F-35 pilots have a 1 in 4 chance of dying if they have to eject: report
Written by Amanda Connolly
Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 Written by Amanda Connolly
Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 Industry & Trade
If your fighter jet is crashing, ejecting is usually a good option  -  that is, unless the plane in question is an F-35 .
In that case, you have a one in four chance of surviving and a virtual guarantee of serious neck injury, according to a recently released report by the U.S. Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) for the F-35 program. The report outlines even more problems with the contentious F-35 program and recommends against pushing for partner governments in the Joint Strike Fighter program to buy the planes in blocks rather than a staggered approach.
The risk of "serious" injury is greatest for lightweight pilots and the program office is recommending that no one weighing less than 136 pounds be allowed to fly in F-35 jets. The risk is less for those weighing between 136 and 156 pounds but is still deemed an "increased risk" compared to heavier pilots.
Despite labelling the risk of the ejection system as "serious," the program and testing office for the jet says it will take the chance but couldn't provide a reason, saying "the decision to accept these risks is unknown."
Lockheed Martin acknowledged the findings of the report after it was leaked last week but stressed it is working to fix the problems that keep being found with the plane.
"Although the DOT&E report is factually accurate, it does not fully address program efforts to resolve known technical challenges and schedule risks," said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, F-35 Program Executive Officer, in a statement after the report was leaked last week. "As a reminder, the F-35 program is still in its developmental phase. This is the time when issues are expected to be discovered and solutions are implemented to maximize the F-35's capability for the warfighter."
The report also said that plans to have partner governments "block buy" are likely to lead to problems down the road.
Developmental testing on the jets isn't set to finish until 2017 but by that point, roughly 340 of the aircraft will already be produced.
By 2019, when the Initial Operation Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) ends, there will be a total of 500 of the jets produced.
"These aircraft will require a still‑to-be-determined list of modifications in order to provide full ... combat capability," the report found, saying the costs of doing that may be unaffordable given fiscal constraints.
But without those fixes, the jets won't be able to operate at full capacity.
"This may potentially result in left-behind aircraft with significant limitations for years to come," the report said.
Essentially, the program is finding problems more quickly than it can fix them and a block buy program, in which partner governments purchase the aircraft in chunks, will mean they are saddled with having to fix problems discovered after they have procured the jets in bulk.
Canada has been party to Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter program, which sees countries contribute to the manufacturing of the jet and then buy it for their own air force, since 2002.
The F-35 has been touted as a replacement for the Royal Canadian Air Force's aging CF-18s but the program has been highly controversial since the former Conservative government announced its decision in 2010 to purchase 65 of them at a cost of roughly $16 billion, with delivery planned for 2016.
Former prime minister Stephen Harper refused to provide detailed cost estimates on the project though, which led to him being found in contempt of Parliament. Although the program became a major concern during the 2011 election, the Conservatives won a majority government  -  but decided to put the program on hold while it was re-evaluated.
A 2012 auditor general's report blew the government's initial projections to smithereens and said the actual life cycle cost of the jets would be closer to $44 billion.
That report also found that the former Conservative government created the list of requirements for the CF-18 replacement program after it had already decided to pursue the F-35 program.
There have been reports that the panel the government created to study that replacement program didn't actually examine the list of requirements themselves, even as it looked at rival bids from Boeing's Super Hornet; EADS Eurofighter, also known as the Typhoon; Dassault's French-built Rafale; and the Saab-manufactured Gripen from Sweden.
In the 2015 election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed to scrap plans to purchase the jet and find a cheaper alternative.
But since then, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has refused to rule out the plane as a potential CF-18 replacement.
Sajjan is currently in Brussels for the NATO defence ministers' meeting but iPolitics has reached out to his office for comment.
Some of the other concerns raised by the report include:
There are "significant deficiencies" with the U.S. government lab responsible for producing mission data loads, which are the data needed for things like the jet's threat and friendly radar signals. Despite getting $45 million in 2013, the lab still hasn't gotten around to designing, contracting or ordering the equipment it needs to develop and test these mission loads. Instead it is pursuing a more limited upgrade to its existing hardware but the deficiencies in that mean that there will be "significant limitations for the F-35 in combat against existing threats."
In 11 of 12 weapons testing scenarios, the test control team had to step in and adjust the software used in the mission system sensors before the jet could do things like find and engage a target. Given the technical problems found so far in the weapons systems, how well the F-35 does in combat will depend, at least in part, on how much better the enemy's capabilities are and whether the F-35 needs similar workarounds to successfully deploy its weapons.
There are early indications the jet might have problems integrating its systems for use with the U.S. Marine Corps because "aircraft reliability and maintainability were poor ... even with significant contractor assistance."