Manufacturing problem likely caused F-35B engine failure: sources

WASHINGTON Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:06am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pentagon and industry investigators have pinpointed a manufacturing quality problem as the most likely cause of an engine failure that led to the grounding of the Marine Corps version of the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet, sources familiar with the investigation told Reuters.

Pentagon officials are expected to finalize the finding and the proposed fix at a meeting on Monday, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly. They said the F-35B should be able to resume flights as soon as the "nonconforming" parts supplied by a unit of Parker Hannifin Corp are replaced.

The grounding did not affect the Air Force or Navy versions of the radar-evading new fighter since they do not use the same part.

The Pentagon grounded all 25 F-35B jets on January 18 after a propulsion line associated with the B-model's exhaust system failed just before takeoff during a training flight at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

The part in question enables actuator movement for the exhaust system associated with the B-model's engine. Instead of traditional hydraulic fluid, it uses fuel as the operating fluid to reduce weight.

An initial inspection discovered a detached propulsion line in the rear part of the engine compartment, and subsequent tests showed the line was not built to specifications by Stratoflex, a unit of Parker Hannifin.

"It wasn't built to specification as it should have been," said one of the sources. "But there's a very small population of the tubes, and the problem should be fixed soon."

Stratoflex is a subcontractor to engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, which builds the engines for the single-engine, single-seat fighter jet along with Britain's Rolls-Royce Plc.

No comment was immediately available from Stratoflex.

The speedy conclusion of the investigation is good news for the F-35 program, which is racing to complete an aggressive schedule of flight tests this year.

The F-35 program has completed about 34 percent of its planned test flight program, but Lockheed is already building production models of the new warplane.

Lockheed is building three different models of the F-35 fighter jet for the U.S. military and eight countries that helped pay for its development: Britain, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia and Norway.

The Pentagon plans to buy 2,443 of the warplanes in coming decades, although many analysts believe U.S. budget constraints and deficits will eventually reduce that overall number.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

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
Comments (2)
We already have air superiority with our existing F15s and F16s, and the next generation fighter well along in developement (F22). As we have a current debt debate and NO rivals for even our existing fighter planes….Why waste despeately needed tens of BILLIONS on weapons for some possible future fantom enemy?

After all, our current and recent wars have had little use for fighter planes, and our military is better served by new weapons that are relevent to urban/guerilla warfare.

Jan 28, 2013 11:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
stevedebi wrote:
Just for clarification, the F22 is no longer being produced (no more orders, just completing the current orders), and the F22 does have rivals. Russia is producing their version, and the Chinese have displayed their prototype. Plus both of these countries have fighters equal to the F15 or F16.

Planes do wear out, and those F15 and F16 aircraft will have to be replaced. As to the need for fighters at all, fighter aircraft are vital to the conflicts that were fought in the past decade. And do you think the US should simply ignore future threats from other countries with well equipped air forces?

Jan 28, 2013 3:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.