Forum: General F-35 Forum

The F-35 joint strike fighter won't make its first flight in 2005 after all, Pentagon and Lockheed Martin officials concede, and a major rewrite of the program's timetable may be announced soon.

Months of work have failed to trim hundreds of unwanted pounds from the simplest of the three F-35 versions. So Pentagon officials have decided that more time is needed to solve the design challenges.

Lockheed spokesman John Kent confirmed Monday that the first flight of the F-35, which was to have occurred late in 2005, will not happen before spring 2006.

"A lot of that is the weight problems we're working with," Kent said.

In October 2001, when the team of Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems was awarded $19 billion to develop the F-35, Pentagon weapons chief E.C. "Pete" Aldridge expressed confidence that the first flight would occur by late 2005.

But the teams of engineers are having problems designing a family of aircraft to carry out three very different missions.

For nearly a year, Lockheed and its partners have been struggling to trim the weight of the aircraft to desired levels. An overweight aircraft is less maneuverable, has a shorter range and can carry less payload.

That means that the aircraft can't perform combat missions as well as expected.

The first flight isn't the only important milestone being delayed. A crucial design review scheduled for April, which was expected to result in approval of the majority of the aircraft's design work and decisions to begin building more parts and components, has been pushed back until spring 2005.

F-35 program spokeswoman Kathy Crawford said there will be an evaluation of how else aircraft weight can be reduced.

The development delays mean that fewer parts for prototype aircraft have been released for manufacturing, both in-house and by subcontractors, than originally planned, Kent said. "We're scrutinizing parts in more detail than before," looking for weight savings.

Lockheed, Northrop, BAE and key subcontractors employ more than 6,000 engineers and technicians, about 3,400 of them in Fort Worth, for the design work.

The Pentagon has said it expects to buy 2,600 F-35s over the next two decades, and many other countries are expected to order versions of the aircraft to replace their fighters. Britain has committed to buy at least 150.

Analysts say the JSF program still has solid support, both internally and politically, and is in no grave danger of being canceled. But schedule delays drive up the program's price.

In January, the Pentagon's budget office delayed by a year plans to buy the first F-35s and cut planned purchases for several years afterward to save $5 billion. The money was plugged into the development effort, which officials have said is about $7.5 billion over its original $33 billion budget.

Air Force Gen. Jack Hudson, the program director, is briefing senior Pentagon officials and leaders of the Air Force, Navy and Marines on the issues and discussing alternatives, Crawford said.

Options for restructuring the program include focusing on the Air Force's version of the F-35 first and putting off the Marine version, the most difficult, until later, Crawford said.

Engineers estimate that the Air Force version, the furthest along in the design process and the simplest to produce, is about 8 percent above its desired weight of 29,000 pounds, according to Lockheed spokesman Kent.

The other two versions are similarly overweight. The added weight means that the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing version for the Marines, if built today, might not be able to fly as far as desired with a full load of fuel and weapons, according to Inside the Air Force, a defense newsletter.

Options for restructuring the program include focusing on the Air Force's version of the F-35 first and putting off the Marine version, the most difficult, until later, Crawford said.

Well, sure, the Corps does not have an absolute need for a jump jet. They did very good job when they did not have one, but I doubt they are not really frustrated to see their JSF version delayed.

BTW, maybe it is only the outside impression of a foreigner, but I feel that Marine Corps officers usually talk more freely about the USMC doctrine than, say, USAF officers about the USAF doctrine. Am I wrong?