F-35 Jet’s Overworked Engines May Cost Pentagon $38 Billion in Upkeep

[rangerrebew]

 
F-35 Jet’s Overworked Engines May Cost Pentagon $38 Billion in Upkeep
Story by Tony Capaccio • Yesterday 12:39 PM
 
(Bloomberg) -- Lockheed Martin Corp.’s  F-35 may need $38 billion in extra engine overhauls in coming decades to meet increasing demands to help cool radar and other components of the fighter jet, according to government auditors.

“The cooling system is over-tasked, requiring the engine to operate beyond its design parameters,” the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday in its annual report on the $412 billion acquisition program for the F-35, the world’s costliest weapons system. “The extra heat is increasing the wear on the engine, reducing its life and adding $38 billion in maintenance costs.”
 
Barring an effective fix, engine overhauls that may come sooner than expected and will add another to-do item to the Pentagon’s $1.3 trillion estimate to operate and maintain the fleet of F-35s over 77 years of operation.

The engine issue concerns the aircraft’s “power and thermal management system,” which transfers pressure from the fighter’s single engine, directing the flow to cool other components. The more air pressure transferred, the hotter the engine runs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/f-35-jet-s-overworked-engines-may-cost-pentagon-38-billion-in-upkeep/ar-AA1bTvAD?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=44375c0031184386842267922ab21924&ei=11

[Kamaji]

Design-by-committee strikes again.

[PeteS in CA]

F-35 bashing is a cottage industry. Given Bloomberg's track record for BS, if I cared to take the time I'd find the actual report to see if Bloomberg omitted the fact that the cooling system is already or about to be upgraded.

Maybe Bloomberg "News" eventually retracted the claim, but here are two TBR threads based on a BS claim from Bloomberg:

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,335359.0.html
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,335799.0.html

Explaining reasons Bloomberg's claim is absurd on its face is probably deeper into technoid details than anyone would want me to dive, but "absurd on its face" is not hyperbole. Supermicro is still around and going strong, despite Bloomberg's BS.

[Kamaji]

F-35 bashing is a cottage industry. Given Bloomberg's track record for BS, if I cared to take the time I'd find the actual report to see if Bloomberg omitted the fact that the cooling system is already or about to be upgraded.

Maybe Bloomberg "News" eventually retracted the claim, but here are two TBR threads based on a BS claim from Bloomberg:

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,335359.0.html
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,335799.0.html

Explaining reasons Bloomberg's claim is absurd on its face is probably deeper into technoid details than anyone would want me to dive, but "absurd on its face" is not hyperbole. Supermicro is still around and going strong, despite Bloomberg's BS.

It looks like they're trying to argue for the funds to upgrade all of the engines:  https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-35-engine-running-too-hot-due-to-under-speccing-upgrade-now-vital

[DefiantMassRINO]

It's not unusual for next-gen fighters to get upgrades during their lifespans.  How long ago were the original specs written?

The B1-B Lancer has issues because its airframe specs were for a strategic bomber (fewer takeoff-landing cycles, higher altitude operations), not a tactical force protection bomber (more takeoff-landing cycles lower altitude operations).

The A-10 Warthogs were designed to be tank killers on the steppes of Eastern Europe. But, they found themselves being used for close tactical support - a different mission than what they were designed for.

It's a mistake to think any aircraft design is 'final'.  Aircraft are force projection platforms that need to be adapted to the theater of combat at hand.  That's been the success of the B-52 bomber - it's durability and its adaptability.

Most military aircraft require upgrades and modifications once they enter service.

[PeteS in CA]

It's not unusual for next-gen fighters to get upgrades during their lifespans.  How long ago were the original specs written?

The B1-B Lancer has issues because its airframe specs were for a strategic bomber (fewer takeoff-landing cycles, higher altitude operations), not a tactical force protection bomber (more takeoff-landing cycles lower altitude operations).

The A-10 Warthogs were designed to be tank killers on the steppes of Eastern Europe. But, they found themselves being used for close tactical support - a different mission than what they were designed for.

It's a mistake to think any aircraft design is 'final'.  Aircraft are force projection platforms that need to be adapted to the theater of combat at hand.  That's been the success of the B-52 bomber - it's durability and its adaptability.

Most military aircraft require upgrades and modifications once they enter service.

Back in the late 1970s, when I was testing and aligning head-up displays for the F/A-18 and A-10, the P & W F100 engines powering the F-15 and F-16 were having enough problems that the USAF was cannibalizing some planes to keep others flyable. The engines on early production B-29s were catching fire due to cooling problems. Much as one would wish otherwise, "teething problems" during early stages of using military aircraft are not unusual and do get fixed.