Back to Squawk list
  • 7

F-35 Engines from United Technologies called Unreliable

GAO report indicates deep flaws with powerplant and says has limited progress for program going forward ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

patrick baker 5
about this septic tank clean out vehicle with defective propulsion, : what jackass 4 star general officer and joint-chiefs- of staff, and pentagon/.military industrial complex moron could with a straight face tell me this F-34.999 "fighter jet" is a straight up substitute for the magnificent flying ugly-bird, the A-10. Bombload, ? loiter time? accuracy with a monster-round? or any round? Relialability? HELLO....Sometimes the effective way to deal with a ground target is to fly low and slow and blast the bejesus of the other guys with a uranium-depleated round, not a fast, wave-by bird with nowhere enough armament or internal fuel to help very much.. Remember, there were some four hour missions with A-10 support. and the guys lived, and not like the outcome if the bird in question was on station. Dozens of f-35 and tankers and forgetabout it.
Thomas Cain 2
The A-10 is second to none in the lose Air Support Role in the current theatre of operation, where we have total air supremacy. If however it was to be deployed in a conflict with a more experienced adversary like Russia in an area where air superiority was not achieved, it wouldn't stand a chance against enemy fighters or SAMS. That said I don't think this one plane can do it all philosophy is the right approach either, especially with the F-35. It's main advantage is it's stealth capabilities, but that's only effective if only the internal weapons bay are utilized. In the CAS role it would most certainly require external stores, negating it's Stealth advantage, in which case they might as well just used Falcons or Hornets. The only roles I see the F-35 being effective, is a precision strike role deep in enemy territory where only weapons in the internal bomb bays are used, or the traditional fighter role, but again if it needs to use external stores, it's no less vulnerable than a F-16 or FA-18.
Matt West 3
I remember when GE & Rolls Royce were pushing for an alternate engine. I can't help but think a GE/Rolls engine, manufactured by two of the most eminent jet engine manufacturers, would have been a good thing. However, Congress in its infinite wisdom, killed it. Go figure.
too big to fail.... too expensive to fail...... too good to- no scratch that one... military doesn't want it, but have to keep buying home town goods....

Best thing we can do with the F-35 is sell to the enemy...if we had one who could afford just one of them.
preacher1 2
Well, as John says below, it has a voracious appetite for taxpayer dollars.
joel wiley 2
Maybe we are missing something. Maybe this is all a cunning plot on Lockheed's part to gull our adversaries to misunderestimate the plane's capability and is all misdirection. On the other hand, maybe we're not and the goal is to enhance shareholder equity by milking this cow till it exsanguinates.
preacher1 1
Well, even if they can ever, after however many billions of dollars, make this thing work, it at the very least does not need to be in a live delivery mode.
I learned the other day (on TV) - "the whole nine yards", that quote came from the length of the ribbon of bullets on an aircraft. Nine Yards, twenty seven feet...when the pilot got back to base and told of their kill, it was "I gave him the whole nine yards" (meaning, every bullet on the plane).

So, oddly, to me, a plane should have AT LEAST that many bullets - and more.
Wasn't the origin a WWII thing, the .30 Cal ammo box held the 9 yard chain? B-17 gunners are probably the real source of this statement.
joel wiley 2
Sounds like par for the course.
preacher1 2
yep, more kudos to the suits for another coffin nail for a multi-billion dollar hunk of junk that won't work.
canuck44 3
I am still wondering what this boondoggle will do. Computer systems not ready, guns not ready and will not be until 2020 then only have 600 rounds. Range is not much better than a Cesna 172. Doesn't do low level CAS in bad weather or limited maneuvering space. Looks pretty I guess and has a voracious appetite for taxpayer dollars.
Why do you hate Uhmerikuh?
joel wiley 1

preacher1 1
That about gets it all
sparkie624 2
With all the problems with this plane the govern still wants, the military does not want it, and it has so many problems... The A10 to be replaced if government has its way does much of the job of the F35
preacher1 3
The UAF suits want it in order to keep them in a job and have one with Lockheed when they retire but ain't nobody outside the beltway wants it. Problem is, the way Lockheed has go production spread out, there are too many jobs in key congressional districts that it will be like a cat, having 9 lives and can't be killed. The sequester cut the suits down a notch, but they want A10 money to go to the F-35
bentwing60 2
Becoming increasingly difficult to tell whose side the current regime and all its minions is on! I am even more dismayed when a company like Lockheed has drunk the Koolade. The things I thought I understood?
Unfortunately, the folks responsible for this weapon system are still fighting the Cold War. What about the next war? Oh, that requires some thought. - Congress feathering the beds of their supporters. I wish this nation's leadership, both political and military, would attempt to look ahead and build something that works. One size does not fit all - ever!
jbqwik 1
The good news on this holy grail just keeps coming.
bighoss81 1
What else is new?
joel wiley 1
I debated starting a new thread with this, but decided to post it here.

Nice picture of the Fup-35 and it's accoutrements. Which are currently operational, which fit into/on the craft while keeping it 'stealthy'? How does this compare with the operations loads of the F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10 or even the B-17?
joel wiley 1
Or this. If you change prowess to 'pipe dream' it reads better.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.