Home » Aviation » UPDATED: F-35s Grounded for Engine Inspections Following Crash Investigation Findings


UPDATED: F-35s Grounded for Engine Inspections Following Crash Investigation Findings

Chief Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Handling) John Jacob directs an F-35B Lightning II with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121 on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD-1) on March 5, 2018. US Navy Photo

THE PENTAGON — All U.S. and international variants of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter operations were paused to conduct a fleet-wide inspection of a part in the aircraft’s engine, according to a Thursday morning statement.

“The action to perform the inspection is driven from initial data from the ongoing investigation of the F-35B that crashed in the vicinity of Beaufort, South Carolina on 28 September,” read the statement from the F-35 Joint Program Office.
“The aircraft mishap board is continuing its work and the U.S. Marine Corps will provide additional information when it becomes available.”

The grounding follows the crash of an F-35B from training squadron Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 (VMFAT-501) near Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, according to a statement at the time from II Marine Expeditionary Force (II MEF). The pilot safely ejected and no one on the ground was injured.

According to the JPO, the inspection will look for specific defects in a fuel tube in the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine that powers all of the variants.

“If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status,” the statement said. “Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours. … The primary goal following any mishap is the prevention of future incidents. We will take every measure to ensure safe operations while we deliver, sustain and modernize the F-35 for the warfighter and our defense partners.”

The Navy has not had its variant of the F-35C underway since the completion of at-sea testing aboard USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) last month.

The Marines have two squadrons of F-35Bs deployed with the Essex and Wasp Amphibious Ready Groups. The Essex ARG entered the Persian Gulf yesterday, several sources confirmed to USNI News. In September, F-35Bs from the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 211 “Wake Island Avengers” flying off USS Essex (LHD-2) conducted the platform’s first operational strikes over Afghanistan.

Some F-35s were back to operations quickly after inspections. For example, the F-35Bs testing on HMS Queen Elizabeth (R06) was paused only briefly and didn’t alter the testing schedule, according to the U.K. Ministry of Defence.

The following is the complete Oct. 11, 2018 statement from the JSF Joint Program Office.
F-35 Fuel Tube Inspection and Flight Operations

The U.S. Services and international partners have temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations while the enterprise conducts a fleet-wide inspection of a fuel tube within the engine on all F-35 aircraft. If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status. Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours.

The action to perform the inspection is driven from initial data from the ongoing investigation of the F-35B that crashed in the vicinity of Beaufort, South Carolina on 28 September. The aircraft mishap board is continuing its work and the U.S. Marine Corps will provide additional information when it becomes available.

The primary goal following any mishap is the prevention of future incidents. We will take every measure to ensure safe operations while we deliver, sustain and modernize the F-35 for the warfighter and our defense partners.

  • CharleyA

    One engine. Full stop.

    • Desplanes

      Right. One vendor and the ENTIRE fleet is grounded. Good job.

      • Duane

        All engines on all US military aircraft have just one vendor each. It makes no difference whether an aircraft is a single engine or twin engine aircraft.

        • Desplanes

          Duane, the F-15 and F-16 fleets operate with both GE and P&W engines. This maintained competition and, I believe, triggered improvements to the P&W F100.

          It also removes the risk of an entire fleet of airframes being grounded due to an engine design flaw.

          Before you think you’re going to correct me, aircraft blocks are built with one engine model in mind. i.e F100s in certain blocks and F110s in others. Not interchangeable between subtypes.

          • Duane

            A given model of an aircraft has just one engine vendor. Different models of the same basic airframe, produced decades apart, an involve a change in engine vendor.

            There are no F-15s that have one P&W and one GE engine, ditto with F/A-18s.

            You completely whiffed on the point.

          • Refguy

            Originally 15 and 16 had the F100. The F110 was a derivative of the B-1 engine and was supposed to be an alternate engine for the 15 and 16 (competitive buy for each production lot) and a replacement for the still-borne F401 in the F-14B and D. Ultimately, all F-15’s used the F100 and later F-16’s and the F-14B and D got the F110.

          • E1 Kabong

            Some export F-15’s use GE motors.

          • Refguy

            I stand corrected on the foreign aircraft.

          • E1 Kabong

            Those GE powered Eagles are better than the USAF ones, according to pilots I talk to.

          • Refguy

            I would expect them to be, but don’t have any documentation to support my opinion. Score one for the lobbying team at Pratt.

          • Refguy

            My reply seems to have disappeared. I would expect the Eagles to be better with the F110, but I don’t have the data support my opinion. Score one for the Pratt lobbying team for keeping the F110 out of the Eagle, but at least USAF didn’t wind up with all of its Gen 4 aircraft using the same engine and facing the possibility of all of its fighters being grounded by problems at Pratt.

          • E1 Kabong

            Agreed.

            Why the USAF keeps going with P&W over the better GE motors is a mystery.

        • George Hollingsworth

          Uh, the KC-135 was re-engined with the GE CFM-56 in place of the Pratt and Whitney J-57s

          • Refguy

            Air Guard only. Change was primarily because J57 was obsolete, underpowered and a fuel hog; not to get a second source.

      • Marauder 2048

        “One vendor and the ENTIRE fleet is grounded.”

        You’re talking about 99.99% of fast jets in the carrier air wing right?

    • Nigel R

      Well Charley, considering the vast improvements in engine reliability (up until relatively recently, two engined commercial Airliners were not permitted to fly too far away from land), your comment holds no ground. During the Falklands War of 1982, RN Sea Harriers, one-engined, performed well in horrendous conditions, withiut loss due to engine failure.
      The F16, an outstanding aircraft, was for some time during its first years of service, known as ‘the plough’, due to number that crashed. Now look at it!
      Nigel

      • CharleyA

        Eurofighter, Rafale, F-22, Super Hornet, Su-35 (and no single engine commercial airliners are certified.) Harrier and F-35B had to be singles, and we continue to lose F-16s due to the engine quitting – one earlier this year. Sorry mate, two is better.

        • E1 Kabong

          F-16’s….Harriers….Super Etendards….A-4’s….A-7’s….Mirages….

          “(and no single engine commercial airliners are certified.)”?

          HILARIOUS!

          And utterly irrelevant.

          Why not mention there not being any single engined, heavy lift transports, while you’re at it?

          “Harrier and F-35B had to be singles…”?

          HAD to be?
          Nothing to do with the requirement for LIGHT fighter-attack aircraft, right?

          “…and we continue to lose F-16s due to the engine quitting…”?

          And you continue to ignore the facts.

          How many F-16’s are flying and how many hours does the fleet rack up in a year?

          You should be sorry. Mate.

          • CharleyA

            While the Harrier might be “light,” the F-35B is certainly not. Their unique propulsion systems drove the single engine requirement. A developmental design predecessor (or two) of the JSF had two engines, but the USAF wanted a single to replace the F-16, the Marines wanted VTOL (but got STOVL because of weight constraints.) The Navy preferred a twin to replace its current twin (F/A-18) for safety considerations, but acquiesced under OSD pressure / internal politics to either accept a single or have no new aircraft for a while. Turns out the F-35 was much later than expected, probably in the same timeframe if the Navy decided to delay a Hornet replacement.

          • E1 Kabong

            Nope….

            According to what source?

        • Marauder 2048

          Hence the MQ-25.

    • E1 Kabong

      Engine reliability. Massively improved over the decades.

      Full speed ahead.

      F-16’s….Harriers….Super Etendards….A-4’s….A-7’s….Mirages….

      • CharleyA

        Except when they fail. F-35 tally so far: 3.

        • E1 Kabong

          Wrong.

          How many Super Hornets have crashed?
          F-16’s?

          Clearly, you’ve never read the USAF accident statistics.

        • Mk-Ultra

          The F-35 passed 100,000 hours without a single crash. This is it’s first crash. You’re hallucinating

          • CharleyA

            We’re talking engine malfunctions that result is write-offs: Elgin, Mountain Home, Beaufort. Two F-35As, one F-35B. This doesn’t include the Beaufort jet that suffered an in-flight fire that also resulted in a write off.

  • RunningBear

    The silence led to concerned apprehension that a possibility was the “ever encompassing pilot error”, at least now we are perhaps beyond that, “RELIEF!”. As dangerous and wasteful as a crash is, it will offer an opportunity to investigate the onboard data logging for a pointer to the failure.

    Find it, Fix it, Fly it.
    IMHO
    Fly Navy
    🙂

    • Duane

      The Navy is far from completing its investigation of the crash. A “suspect” part is just that suspected, not known. This most likely one of those instances of an action taken in an abundance of caution and at relatively little cost in downtime (just 24 to 48 hours). Depending on what is found in the inspections, it may or may not tend to confirm or deny the suspicions of the particular part.

      • RunningBear

        Lot 10 produced 92 new a/c and 3 of those were assigned to MCAS Beaufort. If that lot of fuel tubes were installed in those engines, then confirmation by the USAF and USN will correlate/ retrict this “suspicion” to a lot and perhaps the QC specifications. The ominous recent cautionary landings at;

        1- In April, a Marine Corps F-35B out the Marine Corps air station at Cherry Point, North Carolina, was forced to make an emergency landing when the aircraft fuel light came on.

        2- A Navy F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter made an emergency landing at Yosemite International Airport in Fresno on Monday afternoon due to a possible mechanical glitch, Navy officials in California confirmed Tuesday.

        I acknowledge that the bazillion of parts in an a/c can affect systems to initiate multitudes of alarms but, even though many are closed as “A-799”, some are truly intermittent and can cause disastrous results. I expect a fault to be found and fixed and communicated to others that can verify their systems are A-OK.
        IMHO
        Fly Navy
        🙂

        • RunningBear

          OMG!, I forgot the only struck F-35B had a inflight fire in the weapons bay;

          The Marine Corps’ investigation also criticized the aircraft’s pilot warning system, which can “be confusing and task saturating for pilots” during complex emergencies because there is no way of knowing which warning is the most serious, the investigation found. In this case, so many warning lights flashed in such a short period of time that it would be difficult for an experienced F-35 pilot to prioritize them, the investigation found.

          Maybe this one didn’t allow the pilot to make it back to the runway!
          IMHO
          Fly Navy
          🙂

          • CharleyA

            Seems to be the perfect reason to redesign the warning system to do more of the thinking / prioritization / recommending actions and taking immediate steps. Certainly has the processing power. Saturating the pilot with confusing and possibly contradicting cautions / warnings is not helpful when on fire.

          • RunningBear

            I would expect a mature alarm management effectively provided in the a/c but as the events rapidly lead to a big hole in the ground, it may be less effective in that short period of time. The emergency training ultimately ending with the ejection is the demonstrated backup.
            The crash site is less than 4 miles from the end of the 7Kft. runway 32 which is adjacent to the ramp enclosures for the F-35s. If this occurred on takeoff, the total flight time would be less than two minutes. From the point of brake release, the total time would be less than four minutes, with a possible/similar weapons bay fire detected/ or flameout at or slightly before rotation. Not a heavy populated area but a local high school straight out and approximately the crash site distance. Hugh assumptions of one scenario!
            IMHO
            Fly Navy
            🙂

  • George Hollingsworth

    What is a “fuel tube”? Fuel line, maybe, but I have never heard of a fuel tube. Something integral to the fuel control?

    • Michael Hoskins, Privileged

      Methinks that is a deliberate fogification.

      • George Hollingsworth

        A fatigue fracture of a steel fuel line would be obvious from the signature of the break. About the only failure I can think of that could be isolated and identified so quickly.

    • WpnsLoader175

      Trust me, its a thing.

    • RunningBear

      We Hope!

      IMHO
      Fly Navy
      🙂

      • donny1040

        RunningBear (and all). I spent several years as an Aerospace Quality Systems Manager for a small firm that produced individual parts for a number of major jet engine designers/manufacturers. As an approved AS/ISO manufacturer, we received engineering designs for individual engine and support components, reviewed our material and manufacturing costs and in-house Special Processes. If outside vendors were required to provide additional Special Processes / specialized machining actions, they would provide us their quotes for each batch of parts also.
        The major engine manufacturer would decide which AS/ISO subcontractor would get a contract to provide quantities of specific parts within a certain timeline. Note that AS/ISO certification is a very strenuous program to be certified in and to maintain. All Special Process Operators must remain tested and certified in their various fields, no matter what subcontractor they work for. The record keeping functions for all AS/ISO training, testing and personnel must be absolutely foolproof.
        It is required that all records associated with each Aerospace part and associated personnel must be stored in climate controlled environments for at least twenty years AFTER the end of each individual group part contract. In effect, a single jet engine for any airframe may have upwards of a hundred or more AS/ISO certified subcontractors that produced individual parts for each engine.
        After each engine failure, the search begins for: 1. The failed part. 2. The actual failure mode. 3. The contractor (and sub-contractors) of the failure mode. 4. The documents associated with the failure mode materials, processes, operating personnel, personnel training records. The final steps include: what other engines have a part from the same batch: or the same material: the same manufacturing personnel: the same Special Process Operators. You can see where this process will go. Every other part from the same batch of parts – the same AS/ISO process – the same Process Operators could be suspect and must be tracked down. Hope this sheds some light on part failures and the processes that produce parts and strive to prevent failures.

        • RunningBear

          Thank You, Yes!
          I am familiar with this process from experience in another ISO industry and have tracked bad batches to “ad nauseam”!
          Fly Navy
          🙂

    • delta9991

      Can be used rather interchangeably. I’ve always heard them referred to (in commercial aviation) as fuel tubes.

      • Refguy

        I believe that line is typically used as providing fuel to the FADEC; tubes run from the FADEC to the combustion chamber.

        • delta9991

          I usually think of it as the “line” is the entire unique path fuel takes from wing to components (heat exchangers, control units, etc) then to combustion where as the “tube” are the individual tubes that carry from A-B

          • Refguy

            I think we’re saying the same thing, but you are expressing it better; the tubes begin at the manifold and end at the nozzles or spray bars?

  • b2

    Hmmm. After the last couple years mishaps in all type aircraft/air vehicles, I am surprised they (Joint Program Office have gone so far to describe a failure component so soon.. Especially at this stage. How about that F-35C that landed short of Le-moore at Fresno and the one that had to trap aboard immediately after IFR from a SuperHornet recently we’ve read about in USNI news? Inquiring minds want to know… Just saying.

    Yeah, methinks we have problems and that this dilemma we are in wasn’t caused by “sequestration”.. I also know that fixing it will not be solved with “3-D printing”… Just saying #2.

    • RunningBear

      Public awareness of this program will almost not accept anything less. The “Bee” engine at Cherry Point should have provided the pucker factor for all the drivers of the new $100+M a/c. Dead sticking 15tons into a Fresno traffic pattern would not be a high-light of my day! After topping off the tanks, the maintenance repairs for that warning light would have been anti-climatic (just hope it doesn’t happen again!).
      IMHO
      Fly Navy
      🙂

  • WpnsLoader175

    You must work on the program to have such insider knowledge. I assure you the F-35s were being tested before 2017, quite rigorously as well. The F-35 doesn’t have to beat the S-300 (SA-10 to the Russians also called a Grumble), however the JSOW-ER does.

    Also, you do not “dodge missiles”. You “defeat” them with superior ECM and tactics. Clearly you know little about combat aviation.

  • Bulldogdriver

    Your non-existent knowledge of military aviation and war is exposed in this post. War is all about achieving effects. Just see what Isreal is doing so frequently over Syria and you will see how having a bunch of cheaper SAMs doesn’t help u ‘win’.

  • Michael Cunningham

    Dang … F-14D’s at Monthan have better reliability than this bird 🙁

    • Graeme Rymill

      Eight F-14Ds written off in crashes and accidents from just 55 F-14Ds completed or converted. The F-35 doesn’t have too much to worry about.

      • muzzleloader

        I recall two brand new D models being lost off of California during ACM training. The CO was fired because of it.

    • E1 Kabong

      No, it didn’t

      Go read up the availability rates.

      The first prototype crashed during it’s first flight….

    • Mk-Ultra

      The F-35 suffered zero losses from development to being combat ready. It’s only recently there’s been a single airframe loss. And with that loss it’s still the safest jet in it’s relative history compared to other programs.

  • WpnsLoader175

    Ok, so I seemed to have found yet another internet air combat expert. My apologies for not realizing your superior knowledge on the subject at hand. I may not know much, but I have been hands on with F-35s for about 4 years now, loaded a bunch of weapons and did some cool test stuff, all of which gives me enough knowledge to doubt you claims.

    We do not shoot down SAMs with AAMs, I don’t even know if that is technically possible. Our EW technology is WAY more advanced than anyone realizes, on all our aircraft, not just the 5th gen stuff. Are the 5th gen planes vulnerable, heck yea they are, no doubt. Are they still relevant? Yes they are. Are drones cheaper? Yes. Are drones as capable? Not currently no…maybe in the future.

    May be you have been down range, maybe you are even a combat pilot or work for a Washington D.C./Pentagon Think Tank…but I doubt it. Stop making claims about tech that you don’t know about and if you do know about it, you shouldn’t be talking about it online.

  • RunningBear

    Yes, it is embarrassingly obvious!
    IMHO
    Fly Navy
    🙂

  • John Newman

    Sally, you said, “What is more, the Australians did a comparison of the F-18s and the F-15s to the F-35s, and came to the same conclusion.” What the??
    And which “Australians” would that be? Would it be the very small group of anti F-35 zealots here in Australia that have no credibility whatsoever? Who?
    It certainly isn’t the Australian Government, or the Australian Defence Department or the RAAF (in fact both the major political parties here support the acquisition of the F-35A, and that acquisition is continuing on time too).
    You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

  • You seriously believe that?

  • David Oldham

    Who did the Australians borrow F-15s from for this so called comparison? Your bias against the F-35 is obvious. I guess the South Koreans ran a comparison of their F-4s and also found the F-35 wanting. As to the Canadian nothing better? again based on what.

    • R’ Yitzchak M

      The so called “bias” against F-35 “flying” DODO is a farce. Everything on this bird is an utter disaster but gadgets.

      • E1 Kabong

        100% wrong, junior.

        Why are ALL those countries buying F-35’s?

    • Sally

      See my commit to John Newman below.

      • E1 Kabong

        See my COMMENT to you above.

        Try an ESL class.

    • Secundius

      Australia “Didn’t” exactly burrow the F-15’s! Australia was the “Stepping Stone” for the Singapore Air Force F-15SG’s, as a Stop Over for deployment to New Zealand. Singapore buy’s it’s Iron Sand from New Zealand, and to assure a Secure Shipment of that Iron Sand. Singapore went All Out to protect it’s interest, by Guarding the Production Source with 18 F-15SG’s and 4 E-2C’s…

      • R’ Yitzchak M

        A very smart sevection..

        • Secundius

          The New Zealand Air Force get’s 24/7/365 Fighter Protection and Singapore get’s it’s much valued Iron Sand. A “Win-Win” anyway you look at it…

  • David Oldham

    The Syrians reportedly spent $1 billion for their S-300 launchers and 100 missiles. Do the math.

  • CharleyA

    “Even the supposedly “unsophisticated” Iranians were able to hijack one of the CIA’s RQ-170 drones back in 2011″

    Yea, that scenario didn’t happen.

  • John Newman

    Sally, Sally, Sally, you really don’t know what you are talking about with F-35A procurement here in Australia, no ideal whatsoever.

    In regard to your ‘claim’ that all 72 F-35As on order for the RAAF won’t receive Block 3F until 2022 is completely wrong.

    The first two aircraft that the RAAF received from LRIP 6 have now been upgraded to Block 3F and all of the next eight aircraft from the ‘current’ LRIP 10 are being delivered this year with Block 3F, as will all the other airframes from following production lots, all 72 F-35As for the RAAF will be delivered by end of 2023 and all with Block 3F (please do a bit of proper research and you will find this to be true!).

    And of course they don’t have Block 4, it hasn’t been completed or released yet!!! (but when it is available the RAAFs jets will be upgraded as has been the project plan here in Australia for many many years).
    As for your anti F-35 “quote” allegedly attributed to the ADF, please tell me who said that? Can you provide me a link? I bet you can’t!!
    I live here in Australia and I’ve never seen that quote attributed to anyone in authority in the ADF.
    Again Sally, you have no idea.

  • WpnsLoader175

    Like I said you don’t shoot down SAMs, only specialized systems like Israel’s Iron Dome and a few other “hit to kill” interceptors have the ability to knock down a missile like that. Aircraft use tactics and technology to defeat incoming AAM’s and SAMs. These techniques vary based on the threat system and the aircraft that is defending against them. I don’t understand why so many people think that a single F-35 (or any jet) has to take on a S-300 or other advanced A2AD system by it’s self and when they assume that the aircraft is just going to fly straight into this threat, which it KNOWS is there, L.O. or not. The crews of these 5th gen jets have access to the best intel on these threat systems and the weapons schools work very hard to ensure that we can defeat them.

    What do you think? That the Air Force was like, “lets buy super expensive jets that cannot defeat the newest and emerging threats? And lets not develop OT&E to aid us in defeating these threats, because who cares about Pilots (which is us).”

    Unless you know something I don’t, you are simply speculating in a way outside your depth of understanding of modern air combat.

  • Secundius

    That should make it kind of Interesting for USS Essex and “IT’s” Air Complement of F-35’s. Which just entered the Persian Gulf…

  • R’ Yitzchak M

    The cost of a FIXING KIT for the faulty design for “pilonless” wing for F-35 is 7.7 million

    • E1 Kabong

      Cite your source.

  • George Hollingsworth

    Seems the T-2 Buckeye originally come out as a single-engine aircraft. If singles are so wonderful why didn’t they just stuff a single bigger engine in it for the B and C models?

    • Secundius

      The Aircraft was “Wonderful”! The single engined J34WE-46/48 Turbojet “Wasn’t”. The J-34 was Obsolete by 1959 standards. The J34 was Underpowered and Designed in 1947…

      • George Hollingsworth

        So why not put a large single engine in the B and C models. Plenty of models were available?

        • Secundius

          The T-2A Buckeye was phased out of service in 1970, and the Rolls-Royce F405-RR-401’s didn’t enter service until September 1996. Also consider the Dimension of the Westinghouse J34WE-46/48 as being ~114″ x 22.3″ and weighed ~1,784-pounds. The T-38’s engines were far to small to be used as a suitable replacement engine. At ~51.1″ x ~17.7″ and ~421-pounds…

          • George Hollingsworth

            The J-52 (A-4 and A-6 engines) was about the same size as the T-2As original J-34 and could have more easily been retrofitted if there was any benefit of having a single over a twin.

          • Secundius

            You would THINK that the US Navy and/or North American (i.e. Rockwell International) would have Weighed Their Options. And thought HARD on that very same Problem, Wouldn’t You!/?

          • George Hollingsworth

            I would THINK that the Navy leadership at that time realized the benefits of having a twin-engine trainer. Maybe the outstanding safety record of the T-37 and T-38 gave them a clue.

        • E1 Kabong

          It isn’t that easy.

          How do you work around the frames? Spars?

          • George Hollingsworth

            Well, seems like going from a single to a twin, as was done with the T-2, would be more difficult. On the other hand instances of aircraft being retrofitted with increased power engines is too long to mention.

          • E1 Kabong

            “…aircraft being retrofitted with increased power engines…”?

            Same engine, irrelevant point.

            Well, the T-2 went through a major redesign going from one to two engines.

            The A-37(J-85) had little in common with the T-37 (J-69).

            What about F-5 to F-20?

        • R’ Yitzchak M

          For a “simple” reason .. none would do the job engine F135 has manu unique properties it i a derivative taken from F-22 platform main requsts were POWER supply to feed electronics gear as well soon lasser and EW gear aim is to push power from 10Kw to 100Kw range with necessary cooling as well exaust cooling to surounding atmosphere temperature to avoid modern IRST guided misiles

          • George Hollingsworth

            Uh, two CSDs driving two generators on a twin can give as much power as one CSD on a single, with the happy bonus of having the essential buses powered in the event one of the two engines is lost.

          • R’ Yitzchak M

            100%!

    • E1 Kabong

      Seems the F-5 went from two, to one on the F-20….

      • George Hollingsworth

        Didn’t sell either, did it?

        • Secundius

          Or did it! Notice how Eerily similar the Northrop F-20A “Tigershark” looks like the Saab JAS.39 “Gripen” (i.e. Under New Management)…

          • George Hollingsworth

            The Gripen is a single-engine delta wing aircraft with canard control surfaces. It doesn’t look anything like the F-20.

          • Secundius

            Neither does the F-16XL and the F-16C. But the JAS.39’s and F-20A’s dimensions are nearly identical. The JAS.39 at 49’10” x 28’03” x 14’09”, and that of the F-20A’s 47’04” x 27’11.9″ x 13’10″…

        • E1 Kabong

          So what?

  • Duane

    There are no aircraft in service today that one multiple engines in the aircraft from separate vendors. What airplane builders did 100 years ago is immaterial to modern military aircraft.

    • Sally

      Yes, they do, Duane. Besides the F-35, the F-15 is a good example of this. The F110-GE-129E is now being used in the F-15 SA, in lieu of the F100 by Pratt and Whitney. There are plenty of other planes as well that use different vendors. You probably need an engine change yourself as well, as I see in some of the past articles that others have said you “blow a lot of smoke out your tailpipe”, and it appears they are right.

      • Mk-Ultra

        Just so we’re clear, you’re saying a single jet, that’s the same model, airframe, built by the same manufacture within the same years, used dufferdif engines?

        And not the same jet but different models using different engines. ..

        Right? That’s what you’re saying?

        • Sally

          Look it up for yourself. Its not difficult to find on the network. I saw many of these planes with change-outs myself, during the time I was in the Air Force. It all depends on who has the contract at the time.

  • E1 Kabong

    Hilarious!

    SEVENTEEN YEARS before an F-35 crashed….

    Can those other jets claim that?

    Canada is currently led by an utterly incompetent liberal muppet.

    THAT is why they bungled the earlier LIBERAL choice of the F-35.

    “…the F-35 does nothing better than the CF-18s they currently have.”?

    Again, hilarious!

    Explain why ALL those other F-35 buying countries chose it and not Sub-Par Hornets?

  • E1 Kabong

    100% WRONG.

    What is the USAF flying in their ALASKAN ENVIRONMENT?

    What are the Norwegians flying in their NORWEGIAN ENVIRONMENT?

    What are the Swedes flying in their SWEDISH ENVIRONMENT?

    That’s right…. SINGLE engined fighters…

    Go read the USAF flight safety stats for the F-16 & F-15.

    • R’ Yitzchak M

      That is a my main hope that Canada will coproduce either Rafale or even better BEA’s Turkish cooperation project BEA TF-X’s

      • E1 Kabong

        Are you drunk or stoned?

        Seriously.

        Answer my questions.

  • E1 Kabong

    Garbage.

    Go read up on the CALF and JAST program history.

    Cite credible sources to back up your BS.

  • R’ Yitzchak M

    Sam why hidding or reducting those postings.. it was interesting conversation here?

    • Secundius

      New thing with USNI News! They seem not to like people posting Fact Checking Websites. You have to hide them for their Filters, by “Spacing” the characters in the websight address…

      • R’ Yitzchak M

        So priests or just good old inqusition protectors of “Optics” and “NARATIVES” rule here.. my friend we have then allready lost the AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE that I rember since 1970’s

        Information vs propaganda is difference being free society or controled “society”

        USNI i loved as a main source of Naval news.. used to go along with Janes Almanac and the Janes Weekly

        Why is the Sam gone balistic it was good post with diverse views what should be very purpose of his posting here is (i hope) is to STIMULATE DISCOSSION and not to pedlle PARTICULAR NARRATIVES

        • Secundius

          I stopped trying to Figure Out USNI News a long time ago! Why they “Data Dump” past comments more than 4-years old. You have to “Scavenger Hunt” other Blogsite just to find the Lost Data. As soon as “Moderation” appears, I know that their going to Redact. At one time I thought “Breaking Defense” was bad, but nothing compared to what USNI has become. And how is “Herr Neumann” these days…

          • R’ Yitzchak M

            Thanks my friend it is a true honor having you and most of contributors here it really put some common sense into complexities of evolving technologies. I found strange that someone is to styfle discussion instead to encourage it. If you se a faulty equipment to voice it or to shut up.. Now of course none of us are puting only the DECLASIFIED Information so it is ONLY a proces of LEARNING to actually make the informed decission and to force inconcistencies to the surface TAX PAYERS deserve nothing less.

  • R’ Yitzchak M

    No she is not.. only “crime” that she could be “guilty” of is perhaps that she “knows to much” which is a capital crime in some societies I sincerelly hope that we are stil not reached that point? Did we?

    • Mk-Ultra

      What does the YF-23 have anything to do with the F-35?

      The F-22 beat out the 23 from the competition, not the 35. So shouldn’t you be angry against the Raptor since that was the jet that was picked over your dream jet which was suppose to be the “true” 21st century warfare platform? (Even though it would be using 90s technology)

  • E1 Kabong

    THREE replies to my one?

    Hilarious!

    Try figuring out the “edit” function.

    By the way, your ignorance is showing….

    An Aeronautical Engineering degree and a career in the air force.
    I suggest you try it, sparky.

    LMAO!|

    Cite your sources, junior.

  • E1 Kabong

    Answer the questions….Suka.

  • E1 Kabong

    STILL no sources…links….references…

    But hey, keep squirming.

    Do not procreate.

  • E1 Kabong

    Shoo troll.

    The competition, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-35, etc., ALL LOST.

  • E1 Kabong

    We don’t need you to title your comments.

    It’s obvious.

  • E1 Kabong

    Once more, in coherent English.