealth with technological advancements.

"A program of this significance is always going to have some challenges," said U.S. Rep. David Jolly, R-Indian Shores, who visited Lockheed's Pinellas Park plant Monday. "We're going to have an asset adding great value to the taxpayer that protects our men and women in uniform."

But getting to this point has been difficult for the aerospace giant, and government watchdogs say the project isn't in the clear just yet.

From design to assembly, the F-35 project is expected to cost $391.1 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office, up 68 percent from initial projections of $233 billion. And the government is expected to buy 2,457 planes, 400 fewer than first thought.

In an April report, the watchdog agency said the project had mostly gotten into line and costs have been "mostly stable" since the Pentagon changed its budget and time line in 2012. But the report was critical of the plane's engine, saying it "has a long way to go to meet program goals."

And with testing ongoing, "more technical problems are likely," the agency said. "Addressing new problems and improving engine reliability may require additional design changes and retrofits."

Those comments followed problems the F-35 encountered in test flights. Testing on some planes had to be stopped when a part of the airframe called the bulkhead started to fracture, and in June 2014, an engine caught fire because of overheating.

But Conroy defended the program's progress so far, saying that those issues were an inevitable part of testing and that Lockheed and its suppliers fixed them.

"You don't get through any flight test program, especially one as complex as this, without having a few things that you just go, 'Wow, I wouldn't have thought of that,' " he said. "But the good news is there hasn't been anything insurmountable. We've worked through things pretty quickly."

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/lockheed-martin-says-f-35-back-on-track-after-years-of-delays-budget-increases-1.384211

Lockheed Martin says F-35 back on track after years of delays, budget increases

The Pentagon's ambitious F-35 Lightning II project is finally back on track, says Daniel Conroy, director of the Air Force program for Lockheed Martin, which is building the plane. Once it ramps up to full-scale production, Lockheed will make close to 200 of the fighter jets a year, up from the 45 it expects to build this year.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Dec 16 at 2015 12:37 AM

2015-12-16T00:37:32-05:00

MSgt Curtis Ellis Considering that everything will be unmanned within, what? 20 years? or so....total waste. Only Russia can touch our f-15's, 16's, 18's...(of potential enemies), and so, this is just 400 billion down the drain for nothing.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 3:42 AM

2015-12-16T03:42:12-05:00

Wrote a paper for my MBA on the financial disaster that the F-35 is, and will continue to be. The paper wrote itself. Could have been a 50 page paper with ease. After getting a tour of that aircraft this year and talking to the maintainers that work on it, I never thought I was so lucky to be in the F-18 Navy. As expensive as Super Hornets are, the F-35 will be a shameful fleecing of tax payer dollars. We will have to invent a few wars to justify the expense.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 7:49 AM

2015-12-16T07:49:36-05:00

Curt, I'm an old Army dog but the F-35 is a huge money pit that could have been designed much better. I would hope that the congressional backers of this would know that, but there are some that stand to profit as Lockheed drains the government dry. It is an awesome fighter jet, just a little too pricy!

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 8:45 AM

2015-12-16T08:45:45-05:00

From a maintainers stand point as it stands today. No one is talking about the coating system up keep past 5 years. As in refurbishment cost for reapplying LO coatings, spray painting in general, and composite damage. This all will happen and as of now the Military side isn't able to do any composite repairs. The maintenance is what is key to any plane staying in the air and especially an LO jet its very important because of its use on the jet. We can go into a cost comparison theory on the maintenance cost but its not necessary because the amount will be easily in the billions when it happens. On top that this jet was developed for the Navy the Air Force is an after thought, so the 20+ years we have experience on LO jets where not even considered. Some of the F-22 problems where solved on this jet but they still don't see a bigger picture of reversion issues the F-22 is having. Using the same paint on the F-35 and this not being an issue to them. When this starts popping up we will have to fix it with a lot more F-35's across all forces vs the smaller amount of F-22's it will be another LO nightmare... Look up LO Clown VS MX Super on you tube for a quick laugh but what we will be dealing with (NSFW for language). This is only one aspect on maintenance side that the cost isn't even being looked at.

Response by TSgt Christopher Till made Apr 15 at 2016 6:32 AM

2016-04-15T06:32:14-04:00

All of the stealth aircraft have had and will continue to have the same issues with LO and cost overruns. Only reason that the F-35 is in the news about cost overrun is because it is the latest/greatest aircraft. Wait until the new bomber comes out from Northrup within the next couple/few years, it'll be in the news for the same reason. The F-22 was going through, and is still continuing to go through, the same things as the F-35. The LO process for the two Lockheed fighters are night/day different from each other (having worked on the F-22 and currently working on the F-35). The LO process on the 22 SUCKED, having worked on some LO on the 35, it ROCKS!!! (In comparison)

The B-1 program even had its cost overrun issues, that's why Carter nixed the program, but Reagan wanted it and brought it back online. Look at what she can do.

They are talking about retiring the A-10, AGAIN!!! Sorry to say, but the A-10 is way to good of an asset to retire and replace with the F-35. REALLY?!!! A-10 and F-35 are apples and oranges in comparison. If it gets replaced by anything, it should be replaced by brand spanking new A-10s.

The F-16 was put into service too soon, and look at all of the problems it had during its first years. Aircraft after aircraft falling out of the sky and some of the pilots were lucky to eject and others weren't. That is why places like Edwards AFB runs the aircraft through the proverbial ringer before going into production.

The "customer" expects the aircraft to be able to certain things, and sometimes, the "customer" requests some additional testing on down the road, like engine mismatch. The first time I was stationed at Edwards, working F-15s, they were redoing the engine mismatch testing that they had done in the 70s/80s (it was the late 90s). We ran five or six different GE and PW engines through each side of our engine test bird, for months.

Every maintainer knows, machines break and it costs to fix them. With all of the g-forces and torque put on the airframes, something is going to give. As a maintainer, you pray that it comes back, in one piece. As a(n) (E)F-111 crew chief (plane captain, for my Navy brothers/sisters out there), a "no discrepancies" return was a great day, and the more of those you had, the more scared you were of it returning broke, because they would BREAK HARD!!!

The F-18A-Ds are going through their issues, but that is because of budget cuts. There is one squadron, in the news (USMC), that has 14 aircraft and only two are flyable/flying.

Bottom line: Aircraft cost money to build and to maintain, both in testing and in operation.