Pentagon: Slow F-35 Production

First International F-35 Rolls Out of the Factory

So, the interwebs are abuzz this morning with news that the man in charge of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program wants to slow down production — and therefore deliveries of the jet.

The slowdown is needed to install fixes to numerous structural cracks and “hot spots” that have been found in the plane over the last year, Vice Adm. David Venlet, JSF program manager, told AOL Defense. The work needed to remedy these cracks could add $3 to $5 million to the cost of each jet.

Keep in mind that the Pentagon just reduced the latest F-35 purchase by five jets, so this news comes on top of that.

Venlet insists that these cracks aren’t an immediate safety issue, they would however cause the airframes to be pulled from service well before their planned 8,000 flight-hour lifetimes.

Here’s key quote from Venlet where he says that ‘heavy learning’ is still happening with the program — I have to say that many were hoping Lockheed and the F-35 office were beyond the heavy learning years:

“The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost,” Vice Adm. David Venlet said in an interview at his office near the Pentagon. “Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs. I believe it’s wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And then when we’ve got most of that known and we’ve got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production.”

These hot spots were found after the Pentagon and Lockheed examined the plane following the discovery of cracks in an important bulkhead on the F-35B last year. He apparently wouldn’t say how much production should be slowed.

The big question now becomes, what will a production slowdown to to the cost of each airplane at a time when many JSF buyers are looking to cut billions from their defense budgets? The second question is, what does this mean for the existing fighter fleets that are/were supposed to be replaced by F-35s sometime this decade?

Yes, the F-35 has had a very good year of flight testing but, as Venlet points out, overall testing still nowhere near close to finished. F-35 customers have got to be wondering what additional surprises will come along:

Flight testing of the F-35, though going extremely well lately, is only 18 percent complete, Venlet said. As of Nov. 29, 1,364 test flights had been flown — 896 of them in the past 10 months, despite two stoppages of a couple of weeks each to fix problems found by flying. Under a new program baseline created after the JSF project breached cost limits under the Nunn-McCurdy law, about 7,700 hours of flight tests are planned. “That’s a lot,” Venlet said, adding that number will grow if more problems are found.

Fatigue testing has barely begun, Venlet said. The CTOL variant’s fatigue testing is about 20 percent complete; the CV variant has not started yet. For the STOVL variant, fatigue testing was halted at 6 percent last year and has not resumed after a crack in a large bulkhead in the wing was found, requiring a major redesign of that part.

Here’s the article.

  • pcb

    When the original project winner was announced, there was a lot of questioning of the Lockheed choice. Yeah, the jet looked meaner and had some the required design aspects but there was great concern as to whether the design choice by the DOD reflected their desire for an affordable stealthy jet. The Boeing VTOL design was considered too antiquated, but in Boeing’s defense, they sought to provide the necessary technology based upon the most proven designs. In hindsight, given the troubles with this jet and the escalating costs, they may have been the better selection

    • Nope, and here’s why. Each plane was of composite design – this is still a new area and ‘heavy learning’ would be shared by either makers . The major difference in design being the VTOL variant lift fan. Also understand that the inlet to the Boeing model still needed designing to accomadate the variable intel. So any delay not attributed to said lift fan or intel problem with the Boeing model would be potentially shared between the two platforms.

      • tiger

        The tilt nozzle though was a simpler way to do things.

      • PMI

        The 32 team was also having major issues with the all composite wing & wing box.

    • PMI

      The only people who possibly questioned the decision were Boeing execs …and then only publicly.

      The X-32 was beset by problems and would have required a major redesign to even get to the pre-production stage.

  • Pete

    Why does the Pentagon have to pay to fix these planes? Isn’t this a cost Lockheed should pony up given that the product they delivered doesn’t meet the specs required by the customer (8,000 flight hours)?????

  • Michael

    Maybe the original fly-off competions need to be a little more involved to work these things out earlier so we can get production started earlier. And who knows, with such kinks worked out earlier, maybe our overall knowledge base will grow…

  • Black Owl

    Why am I not surprised?

  • chaos0xomega

    During WW2 and the first half of the cold war, the US manufactured thousands of military aircraft every year, and some of those planes are still flying today (B-52, F-4 for example). Today the US struggles to manufacture a few dozen such aircraft per year, and even then they are faulty and not what we paid billions for (F-22 OBOGS failures, etc.). Where is the accountability here? What is causing the erosion of the American industrial base? I understand that modern aircraft are many many times more complex a system than something like an original production B-52 or F-4, but are they really that much more complex that we have difficulty building them? And if so, SHOULD we be building them?

  • Tad

    Can’t American industry get anything right anymore!? Why does it seem like our engineering ability has gone to heck? I’m thinking of some military planes, some ships, etc…

    • Dfens

      You pay more for a contractor to drag out development and jack the cost of the program through the roof, and then you blame “engineering”? What’s wrong isn’t rocket science. It’s friggen basic economics. Try paying the contractors more to provide you with good, innovative weapons they provide on schedule and on budget and see what happens. Americans during the Cold War were smart enough to do this and we beat the USSR’s ass. I guess we just don’t understand that capitalism crap anymore.

    • Thinking_ExUSAF

      LOL! Want to REALLY get depressed. . . . We went from a modified Jupiter IRBM (about 100000 lbs of thrust) for Shepard’s Mercury launch in May, 1961 to the Saturn V/Apollo IV launch (7,700,000 lbs of thrust) in Nov, 1967. We did that basically on “slide rule” engineering and the “enlightened” program managment techniques and personalities developed in Penemunde. Today, with all of the advanced computers and superior program management, we take 30 years to produce an “evolutionary” fighter aircraft or ship with only marginal performance improvements.

      Unfortunately, it would be very wrong to blame it all on “American Industry”, but I DO think that there are a lot of folk, in a lot of places, that might need to look for some “sack cloth”.

  • BigRick

    I’m sorry folks but this is it for for.

    Even though I’ve been a luke warm supporter of the F-35, and we do need a new platform, this latest news of adding 3-5 million to the already ridiculous price will be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    I can no longer support this effort. This program needs to be shut down and Lockhead needs to eat the cost for incompetence and poor management. No only that, but Lockhead needs to pay back the taxpayers every dime spend on this program and maybe even some punitive damages for wasting 10 years of our National Defense time and effort and for royally screwing all three services-especially the Marine Corp.

    We need a new platform but we no longer need Lockhead

    We need to start over (with a fixed price contract) with another manufacture.

    • tiger

      Gordo Cooper: “Do you boys know what makes this bird go up? Funding makes this bird go up.”
      Gus Grissom: “That’s right. No bucks… no Buck Rogers.”
      Gordo Cooper: “And uh, the press over there… They all wanna see Buck Rogers.”
      Deke Slayton: “And that’s us… Buck Rogers.”

      The Right Stuff-1986

    • Appia

      Clawing that much cash from Lockheed would likely break the company. It would need infusions of cash from the shareholders, which might or might not be forthcoming. If not, the US government will have to supply the cash and receive the new shares, effectively nationalizing the company. I’m not saying that’s a bad idea, but I don’t want to hear any whining about “Obama” and “Socialism” if it happens.

  • Musson1

    If you want to fly faster, higher and pull more G’s – you have to pay for it. And, it ain’t cheap!

  • jumper

    I think the problem is there is the perception that every other plane we’ve ever built entered service and started kicking Nazi/Commie a$$ right out of the production hanger. The truth is that EVERY plane has had development issues, some quite serious and far worse than the F-35. (The P-51 wasn’t worth the cost of production when it entered service) But, the internet didn’t exist back then so there weren’t half a million “experts” telling everyone why it’s such a disaster. While the accounting practices are a little shady due to scope creep, DoD incompetence, and Lockheed’s lack of accountability, the actual technical development of the jet isn’t even close to the worst we’ve ever seen.

    • Michael

      Would the worst be the A-12?

      • tiger

        Oh, there are far worse projects. The F7U Cutlass for example.

      • Thinking_ExUSAF

        Depends on your defnition for “worst”. The A-12 certainly is in the running if costs enter the equation. The F-111A (although eventually turned into a very good aircraft!), the B-70, or the B-58 might good candidates for the worst as well (at least in the modern era), and all for different reasons!

    • SMSgt Mac

      The Barling Bomber

  • Roy Smith

    You really have to wonder if the new weapons that Russia & China are putting out,even if they are crap,will have any competition anymore from the West,including the U.S. Our NATO European allies & European Union leaders are making “draconian” cuts to their defense. We can’t afford new weapons or to even recapitalize/reset the weapons we already have. For those who say to cancel the F-35 & buy F/A-18 Super Hornets,can we even afford to do that(buy more Super Hornets)?

    • tiger

      Well Sir Teleprompter said he was going to “reset our relations” with Russia. Hows that working out???

    • kim

      We could buy Gripens, too. Nowhere near as pricey….

  • BigRick

    p.s. here’s what I recommend, the most important thing here is quantity, we need to get the numbers back up

    For the Air Force,
    -explore the F-15 SE version
    -SLEP all F-16s to latest version

    For the Navy
    -continue buying latest Super Hornet versions but explore the new proposals
    -accelerate X-47B development, put two squadrons on each carrier by 2015

    For the Marines
    -it was a good move to buy the slightly used British Harriers, but they should SLEP
    each and every one of Harriers to get as much life as possible, hopefully for another 10 years

    For all three
    -invest in next gen AMMRAM that has much longer range and higher speed-kind of like what the Phoenix missile used to be. This new one needs 70+ mile range and Mach 5+ speed.
    -continue to invest in advanced radar, microwave, laser and other technologies

    Gen 5 aircraft
    -DO NOT attempt to build another single aircraft for all three services-that’s is folly. The requirement for each service are too different.
    -If you do, build a Navy version first (a la F-4 style) that can be used by the other services later
    -set a firm fixed price and delivery
    -we need to get away from the idea of quality will be over quantity. We need a 5th gen fighter but not at the expense of numbers.

    • Roy Smith

      And where is the money going to come from to do all of that?

    • Commisar12

      all of those SLEPs are VERY expensive, and you are still flying jets that are 25 years old

  • PHS3

    I tend to agree with BigRick, however quality over quantity is a good thing, but You can’t build a quality aircraft, with total supremacy, which can also cover all demands from all 3 services. And You can’t expect Your allies to willingly pay for capabilities, which will never ever be of use to them, like Denmark (where I live). We would never be part of a serious first strike on anyone – not even the Swedes or the Germans (this part is a joke of course) – but we sure like the thought of US being able to do it, if necessary. And we are proudly working together with US in Afghanistan and other places, thank You.

    • Riceball

      While I agree with you overall I do believe that there is a fine balance in the quantity vs. equality equation. While I definitely feel that the old Soviet philosophy of quantity having a quality of its own is the wrong one I do feel that you need to have a certain minimum amount of a quality weapons system in order to be effective. Take the F-22 for instance, sure it may be the equal of 10 of any other fighter out there but with so few even one means a pretty big loss in our numbers and would certainly hurt more than say 10 Chinese fighters would.

      • PHS3

        Back in 82, the Israeli Air Force fought it out with the Syrian Air Force over the Beeka Valley. Within a few days Syria reportedly lost 85 aircraft (mainly MIG21’s and 23’s) against 0 Israeli Aircraft, mainly F16’s and F15’s. This is how effective quality – overall – can be over quantity. But agreed, You need a certain minimum number to make Your quality superiority useful.

  • Lance

    Not a BIG deal the USAF is upgraded its F-16 to extend there life for a decade. So it’ll be fine to slow its replacement with F-35s too. The main deal is both F-15s and F-16s will be upgraded so they be in good shape till over 2021 so it may take that long to get enough F-35 to replace F-16s anyway.

  • Black Owl

    I for one would like to take this opportunity to again remind everyone that the Super Hornet International Road Map is highly capable and has a performance level near that of the F-35, but relies on everything that has been proven to work in the past and is extremely cheap at roughly the price of 1/2 an F-35B or F-35C. It makes perfect sense to buy and use those, but obviously too much sense for the defense industry.

  • Elijah

    An Airplane Admirer, Jestering Jets, Love’em but am afraid of”em.

  • tiger

    Slow production? That production floor is a ghost town now.

  • Valcan

    See this is my problem with the Joint buys. To many demands on one airframe and it becomes so expensive and complicated that you no longer can buy the 1000 you need so you buy just 300. And the next generation just 200. This continues until someone fixes it or the fleet becomes so expensive and precious that war is avoided many times to disasterous consequences.

    Look at the F-8 crusader. That is how to run a program and it was no less revolutionary that the F-22 or F-35. Later it became the A-7 Corsair.

    S/VTOVL is one of those things that is to airframe intesive for it to make sense to use the same airframe.

    The F-35 is more of a political program.

  • mustangdaren

    Modify the F-15 to SE specs with F-22 engines, modify the Super Hornet with F-22 engines, modify the F-16 with the F-35 engine and now you have three planes with super cruise capability. Use missile tech to fill in the 5th gen gaps or unmanned aircraft. F-35 is a joke, performance is no better than what we have already and it has no super cruise or thrust vectoring. We would have been better off developing the F-22 and increasing it’s numbers to drive down cost because in the end it would be cheaper than the F-35.

    • USkilledbyCapitalism

      The F16 with the F35 engine would be incapable of super cruise. No F35 can super cruise.

      Putting F-22 engines into an F15 with SE specs would be the same as redesigning the plane from scratch. Build more F22s instead. They will come down in price and do the missions the F15SE was not designed to do. The only reason to SLEP F15s to an F15SE is to increase numbers of operable stealth aircraft.

      The F35 is a bad joke. In retrospect, Congress/Pentagon should have navalized the F-22, Then cannibalized the ground attack features of the F-35 into the F22. The Marines get naval F22s and refurbed F16s as bomb trucks. The irony is that producing the F22 in numbers makes it just as expensive as buying F35s. The utter failure of the F35 was that it was supposed to be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to build and operate than an F22.

  • Kski


    Short, Sweet, to the point and VERY DIRECT.

  • William C.

    Why is every somewhat lengthy comment I write deleted?

  • Hunter78

    Abandon the manned fighter/attack aircraft concept completely. Commit to an unmanned aircraft paradigm. Much cheaper, higher performance, larger numbers, no lost pilots.

  • duuude

    “numerous structural cracks”

    What the hell happened to “value for money”?

  • Valcan

    Unmanned aircraft cheaper? LOL CHEAPER!

    No they are not cheaper neither are they worth a damn agaisnt a manned opponent. The reason Drones used so much now is Endurance, cost of training, cost of maintanence, and no pilots to risk.

    High performance Manned fighters are the future for atleast the next 50yrs atleast. I am a geek i read all the books but i KNOW the pple who know war. And the technology. The reason the US has commited to so many drones is the above and inaddition to something else. Over half the DoD budget is spent on people. Western soldiers are EXPENSIVE.

    The US needs for low tech needs like the fight in afghanistan simply a crop duster or such with alot of loiter time and some decent payload that is easy, cheap and reliable. For around 6 mil each or so you can get a flight of AT-802U with a payload of 9,000 lbs. Reapers is 3,000lbs.

    So no outside of fantasies the Drones are not what is really needed.

  • Hunter78

    In dogfights pulling G’s is often the deciding factor. UAV’s can easily out-perform manned.

    • Michael

      In one sense, yes they can; on the other hand, if a UAV is in a tight enough turn, my understanding is that the signal can be temporarily broken or lost, which could easily turn the tables in a dogfight.

    • Valcan

      Except there is no UAV which can FLY unmanned air-air. NONE. And even say you made one that could do fly even remotly as well as a manned aircraft the cost of the thing would then be about 2-3 times the cost of the next manned fighter. Would also require alot of down time to do maintanence.

      You cannot fly a UCAV into combat with a human controler they simply have SHIT for situational awarness. Add to the fact that humans retuinly come up with new ways of compensating and such and ways of beating even the best weapon and armor.

      For instance if you send your super ucav agaisnt say a flight of F-18E/F super hornets and then a Flight of F-22’s comes burning in So here is a problem what does your 150mil dollar drone do then? IT can’t see the enemy. So it dies. Or you recall it. Or what happens when a Growler starts filling the air with noise?

      Thats the thing. Many idea’s sound perfect until they meet nasty dirty reality. Then its the pilots, grunts, drivers etc who pay not the generals, admirals, or the Planners.

    • Thinking_ExUSAF

      One thing, aside from the situational awareness issues with UAVs, is the dynamic nature of A-A combat. When you are attacking a ground target, things tend to happen rather sedately, EVEN when the ground target is moving at 60mph. In Air-to-air combat, certainly in the high-G “dogfight” that we always hear about, things happen in fractions of a second, and the system that does not react in time dies. If I have a UAV on the end of a satcom link, the lag in the information getting to the pilot and his response getting back to the UAV is limited by the speed of light and the transmission lags through the satcom equipment. Toss in a “control loop lag” of at least 22,500 miles to GEO X 4 trips / 186000 miles per second or rounded out, 0.5 seconds, and you have a dead UAV or at least a terminal case of PIO. Make it “fully autonomous” and if it works you have the “Terminator”, and if it fails, you have the news story of the “killer UAV downing the 747!”

  • Jeannie

    Glad there is someone over there in the Pentagon who is slowing down. Power gone mad is what is usually over there; men and women asking Congress for their last penny and they get it. I’m tortured by a Navy laser that stabs, hammers and cramps my body. M67854-04-C-5074. Order it from the Marine Corps FOIA. You will see the five sided building wants to take over the law enforcement system of our country, including the cop, court house downtown, jails, prisons, FBI, and state law enforcement agencies. What is happening to me is done by the Pentagon’s Mayport Naval Station helicopters and there is not one thing any of the above agencies of the government can do about it. We are a nation under seige by the Pentagon and the seige is silent, torturous and deadly. The weapon can kill and leave no evidence or it can torture.

  • Commisar12

    Well, apart from this site being RABIDLY F-35, sh*t happens, NO jet has had flawless testing and development. I mean, look at the F-14. it was almost killed and the Navy had to beg for it. Or the F-111, or the P-51, or the B-1, or the B-2. it is way too late to cancel the program, and it seems that only the B model seem to be having this issue.

  • I think F-35 must be another engine not only from pratt and whitney like roll royce and GE, may be first cost opportuneted overrun made headache but benefit advantage in future for saving money for replacing aging aircraft like F-16,F-15 and F-18.

  • FtD

    Russians discarded the Mig29 and concentrates on Su27 and made a success out of it so why can’t americans learn from them, take the already in service F22 platform, develop it further, export to other allies and get some money out from it?

  • Roland

    Not a good news. We needed these jets for defense in case Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea attack us.