Engine fault grounds entire F-35 fleet in latest blow to Britain's stealth fighters - Polidicks

[IMG]http://thepuffington.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/hms-queen-elizabet_2931768b.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Britain’s new multi-billion pound stealth fighter programme has been struck by more technical difficulties which left the entire fleet grounded at the weekend after engine trouble triggered “an in-flight emergency”. The Pentagon ordered all models of the F-35 joint strike fighter grounded until they had passed engine checks after the incident. Britain is due to buy at least 48 of the £70m Joint Strike Fighters to replace the axed Harrier jets for both the RAF and the Royal Navy. The technical scare came just three weeks before the F-35 is expected to make its UK debut at two air shows and at a fly-past at the naming ceremony of Britain’s new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier. An engine oil problem struck an F-35B jump jet variant of the new aircraft being tested by the United States Marine Corps on June 10. The pilot declared an in-flight emergency and landed safely back at base at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona, The Wall Street Journal reported. Britain has said it will buy at least 48 of the same F-35B variants to be flown from its new aircraft carriers and also to be based at RAF Marham. The UK has already taken delivery of three aircraft and they are being tested by British pilots in the US. The Pentagon grounded all variants of the F-35 on Friday until engines could be inspected. The F-35 is lauded as the most advanced fighter ever built, but the programme has been dogged by cost overruns and delays as well as accusations of poor performance. Earlier this year, Michael Gilmore, the US military’s chief weapons tester, complained about the plane’s software and said the F-35 was proving less reliable and harder to maintain than expected. British military chiefs say “teething problems” are to be expected during the development of sophisticated new aircraft and they will be ironed out before the planes become operational in 2018. Britain originally said it would take 138 of the planes, but the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond now says a decision on how many to buy will not be made until after next year’s defence review. US officials on the F-35 programme said the temporary grounding was “prudent action". After engine-by-engine checks, most of the 104-strong fleet was cleared to fly again by late Saturday, but two other engines were declared to have “suspect findings”. Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, said last week the plane was not yet as reliable as hoped. He said there had been “some marginal evidence of improvement, but it’s not enough.” The F-35B will reportedly make its international debut on July 4 for the naming ceremony of the 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth at the Rosyth dockyard, though the MoD has not confirmed this. It will also fly at the Fairford and Farnborough air shows next month.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10902982/Engine-fault-grounds-entire-F-35-fleet-in-latest-blow-to-Britains-stealth-fighters.html[/url]

I blame the gremlins for this.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45284767]I blame the gremlins for this.[/QUOTE] I blame the US DOD [editline]3rd July 2014[/editline] it's easier

"if only we had another engine"

It's like they took every step to make this plane the worst ever while spending as much money as they could.

F-35 is a dead plane

[QUOTE=Crash155;45285404]F-35 is a dead plane[/QUOTE] No it's not! We've been assured that it only needs another $28 million in redesigns. We'll have it ready and rolling by September! We promise!

US buys Harrier from Britain, turns out to be shit. Years later, Britain buys the F-35 from the US, turns out to be shit. We should stop selling each other jets.

[QUOTE=nater;45286004]US buys Harrier from Britain, turns out to be shit. Years later, Britain buys the F-35 from the US, turns out to be shit. We should stop selling each other jets.[/QUOTE] The harrier was fantastic, what are you on about?

[QUOTE=cherry gmod;45286034]The harrier was fantastic, what are you on about?[/QUOTE] The Harrier was risky to fly, and a threat to it's pilots. The nozzles could move independently at times, causing loss of control. Plus, people on the wings could get knocked off and stuck on ordnance hanging from the hardpoints below.

It doesn't matter because the future will be about drones rather than piloted aircraft.

The UK/US used the Harrier for... years and years. It's amazing. [editline]4th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=darunner;45286132]The Harrier was risky to fly, and a threat to it's pilots. The nozzles could move independently at times, causing loss of control. Plus, people on the wings could get knocked off and stuck on ordnance hanging from the hardpoints below.[/QUOTE] That doesn't sound too bad, tbh.

[QUOTE=seano12;45286145]It doesn't matter because the future will be about drones rather than piloted aircraft.[/QUOTE] That's what they said about air-to-air missiles.

'oh people might get knocked off the wings' sounds like a HR and safety bullshit review. 'the fucking engine doesn't work and leaks fuel' sounds pretty damn serious

Come on. The AV-8B/GR.7 isn't the piece of junk that the early GR.1 Harrier was. It has massively improved payload and wing loading, and addressed many of the issues that came up from a completely new propulsion configuration. Nozzles moving independently just meant an extra maintenance procedure was necessary. Can you imagine the sheer amount of revisions that have already been made to the procedures that'll be released with the Lightning II? I suppose we should be fair to the Lightning and give it the same chance; back when the P.1127 (The Harrier prototype 'Kestrel') was being demonstrated, people said the same things, that it was too sophisticated and the costs weren't worth the capability. And the engine troubles during design were just as bad. This is part of developing a new aircraft which pushes the envelope. The F-22 still has faults today. Might I also point out that the engines on the A380 had a fault for a pretty long time that had the potential to, and did, cause them to straight-up [i]explode[/i]? Have I made my point? It's unfair to judge the aircraft based on its development troubles. It's just unfortunate that Lockheed has handled this project so inefficiently.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;45286245]'oh people might get knocked off the wings' sounds like a HR and safety bullshit review. 'the fucking engine doesn't work and leaks fuel' sounds pretty damn serious[/QUOTE] You missed the part about the nozzles moving separately edit: which has been rectified according to the ninja above me Also this: [video=youtube;pRtlM6IoH-Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRtlM6IoH-Y[/video]

[QUOTE=Trumple;45286290]You missed the part about the nozzles moving separately edit: which has been rectified according to the ninja above me Also this: [/QUOTE] A work of art. What a sexy plane.

Considering what the F-35 is meant to do, such problems are to be expected.

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;45286501]Considering what the F-35 is meant to do, such problems are to be expected.[/QUOTE] Considering how much additional money and time has gone into the development, no these problems should of been found and repaired a LONG time ago.

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;45286501]Considering what the F-35 is meant to do, such problems are to be expected.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't be happening if they hadn't relied on simulation entirely for the design process. They ramped up the production way too fast, they should have spent longer (ie some time at all) in a prototype phase ironing out all the issues they have had.

[QUOTE=pentium;45285441]No it's not! We've been assured that it only needs another $28 million in redesigns. We'll have it ready and rolling by September! We promise![/QUOTE] That's a funny way to spell billion.

[QUOTE=fishyfish777;45286228]That's what they said about air-to-air missiles.[/QUOTE] they were right though? don't you dare get "but that one time back in 'nam" with me, no one uses cannons for air to air combat now

I just hope that my country pulls its head out of its ass and doesn't pick the F-35 to replace our ageing fleet. We wasted so much money on these things and we have fuck all to show for it. The whole thing is a national joke here in Canada.

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;45287606]they were right though? don't you dare get "but that one time back in 'nam" with me, no one uses cannons for air to air combat now[/QUOTE] If there was large war in the future with fighters engaging other fighters then I could see cannons being used at least a few times when both sides are possibly out of missiles.

[QUOTE=seano12;45287648]If there was large war in the future with fighters engaging other fighters then I could see cannons being used at least a few times when both sides are possibly out of missiles.[/QUOTE] if you were out of missiles why would you be closing that 100km engagement gap anyway?

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;45287606]they were right though? don't you dare get "but that one time back in 'nam" with me, no one uses cannons for air to air combat now[/QUOTE] Context. I was responding to the comment that drones were going to be replacing pilots with the fact that it was analgous to missiles replacing cannons. Drones are not nearly advanced enough to act in place of a thinking human being inside of a fighter plane and won't be for a good while, and that is similar to the fact that missiles have still yet to completely replace cannon armament in planes when they could easily shed several hundred pounds not including a cannon in the first place. [editline]4th July 2014[/editline] Also note that cannon development is not completely at a standstill compared to missiles and we could see the return of cannon-launched guided projectiles or guns that have some degree of automatic aiming capability or something similar to keep cannons relevant.

Good thing this will be employed for a the air superiority conflicts we have in the future. What's that, the cheap prop super tucano is better for counter insurgency? We will just need another 1.32 billion and we'll come out on top again

lmao the MoD YouTube channel uploaded this a few days ago; [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5apUWi9W51o[/media] "coming soon" guess not

[QUOTE=fishyfish777;45286228]That's what they said about air-to-air missiles.[/QUOTE] All the people dumbing him should look at the first gen phantoms

I cannot believe the Australian government is actually purchasing these fucking planes in light of the constant, dismal failure of a project it has been so far.