Half-inch crack blamed for U.S. F-35 fighter jet grounding - sources

WASHINGTON Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:34am GMT

A U.S. Marine Corps F-35B lands at the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Arizona in this handout photo taken November 20, 2012. The Pentagon on Friday suspended the flights of all F-35 fighter planes after a routine inspection revealed a crack on a turbine blade in the jet engine of an F-35 test aircraft in California. REUTERS/U.S. Marine Corps/DVIDS/Cpl. Shelby Shields/Handout

A U.S. Marine Corps F-35B lands at the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Arizona in this handout photo taken November 20, 2012. The Pentagon on Friday suspended the flights of all F-35 fighter planes after a routine inspection revealed a crack on a turbine blade in the jet engine of an F-35 test aircraft in California.

Credit: Reuters/U.S. Marine Corps/DVIDS/Cpl. Shelby Shields/Handout

Quotes

   

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The engine blade crack that prompted the U.S. military to ground all 51 F-35 fighter jets was over half an inch long, according to three sources familiar with the matter, but it remained unclear if the crack was caused by a manufacturing anomaly or some larger design issue.

Engineers at Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, will conduct a detailed examination of the turbine blade as soon as it arrives at the company's Middletown, Connecticut, site, said spokesman Matthew Bates.

"Pilot safety is our absolute top priority," Bates said, noting that the F135 engine that powers the new radar-evading fighter jet had a readiness rate of over 98 percent.

"We are in a testing phase of the program and discoveries such as this are part of the process," he added.

Initial results may come on Wednesday, although it could take up to 10 days to complete the analysis, said the three sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

The Pentagon announced the grounding of all F-35 warplanes on Friday after an inspection revealed a crack on a turbine blade in the Pratt-built jet engine of an F-35 jet being tested at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

It was the second engine-related grounding of the $396 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in two months, and came on the eve of a big air show in Australia, which is considering reducing its planned purchase of 100 F-35 jets.

The Pentagon's top F-35 official and executives from prime contractor Lockheed Martin Corp are attending the air show in hopes of convincing Australia that the F-35 program is on track after three restructurings, and Australia does not need to buy 24 more Boeing Co F/A-18 Super Hornets.

Australia is expected to make a decision within the next three to six weeks, said a fourth source familiar with the matter. The program is also bracing for reductions in U.S. orders if Congress fails to avert across-the-board cuts due to take effect on March 1.

Inspectors found an anomaly on February 19 during an inspection that is conducted on every F-35 engine after 50 flight hours, but the crack on the blade was not confirmed until early Thursday after electromagnetic testing that began Wednesday and continued through the night, said one of the sources.

The crack was described as 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) long, the sources said.

F-35 test and training flights continued until Thursday evening, when the Pentagon's F-35 program office, the U.S. Navy and Air Force decided to suspend all flights and ban use of the engines on the ground until the blade crack was better understood.

In fact, two jets were airborne at air bases in Maryland and Arizona and had to be recalled, said one of the sources.

Officials decided that they had to assume a "worst case scenario" until they could rule out a high-duty cycle fatigue crack, an extremely rare occurrence that could result in a complete blade failure in just 90 minutes, the source said.

Engineers did not believe that this case involved such a devastating crack, but officials opted to take a conservative approach to ensure safety, the source said.

Colonel Kevin Killea, who oversees aviation acquisition for the Marine Corps, said that while the grounding was frustrating for test pilots and trainers, it was prudent. He added that finding problems was an expected part of developing any aircraft.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by Jackie Frank)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
Raymond.Vermont wrote:
You can never make a ‘silk purse’ out of a flying Yak…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojUSEkF6iy4

Feb 24, 2013 12:13pm GMT  --  Report as abuse
Raymond.Vermont wrote:
Sooner the UK reconsiders its options, the better…

i.e CVF’s redisignated into LPH’s, P-8 Poesidons purchased for Fleet Air Arm, and a mix of Typhoons and Gripens for the RAF fast jet needs,then the better!

With the savings of ditching the questionable carrier-strike capabilities and F35 procurements, we (the UK) might actually be able to afford more SSN’s (that fire cruise missiles at land targets from hundreds of miles out to sea,all in perfect stealth) and Type 45′s/Type 26′s (again surface ships that can fire cruise missiles at land/surface targets)to make a better Navy to boot!

Feb 24, 2013 12:22pm GMT  --  Report as abuse
Raymond.Vermont wrote:
Just imagine what the propaganda value would have been to the Taliban, if six of these things, (F35B’s) were parked on the airstrip in Afghanistan, instead of AV8B’s, when they (the militant Islamics) successfully destroyed six parked aircrafts…

(http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/16/afghanistan-attack-idINL3E8KG07R20120916)

You wouldnt be looking at a few hundred million dollars worth of write-off, but nearly a billion and a half’s worth!

Feb 24, 2013 1:02pm GMT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.