Government

Cheating? Pentagon Reportedly Lowered Standards So New Stealth Fighter Could Pass Test

Pentagon Adjusts Performance Requirements for F 35B Stealth Fighter

The F-35B Joint Strike Fighter has passed a test of its combat performance capability but reports are that the Pentagon relaxed the standard it had to meet. As a result, some beginning to wonder if this cheating?

(Related: See the Marine’s F-35B Stealth Fighter’s first vertical carrier landing)

According to Inside Defense, the fighter had not met some of the initial requirements, so a committee decided to relax some of the key performance parameters on the fighter being developed by contractor Lockheed Martin:

Pentagon sources said a memorandum codifying the [Joint Requirements Oversight Council] (JROC) decisions has not yet been signed by Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the JROC chair.

Sources familiar with the changes, however, said the JROC — which also includes the service vice chiefs of staff — agreed to adjust the “ground rules and assumptions” underlying the F-35A’s 590-nautical-mile, combat-radius KPP.

Last April, the Pentagon reported to Congress in a selected acquisition report that “based on updated estimate of engine bleed,” the F-35A would have a combat radius of 584 nautical miles, below its threshold — set in 2002 — of 590 nautical miles.

To extend the F-35A’s combat radius, the JROC agreed to a less-demanding flight profile that assumes near-ideal cruise altitude and airspeed, factors that permit more efficient fuel consumption. This would allow the estimate to be extended to 613 nautical miles, according to sources familiar with the revised requirement.

Wired likens the allowance for a larger combat radius and takeoff distance to helping the fighter “cheat on its midterms.” Wired notes that it is not uncommon for adjustments such as this to be made when a weapon is being developed, but says that it thinks in this case the loosening of the requirements is ”so the over-weight, over-budget, long-delayed stealth fighter could avoid yet another embarrassing scandal.”

Inside Defense reports that the JROC review in February was part of a requirement in itself to reassess the requirements of all programs whose cost is on its way to exceeding the original baseline by 25 percent or more. Adjusting requirements to lessen cost and keep things on schedule is a consideration in this review.

The F-35B has met all of the requirements set before it, according to a Lockheed Martin representative, but Wired is quick to note that “it’s easy to ace a test when the teacher’s already decided you passed.”

[H/T Gizmodo]

Comments (65)

1 2
  • cloudsplitter
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 11:03pm

    Look at virtually any weapons system. If you look at facts, and stop reacting with emotion and prejudice, you’ll find there are often adjustments. Requirements continually change, up and down. Whining over 6 miles (1% difference), give me a break… I seem to recall the F-18 originally met less than 1/2 of that original range requirement.

    All of these companies are building the most advanced systems, using cutting edge technology. It often does not come out exactly as predicted, and despite their best efforts. These guys are not building simple widgets. Did the requirements change during development, possibly adding more equipment or capability requirements since the original contract? I have no idea, and likely some of the pundits who have commented here don’t know either. There are always detractors, but all of these companies do their best to turn out an excellent product, despite what the politicians tell you for their ends.

    Report Post »  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 11:48pm

      Well said sir, well said…

      Report Post » eagle2715  
    • KevINtampa
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 1:24am

      Classic Cold War disinformation, beautiful. Can we bring back Reagan? Carter Part I was terrible at handling this kind of stuff.

      Here’s some more you might like:

      Look out EMP Inbound

      Don’t believe everything you read in the Washington Post.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/solar-storms-ramp-up-take-aim-at-earth/2012/03/07/gIQAjodsxR_story.html?tid=pm_pop

      Remember the Terror Status Color Level. This is someone’s elite way of putting us at CODE BLOOD RED.

      Not solar storm, there’s an EMP threat and this article is to put some on high alert. May happen, may not happen, but we are secretly at DEFCON 2. Or, am I a drunk writer working on some new material? Or am I a troll? Or am I Paul Revere? Or did I think I was at abovetopsecret dot com.

      Or because puzzling you is the nature of my game.

      I really need to start writing a novel. I’m sure I could at least write a good video game…

      Seriously?

      Report Post »  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:37am

      With all of the ex military and politicians that have entered the EXTREMELY lucrative Military Industrial Complex as lobbyists etc., what could you possibly expect? Cronyism “IS” the foundation of this ‘machine.’ Entire careers can be set in concrete with the advent of a single weapon system.

      Fairness? You’re on the wrong planet.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • Viper1
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 8:36am

      Everyone that says ‘it is just 6 miles, that is only 1%’ is missing the point. You can win any game you play if you can change the rules whenever you need to. Just think about what you are saying. There is a reason that the rules were set up in the first place, so why did they need to change them?

      Report Post »  
    • G-WHIZ
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 10:57am

      During the Clinton-adm., the [SAT] scores were below the old passing -grade, so the adm. added several “points” to it so the scores would “look” better… a few years later a gradeschool-grad with an [A, A+] average found that she could NOT pass the highschool entrance exam.. she called the Rushlimbaugh Program to tell the country about it. In the same year, a [sheetmetal company] called his show tell the U.S.A. about his company not being able to find annyone from highschool-grad and college who was able to do these things: opperate a [shear/scissors], fill-out a [written aplication], compleate [simple-math-decimal-addition]. He checked all HS’s and colleges within 100miles. Rush called the local HS-principal who said”Highschool is only an [interum-education] and thus may not have yet taught these things by graduation, up ’till now.”. Check-it-out…This answer shocked me so much, that it stuck with me! …that the student would not nessarilly have learned it yet because his education is still on-goeing…

      Report Post »  
    • justin.blake
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 12:38pm

      From someone who has been in the military for years, I can tell you that when the brass gets around a table and says ‘I want a fighter that can do x, y, and z’, there eventually are adjustments to the demands because technology can only do so much to fulfill the wishes of the Pentagon. This is not ‘cheating’ on a test, or ‘breaking the rules’. It is an adjustment based on the reality that what the higher-ups initially wanted was at this point, not quite within reach. You will find that as whatever platform is rolled out, over the years it will be updated and adjusted as technology improves, and eventually will exceed the ‘original’ request. Just look at the evolution of the B-52 (originally the A model came into service in 1954) and what it can do now vs. what its original capabilities were.

      Report Post » justin.blake  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 12:49pm

      “Everyone that says ‘it is just 6 miles, that is only 1%’ is missing the point. ”

      No your not understating our point. The Difference between design and reality is often well beyond 1%. The rules are not laws, they are guidelines to reach. In the physical world it was probably impossible to reach that number without compromising another requirement. What works on a computer and design drawings often is impossible in real life…

      The idea that the theoretical range is off of specs by 1% is not some crazy failure. And adjusting the contractual requirements to fit the realistic parameters is not some scheme to make contractors rich and short change the project… It’s simply part of the process of bringing a newly designed machine into the real world, and it’s a very common occurring…

      The EXACT same thing happens on any project that starts from a design stage…..

      Report Post » eagle2715  
  • Taldren
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 9:19pm

    It is a real shame that the US government choose the Lockheed Martin YF-22 over the Northrop–McDonnell Douglas YF-23. If that wasn’t bad enough, the US government went with the Lockheed Martin’s X-35 JSF (F-35 prototype) and didn‘t even let McDonnell Douglas build a prototype because they deemed McDonnell Douglas’ proposal as too radical. NASA built the X-36 based on what McDonnell Douglas had proposed and proved the tech was viable … too late for McDonnell Douglas of course.

    What I find hilarious is that one of the main given reasons for why the government went with Lockheed over Northrop for what became the F-22 was they deemed Lockheed more reliable. Fast forward to today with the problems of the F-22, F-35, and the X-33. Definitely not a good reason to pick which airplane to fly.

    Report Post » Taldren  
    • RabidPatriot
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 9:57pm

      Affirmative action for jet fighters. I feel bad for the future K.I.A. pilots.

      Report Post » RabidPatriot  
    • RabidPatriot
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 10:00pm

      On a side note: All enemy radar passed with straight A’s (without lowering standards).

      Report Post » RabidPatriot  
    • SgtB
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 10:26pm

      To all of you trolls, they dropped the combat radius by 6 miles. Remember that even with that, this bird can fly well over 1,000 miles without refueling. With the variation inherent in each model, this is not a large enough difference to even take notice about. The heaviest variant if the Marine Corps version with the capability to perform short or vertical takeoff and landing. This variant holds ~ 14,000 pounds of fuel and is supposed to be used for close in air support of ground forces from forward operating bases and ships. Thus, it would not need to fly for 1000+ miles on a mission.

      Also the Navy and Air Force variants lack the forward lifter fan and have put in its place an extra fuel tank. This means that an A/F variant can hold upwards of 18,000 pounds of fuel while the slightly enlarged Navy version can carry over 20,000 pounds of fuel. So the F-35 can vary in fuel capacity by more than 6,000 pounds of fuel. Also, this story does not tell the entire truth. What about the range of the plane when it is fitted with externally mounted drop tanks? I don’t think that a difference of 6 miles in range is going to have any effect at all on the production or efficacy of this plane. We have already researched, designed, contracted, and made a logistics supply web to support this aircraft with 90% + parts interchangeability so that our long term maintenance costs should be lower than our current costs.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 11:47pm

      “… that wasn’t bad enough, the US government went with the Lockheed Martin’s X-35 JSF (F-35 prototype) and didn‘t even let McDonnell Douglas build a prototype because they deemed McDonnell Douglas’ proposal as too radical.”

      Um…no… They deemed the V-STOL capabilities of the X-35 to be superior of the X-32…

      Also they changed the performance requirements mid way through the competition, and the X-32 fell short…

      Report Post » eagle2715  
    • Taldren
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 12:52am

      @eagle2715, The X-32 was Boeing’s entry. Like I said, McDonnell Douglass‘ design wasn’t even allowed to proceed to the prototype phase. The X-36 was what NASA did with the McDonnell Douglass proposal which Boeing is now using as a basis for their 6th Generation fighter concept, the FA-XX.

      Report Post » Taldren  
    • Taldren
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 12:56am

      Link for you about the X-36 and the McDonnell Douglass JSF design : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbZ2Q6lStJE

      Report Post » Taldren  
  • FreedomPurveyor
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 8:40pm

    “As a result, some beginning to wonder if this cheating?”

    Dear Liz Klimas,

    Please proof read your articles.

    Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
  • Mathew Manhorne
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 8:05pm

    This has all played out before…. It is like the M-247 Sgt. York DivADS project all over again. This aircraft is a complete POS and this is not the first time that the requirements for it have been changed or adjusted so it could pass tests. The problem is that the DoD put all its eggs in this one basket and has no backup plan when this falls flat on the deck. This is just another example of the incompetence that has infested its way into the DoD. Another example is the cancellation of the USAF COIN Super Tucano aircraft project which I knew was going to happen so they could dump more wasted money into the F-35…..

    Report Post »  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 11:48pm

      Explain to me exactly how this aircraft is a POS?…..

      Report Post » eagle2715  
    • Mathew Manhorne
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 8:14am

      Well maybe you should do a little research on the history of this project and stop drinking the f-35 cool-aid . I worked on a small part of this project at one time and I can tell you that its a colossal waste of money and effort…. It is over 7 years behind schedule, a lot of what it was supposed to be able to do has been scaled back or was never going to meet the goals. You have nearly a whole squadron of pilots at Eglin AFB supposed to be learning to fly the thing but only 3 of the pilots have been able to get any flight time in it because the plane are constantly grounded due to failures…So yes in my opinion its a POS but you can keep living in your fantasy world all you want …

      Report Post »  
    • Dustoff23
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 10:41am

      Eagle2715 you should Mathew Manhorne worked on a small part of the Aircraft, I‘m thinkin’ something like installing the Anti-Collison lights and those guys know a POS when they see it.

      Report Post »  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 1:01pm

      MATHEW MANHORNE…

      Well by your standards then the only successful aircraft we’ve ever built was the P-38 Mustang, because everyone since the Jet age has lagged about 10 years behind schedule and way above budget….

      Look into the strife the B-52 went through, the C-130, the C-5….

      By your standards, we should have never even built the F-16…

      The F-16s main problem was new technology. It was the first aircraft to incorporate a fly by wire system. A system that was required as the aircraft was far to unstable for people to fly unassisted…By your standards it was a POS and should of been scrapped because it was plagued by problems, crashes, and over runs. But you know what we got out of it? A fly by wire system that is integral into every modern aircraft we produce today.

      Every aspect of the F-35 is a radical new design. EVERYTHING… When you do that you don’t have a solid base to build from and you have many many problems. It will take time and money to hash them out, but it is necessary to further the technology…

      So save me your self aggrandization and your “grand knowledge” rabble about working on the airplane….

      You clearly had a bad experience with the program, or are still having…And it’s plain as day it clouds your judgment in the worthiness of this program…

      Report Post » eagle2715  
    • justin.blake
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 1:28pm

      Ummm, yeah..Lets have a Brazilian company building aircraft for our military. Super idea!!! NOT. Besides, you cant even compare the SuperTucano to the JSF. On its worst day, one JSF would take out a squadron of ST’s in minutes. Its a PROP plane for heaven’s sake. And if you compare the JSF to any other countries aircraft, it’s generations ahead. Ahem…unless that is, someone steals our technology. So maybe the better argument is this. Build american military aircraft in this country, built by american defense contractors that SECURE their data and thoroughly vet even the lowest janitor. Maybe then we can stay ahead….

      Report Post » justin.blake  
  • wakeus_com
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 8:01pm

    What’s the issue here? Lowering standards so failures can pass is the American way.

    Fire departments do this all the time, so do the police departments … so does the military. Colleges and universities … oh, yeah, they love it.

    Nothing to see here.

    Report Post » wakeus_com  
    • bulldawg
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 8:05am

      Let me tell you what the issue is, anytime you allow Congress, the Pentagon or lobbyist to stuff money for political favors you get what you paid for JUNK, case and point the B-1. To this day that bomber has been nothing but a flop. Political favors weigh heavy in the defense of our country at the expense of Americans. Let the Military, not the dam Pentagon be the one who tells you if the aircraft meets specs and you will get an airplane etc. that is superior and will last, case and point the B-52, still a bomber that scares the crap out of the enemy in more ways than none.

      Report Post » bulldawg  
  • lukerw
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 8:00pm

    For WHAT Reason… would we want to send our Children into Combat in Defense of our Country… with Inferior Weapons? Rather, give them the Best for the Best Protections & Results… and DAMN the COST!

    Report Post » lukerw  
    • PATRIOT802
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 8:37pm

      I agree, kind of like our Troops in Iraq & Afganistan with body armour that would stop a .22. But when were talking about Billions of dollars, make it come out of the manufacturers pocket, NOT continueing to bleed the American people. If the weapon cost 1 billion a plane so be it, get it done, but dont come back to us and say “Oh were sorry it really cost 2 billion a plane.” then bend over and take it up the rear-end, Thats BS !

      Report Post » PATRIOT802  
  • eagle2715
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:43pm

    It‘s generally because they government doesn’t wanna live up to it’s side either… Their is a lot of “horse trading” done throughout the contract process… Some of it legit, some of it not…

    The whole system is so convoluted now there is no way to tell the difference between the two…

    Not defending the process, just trying to answer why no one ever sues or actually tries to hold them accountable…as if one side is held to it’s word, both sides will be…

    Report Post » eagle2715  
  • Mateytwo Barreett
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:34pm

    Gee, I wonder how much more is cost to get the mediocre one?

    Report Post » Mateytwo Barreett  
  • NotPoliticallyCorrect
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:03pm

    Strange how these standards weren’t applied to Senators or…PRESIDENTS.

    Report Post » NotPoliticallyCorrect  
  • Apple Bite
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:03pm

    Embarrassing.

    But hey, Liberals spit fire and threw cow dung when the F-22 was being promoted, touting the asking price for such machinery. The UN backed this puny bird along with them. And now, Pentagon has to scale back it’s expectations for requirements, so this bird can pass muster? Scrap the damn thing, and build more Raptors…with American made parts, not Chinese junk.

    Report Post » Apple Bite  
    • nocalifornia
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 8:43pm

      The Raptor is another over priced flying garbage can with continuing cost over runs. This always happens when the military bowes to political pressure and doesn’t pick the best weapon system during competitions. Try looking up the YF-22 verses the YF-23 and see which plane was actually better.

      Report Post » nocalifornia  
    • Apple Bite
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 1:04am

      Being “ stealthier” and faster doesn’t equate to being a great fighter. Those are attributes. It’s about the total package, the F-22 met the requirements in that regard. However, that doesn’t mean the F-23 wasn’t worthy of being brought into production. And it’s certainly a better bird than the F-35.

      Report Post » Apple Bite  
  • chips1
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:59pm

    YEA. Another participation award. Nobody feels bad in the Marxist world.

    Report Post »  
  • cassandra
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:58pm

    this is just another way to weaken our military by the obama administration

    Report Post »  
  • MeMadMax
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:54pm

    You know, it’s one thing to say that your fighter is below your own standards….

    It’s another to blab about it….

    Now our enemy knows that this jet is only capable of a 580nm radius cruise without mid air refueling….

    Report Post » MeMadMax  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:50pm

      That number is almost worthless in any real measure…

      The variables that effect how far an aircraft can fly include everything from the paint job on the aircraft, the current performance of the engine in the aircraft, and the load out (weapons, instruments, external fuel)…

      And then you get into weather…temp, altitudes, wind, time of day…and several others…

      Once your done applying all the variable your no where near the number you started with…

      It’s a bench point set to be a guideline to build from…The idea that they are making a big deal over the fact they didn’t achieve it, with a given set up, on a particular day, by about 1% is asinine….

      Report Post » eagle2715  
  • TyrannyNoMore
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:51pm

    What the Hell ! We lowered the standard for vetting our presidential candidates in 2008. Why should vetting a paltry piece of military hardware be any more important?? As far as I can tell, we are lowering the bar on just about everything these days. It’s no wonder our country is circling the drain.

    Report Post » TyrannyNoMore  
  • aChameleon
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:37pm

    Is this part of the “No Stealth Fighter Left Behind” initiative?

    Report Post » aChameleon  
    • USAMEDIC3008
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:56pm

      I will catch hell for this,but
      How do you think woman got in to Combat
      Nothing against them I married one,
      Being in a combat zone is one thing
      Being Abn.is some thing else
      Cant wait till we get The Girl SEALS

      Report Post » USAMEDIC3008  
    • chips1
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:08pm

      If they are housed together for 6 months, they will be one mean group about twelve times a year.

      Report Post »  
  • Baddoggy
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:34pm

    They are mass producing drones now. Tis is old hat…Oh wait. That is CHINA that is mass producing drones. My bad….

    Report Post » Baddoggy  
  • Reaganite71
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:21pm

    Hopefully, we sent Turkey the bad ones. I still can’t believe we sent a fleet of F-35‘s to a Turkey that’s radicalizing and has been rattling sabres at Israel.

    Report Post » Reaganite71  
    • LOOKINGFROMTHERIGHT
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:34pm

      Nothing new in this report, the government has been relaxing it’s own standards for years in many areas, take a look at how well the standards for NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND are being met.

      Report Post »  
  • Razorhunters
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:16pm

    where are the arrests…?

    stop feeding the beast.

    Report Post » Razorhunters  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:35pm

      Arrests? For what? Adjusting a program in the process of the design?

      Report Post » eagle2715  
    • Razorhunters
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:00pm

      it is called fraud and theft of services…

      not to mention a national security threat.

      hello…mcfly..

      Report Post » Razorhunters  
    • Razorhunters
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:04pm

      it is more than just adjusted data…it is falsified reports , it is stolen funds ,it is more govt/military bs.

      Report Post » Razorhunters  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:41pm

      You really have no idea how any of this works do you?……

      Report Post » eagle2715  
  • Razorhunters
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:14pm

    more of the re-distrubution of wealth

    Report Post » Razorhunters  
  • AJAYW
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:12pm

    How would you like being a young man or woman straping yourself in the seat of a plane that someone cheated on the testing of it.Go into battle not knowing you could depend on it to preform as required to complete your mission. We owe those that are putting their lives on the line a hell of more support than support than this. Fire and Jail the son of a bitches that were involved in it.

    Report Post »  
    • eagle2715
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:34pm

      I can tell your right now I flew on aircraft that didn’t meet there “design specs”…

      Not a single one of the KC-130s I flew on met them ALL….They are standards set to begin a design process…. As one person already said the standards were likely too optimistic. Kinda like wanting a 600HP muscle car that gets 40MPG city….

      And from what it looks like it missed it’s mark by 6 nm of 590 nm… That’s barley over 1%….

      This story has no specifics on what the committee talked about or what weighed into it’s decisions…They are simply re-quoting wired magazines, a group of folks I don’t trust a great deal on military affairs, on what they ‘think’ is the cause of this…

      It boils down to lots of speculation used to make an article on a slow news cycle…

      Report Post » eagle2715  
    • chips1
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:11pm

      How would you like being a young man or woman straping yourself in a VOLT?

      Report Post »  
    • Mateytwo Barreett
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 7:30pm

      @Chips
      We may get to find out!

      Report Post » Mateytwo Barreett  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:09pm

    Curious about the timing this came out into the open – guess Obama now has his excuse to break yet more of the armed forces to the stone age as he desires.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • The_Jerk
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:06pm

    “Cheating? Pentagon Reportedly Lowered Standards so new Stealth Fighter Could Pass Test”

    That‘s exactly what the educational establishment did regarding the SAT’s/ACT’s.

    Report Post »  
  • IAMINFIDEL
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:03pm

    Could it be possible that the standards set for the F-35 were too optimistic?

    Report Post » IAMINFIDEL  
  • NoLongerNonPlussed
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:03pm

    This is not a case of cheating. We all just need to bite our tongues and remember what the meaning of is is.

    Report Post » NoLongerNonPlussed  
  • ModerationIsBest
    Posted on March 7, 2012 at 6:01pm

    Cheating? No

    They just applied the “No Child Left Behind” concept to stealth fighters.

    No Stealth Fighter left behind.

    Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love