The USAF Has To Re-Paint Its Trucks Because The F-35 Can’t Fly On Warm Fuel

[MongGrel]

you should see how much fuel a SR-71 leaks while sitting on the ramp. I would not call the SR-71 a piece of shit.

But the U.S. needed the SR-71. Unlike the U-2, the SR-71 could not be shot down. I am all for improving the arsenal of the U.S.... but until the funds are there we still have options superior to other countries military power. The 40 year old A-10 warthog is still a great platform. Upgrades to the F-16,F-15,F-18 make them formidable as well.

Fuel too warm? Not good when operating in a desert in the summer.

And unlike the F-35, the SR-71 works. As someone also pointed out, the leaking was by design and not the unending list of fuck ups that have plagued the F-35.

Ya, it was a bit of a different beast, it was designed that way intentionally.

 

[MongGrel]

What do you give to the marines then? They are pretty tied to STOVL capability.

The Osprey was almost as bad cost wise, and vertical.

I was in the air wing there, and really don't think either have been worth the costs involved.

 

[norseamd]

And heck, while we're at it, if we're looking to save a buck, why not combine our ground forces (Army and Marines) into one unified branch?

Fully unified military is what we actually fucking need for the next century especially with the rise of 4th generation warfare.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

$3900 for the paint for each truck??? Egads.

Hey Air Force: Go to Home Depot, get a few gallons of white Rustoleum, a compressor, a paint gun, and 100 feet of air hose. Shouldn't cost you more than $750 per truck.

Unless things have changed since I got out of the Navy in 11/90 and even then I seriously doubt it has, that paint would have to meet MilSpecs. In order to MilSpecs the paint would be subjected to tests to ensure it meets all the criteria. The paperwork would probably weigh more than a one gallon can.

 

[Karl Agathon]

F35 would be a fine aircraft if it didn't have the variants. Nothing wrong with a stealthy multi-role fighter, but it clearly was too much to expect a stealthy multi-role fighter with a carrier variant and a STOVL variant all to be developed at the same time AND to expect it to be cheap.

I think in hindsight there should have been more F22 production, and probably one more airframe beyond the F35, probably a dedicated STOVL design.

Totally agree! F-22 production halted way to early. There should have been at least 100 more made. They're going to be heavily needed when Red China becomes the near equivalent to the 3rd Reich.

 

[Sonikku]

$3900 for the paint for each truck??? Egads.

Hey Air Force: Go to Home Depot, get a few gallons of white Rustoleum, a compressor, a paint gun, and 100 feet of air hose. Shouldn't cost you more than $750 per truck.

Hell if they knew that they wouldn't be spending $300 on a toilet seat or hammer would they?

 

[railer]

This story is a little closer to the truth:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102253195#.

"Editor's note: An earlier version of this story cited Air Force sources who indicated that the F-35 can't tolerate fuel that exceeds a certain temperature. The Air Force base public affairs office told CNBC at that time that crews testing the state-of-the-art jet fighter discovered the problem and were trying to solve it. The Air Force subsequently said that its efforts, which include repainting fuel vehicles, were meant to be proactive in case of future problems rather than designed to fix existing issues."

 

[trenchfoot]

What I'd really like to see is how much profit the manufacturer gets out of each aircraft, sale of spare parts and tech rep maint. services.

 

[rommelrommel]

The F-35 is the most expensive airplane technology experiment, ever. It would have been a lot better to just work on improving the deficencies of the F-22 and coming out with a 2 seater F-22 for strike duties, and dropping the VTOL variant. This is like the military version of Pepsi and Cheetos for Links card users...

Funny thing is I don't think that the F35 did address any of the raptor deficiencies, except maybe the raptor cough... but that's because it's so much less maneuverable, not out of any improvement.

 

[werepossum]

F35 would be a fine aircraft if it didn't have the variants. Nothing wrong with a stealthy multi-role fighter, but it clearly was too much to expect a stealthy multi-role fighter with a carrier variant and a STOVL variant all to be developed at the same time AND to expect it to be cheap.

I think in hindsight there should have been more F22 production, and probably one more airframe beyond the F35, probably a dedicated STOVL design.

Yep, although it's worth pointing out that there's only roughly 35% commonality. It's kinda like the "off-the-shelf" Stryker, the commonality is not at all what it's being sold to be. Basically they're designing three warplanes simultaneously while making compromises to keep as much commonality as is practical - in addition to the normal and customary compromises.

Armchair general here: We should have just skipped the vertical take-off design altogether and simply relied on carrier and land-based variants.

I really don't see why our Marines couldn't get by just as well if not better on a combination of attack choppers and carrier-launched strike fighters, but for our allies an S/VTOL version was essential because they only operate small ski ramp carriers.

Ironically the additional costs of the compromises probably costs us far more than our allies save us, while also giving us three less capable aircraft.

 

[Subyman]

$3900 for the paint for each truck??? Egads.

Hey Air Force: Go to Home Depot, get a few gallons of white Rustoleum, a compressor, a paint gun, and 100 feet of air hose. Shouldn't cost you more than $750 per truck.

Is that for the paint or the entire job? A normal car paint job with prep and junk costs $2-3k for a decent job. A semi tanker would obviously be more.

 

[rommelrommel]

Yep, although it's worth pointing out that there's only roughly 35% commonality. It's kinda like the "off-the-shelf" Stryker, the commonality is not at all what it's being sold to be. Basically they're designing three warplanes simultaneously while making compromises to keep as much commonality as is practical - in addition to the normal and customary compromises.


I really don't see why our Marines couldn't get by just as well if not better on a combination of attack choppers and carrier-launched strike fighters, but for our allies an S/VTOL version was essential because they only operate small ski ramp carriers.

Ironically the additional costs of the compromises probably costs us far more than our allies save us, while also giving us three less capable aircraft.

There's a decent chance that no U.S. ally will ever operate STOVL F35's off of a carrier anyways, the UK carriers are in budget jeopardy and who knows when the F-35B will even be available. The Italians and the Aussies could run them but who knows with budget issues.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Cancelling the F22 program to rely on a fleet of "cheaper" F35s that ended up costing nearly as much as the F22 per plane...lolz

let me know when an F22 can land on a carrier or LHC....short answer is never.

F35 would be a fine aircraft if it didn't have the variants. Nothing wrong with a stealthy multi-role fighter, but it clearly was too much to expect a stealthy multi-role fighter with a carrier variant and a STOVL variant all to be developed at the same time AND to expect it to be cheap.

I think in hindsight there should have been more F22 production, and probably one more airframe beyond the F35, probably a dedicated STOVL design.

agreed. had it been 3 separate aircraft, it would probably be fine. but trying to make 1 airframe fit 3 very, very different roles was way too much.

 

[Merad]

$3900 for the paint for each truck??? Egads.

Hey Air Force: Go to Home Depot, get a few gallons of white Rustoleum, a compressor, a paint gun, and 100 feet of air hose. Shouldn't cost you more than $750 per truck.

This article doesn't mention it but they don't use normal paint. It's got some high tech reflective shit to deflect the sun's energy. They are hoping that will be able to use it in green paint eventually 'cause they don't want bright white trucks on their bases in war zones.

let me know when an F22 can land on a carrier or LHC....short answer is never.

Modifying an airframe to be carrier capable is perfectly doable. Hell it's been done with C-130s. A naval F-22 was planned but canceled in the 90s.

 

[chucky2]

Funny thing is I don't think that the F35 did address any of the raptor deficiencies, except maybe the raptor cough... but that's because it's so much less maneuverable, not out of any improvement.

Well, it's got newer tech, they've done helmet work (and had helmet problems), their radar absorbing skin deduced and tested for F-35 is being used on the problem prone skin of the F-22 now. Essentially what the F-35 can be looked at is: 1.) jobs program for just about every state in the union and participating countries, and 2.) a technology development and testing testbed.

Unfortunately, compared to what could have been, we're also going to put all that tech onto an airframe that has steadily grown less and less capable from when the initial requirements were drawn up. It's only money...

 

[OverVolt]

Armchair general here: We should have just skipped the vertical take-off design altogether and simply relied on carrier and land-based variants.

Its common sense. Apparently they needed more armchair experts designing the F-35.

This is a direct result of a lack of oversight. Old government oversight used to go "show me"

Like "Our models show the paint won't peel away near the afterburner" -- "Okay show me"

And whaddya know the temperatures was a couple C higher than predicted and the paint peeled. So back to the drawing board.

For the F-35 they cut alot of deals where instead of demonstrating proof of concept they did it via models, CAD, whatever. The list of expensive screws ups is enormous, and this was initially done in the name of saving money. I honestly don't think the plane will ever function as intended if at all.

 

[Sonikku]

Its common sense. Apparently they needed more armchair experts designing the F-35.

This is a direct result of a lack of oversight. Old government oversight used to go "show me"

Like "Our models show the paint won't peel away near the afterburner" -- "Okay show me"

And whaddya know the temperatures was a couple C higher than predicted and the paint peeled. So back to the drawing board.

For the F-35 they cut alot of deals where instead of demonstrating proof of concept they did it via models, CAD, whatever. The list of expensive screws ups is enormous, and this was initially done in the name of saving money. I honestly don't think the plane will ever function as intended if at all.

We thought trying to make a plan to cut back with cheap F-35's would save money. Who knew trying to cut back could actually end up costing us more in the long run? :'(

 

[dainthomas]

$3900 for the paint for each truck??? Egads.

Hey Air Force: Go to Home Depot, get a few gallons of white Rustoleum, a compressor, a paint gun, and 100 feet of air hose. Shouldn't cost you more than $750 per truck.

Go to a decent body shop and ask them how much it will be to paint your car a different color.

Then double or triple that for painting a giant-ass fuel truck. Probably in the ballpark.

 

[hal2kilo]

Unless things have changed since I got out of the Navy in 11/90 and even then I seriously doubt it has, that paint would have to meet MilSpecs. In order to MilSpecs the paint would be subjected to tests to ensure it meets all the criteria. The paperwork would probably weigh more than a one gallon can.

It's amazing. So many times the change in documentation cost way more than the part.

 

[mooncancook]

$3900 for the paint for each truck??? Egads.

Hey Air Force: Go to Home Depot, get a few gallons of white Rustoleum, a compressor, a paint gun, and 100 feet of air hose. Shouldn't cost you more than $750 per truck.

The military will never accept such cheap paints, even if it's equal in quality.

 

[werepossum]

There's a decent chance that no U.S. ally will ever operate STOVL F35's off of a carrier anyways, the UK carriers are in budget jeopardy and who knows when the F-35B will even be available. The Italians and the Aussies could run them but who knows with budget issues.

Good point. Hell, had the Argentinians waited just a few more months to annex the Falklands, the UK would have been out of the carrier business long ago. As things stand the F-35B is going to be much more expensive to buy as well as operate; could be no one wants it.

let me know when an F22 can land on a carrier or LHC....short answer is never.



agreed. had it been 3 separate aircraft, it would probably be fine. but trying to make 1 airframe fit 3 very, very different roles was way too much.

You make a good point, but when your aircraft is so short-legged that you have to place the carriers in unacceptable risk to use them . . .

Well, it's got newer tech, they've done helmet work (and had helmet problems), their radar absorbing skin deduced and tested for F-35 is being used on the problem prone skin of the F-22 now. Essentially what the F-35 can be looked at is: 1.) jobs program for just about every state in the union and participating countries, and 2.) a technology development and testing testbed.

Unfortunately, compared to what could have been, we're also going to put all that tech onto an airframe that has steadily grown less and less capable from when the initial requirements were drawn up. It's only money...

Yep. The more things one makes a weapon do, the less well it does any of them. That's a given, and it's amazing how that slips past really smart people.

On the other hand, when those really smart people are making millions not learning that lesson project after project, hard to believe it's not intentional.

 

[davmat787]

Yep, although it's worth pointing out that there's only roughly 35% commonality. It's kinda like the "off-the-shelf" Stryker, the commonality is not at all what it's being sold to be. Basically they're designing three warplanes simultaneously while making compromises to keep as much commonality as is practical - in addition to the normal and customary compromises.


I really don't see why our Marines couldn't get by just as well if not better on a combination of attack choppers and carrier-launched strike fighters, but for our allies an S/VTOL version was essential because they only operate small ski ramp carriers.

Ironically the additional costs of the compromises probably costs us far more than our allies save us, while also giving us three less capable aircraft.

The Marines have pointed to the failed hostage rescue mission in Iran time after time to prove they need this capability which first led to the V-22 Osprey and now their special version of the F-35.

Even Norway has special needs for her F-35's, they are paying for the development costs of a parachute system which will allow for traditional landings on iced runways.

 

[werepossum]

The Marines have pointed to the failed hostage rescue mission in Iran time after time to prove they need this capability which first led to the V-22 Osprey and now their special version of the F-35.

Even Norway has special needs for her F-35's, they are paying for the development costs of a parachute system which will allow for traditional landings on iced runways.

The Osprey I can absolutely see; it does things no existing aircraft can do. The F-35B is less clear, as it does things which existing aircraft already do better. Developing a purpose-built stealthy strike fighter would have been a lot better than adopting a stealthy strike fighter which is noticeably worse in its core role because of its new compromises.

 

[norseamd]

The F-35B is less clear, as it does things which existing aircraft already do better. Developing a purpose-built stealthy strike fighter would have been a lot better than adopting a stealthy strike fighter which is noticeably worse in its core role because of its new compromises.

Actually the F-35B needs to be scrapped because it is STOVL instead of VTOL. And I think the only F-35 that was worth R&D and producing was a VTOL Harrier Jump Jet replacement for amphibious and close air support operations.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

lol, the F16 and F18 had fuel problems too. The mainstream media needs to stick with sensational race-baiting and celebrity drama. They are too clueless about aircraft design to be commenting. The original article is just flat out wrong about the aircraft being unable to fly due to warm fuel.

“This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft,” said Joe DellaVedova, program spokesman, in an email yesterday evening.

The folks at Luke say they are testing the new paint jobs to avoid problems, according to the AETC story: “‘It ensures the F-35 is able to meet its sortie requirements,’ said Chief Master Sgt. Ralph Resch, 56th LRS fuels manager. ‘We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future.'”

“Painting fuel trucks to reduce fuel temperature and improve aircraft performance will benefit legacy aircraft as well as F-35. There is no fuel temperature upper limitation on F-35 operations that would
prevent sorties, and no sorties have been cancelled as a result of fuel temperature,” Kyra Hawn, deputy spokesman at the JPO, said in an email this morning. “Daily F-35 operations at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, and Luke Air Force Base have been unaffected by hot environment or fuel temperature.”

The plane is now undergoing climate tests: heat, cold, rain, snow, ice etc. A lab test imposing temperatures in excess of 130 degrees was just completed “and the aircraft performed exceptionally well based on preliminary information collected,” Hawn wrote. Full climate results will be ready in the spring of 2015.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/the-tale-of-the-f-35-and-hot-jet-fuel/