B1 Down?

[stephenkatsea]

Military Fly Overs - Once while conducting operations in the north Adriatic Sea off of Italy. I was utilizing one of the exterior control stations. It was a beautiful day with just enough breeze to fully extend our U.S. flag from the staff. We got buzzed by a military fighter jet flying so low, I swear I could feel the heat from his engines. My crew said by the time I ducked he was already about a mile away. He slowed, turned came back and showed us his profile, then gave us the classic wing wave as he left the area. Probably one of our guys flying out of Aviono AF Base. Seldom did you see US flag vessels in the area. I’m sure he had spotted our’s. It was good stuff.

 

[86403]

We made a concerted effort (within the constraints of the MTR) to avoid houses, farms, buildings, etc...particularly at night. Speed is life, especially at 400' AGL. In order to have fail-safe 3g fly up protection, we run up to .95 M (720 mph). Normal planning CAS was 560 (645 mph).

 

[rrrr]

I dislike saying it, but the F-35 program is a clusterfuck. A really expensive clusterfuck.

The issue of low aircraft readiness rates tied to the availability of spare parts has been highlighted for years. In 2019, a review by auditors at the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) found only 27% of F-35s were fully mission capable, while 52% were partially mission capable.

Partially mission capable was defined as the multi-role strike aircraft being able to perform at least one of its assigned missions.

During the time of that study, F-35s were unable to fly nearly 30% of the time due to spare parts shortages, the GAO said.

A more recent GAO review from 2023 found the mission capability rate had only improved slightly, to 55%. Availability rates for all three F-35 variants ranged from 50-57%, far below the programme goal of 90% for the F-35A and 85% for the F-35B and C variants.

“This performance was due in part to challenges with depot and organisational maintenance,” the GAO said. “The programme was behind schedule in establishing depot maintenance activities to conduct repairs.”

The issue is a significant driver of cost for the F-35 programme, with sustainment and operation predicted to represent $1.3 trillion of the more than $1.7 trillion in full life-cycle costs associated with fielding the stealth fighter.

Lawmakers move to cut US F-35 purchases over ‘long-standing’ sustainment issues

A provision in wide-ranging defence legislation covering Pentagon operations for 2025 would limit new acquisitions of the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter to 48 examples until concerns about availability rates and aircraft sustainment are addressed.

www.flightglobal.com

The SVTOL F-35B is the worst of the worst. Building a $100 million variant for the Marines that can take off in short runs and land vertically is planned for close air support of ground troops. The aircraft has no defense against an RPG fired at close range. It's vulnerable to MANPADS, one man shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles. The aircraft's ability to provide fire support for ground troops, like the A-10 does so well, is extremely doubtful. The myriad problems with the various systems on the plane have prevented any serious testing of that.

It's insane to suppose vertical landing capabilities of the B model will be useful in combat. The complex engine, gearbox, and fan arrangement has been a maintenance nightmare. When landing, it produces a downblast that has required support ships to have specially constructed decks to handle it. The idea it will land on a dirt road in the Middle East for refueling and rearming is ridiculous. It requires a maintenance tail that essentially prevents it from being deployed. It's a worthless showoff piece of junk.

The maintenance man hours per flight hour (MMH/FH) for the F-35B is around 7.5. This is the number of maintenance hours required for each flight hour of the F-35B.

The MMH/FH for the F-35B has improved over time. For example, in January 2022, the MMH/FH was 7.48, but by August 2022 it was 7.7.

The F-35B has a mean flight hours between failure (MFHF) of four. This means that parts on the F-35B typically last four flight hours before needing to be replaced.

The F-35B has an expected lifespan of 8,000 flight hours.

The military services have reduced the number of flight hours for the F-35, which has helped them meet their affordability targets.

Some members of Congress are questioning the viability of the entire program, and those concerns are more than valid.

I fully support the military. But the truths about the F-35, particularly the Marine's B model and the Navy's carrier capable C model, need to be exposed and discussed. You can't fight a war with an airplane that's in the maintenance hangar 50% of the time. It should be a target for examination by DOGE.

 

[Looking Glass]

B-1 is a gnarly piece of equipment. Late 80's they had one make an emergency landing at Edwards due to nose gear issues. Rumor was it was "flying hot", that's why it was diverted there. I wonder if this was mechanical or electrical failure? Glad to hear no fatalities.

One crashed over in Wyoming some years back.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

Maybe they should have consulted RDP, seems like we have it all figured out.

Both the F-16 and F-18 had steep learning curves when first introduced. And everyone beloved F-14 was basically a dog till half its service life has passed.