Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

F35 “Intergranular Corrosion “

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

F35 “Intergranular Corrosion “

Old 7th May 2019, 02:38
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,731
F35 “Intergranular Corrosion “

If the reports are to be believed, The F35 aluminium alloys are prone to intergranular corrosion to the point where they appear to have the corrosion resistance of spaghetti.

One can understand why Lockheed and the U.S. defence forces couldn’t care less. However I would have thought Australia bought these airframes to last 30 years +. Intergranular corrosion in my memory, sets up multiple microscopic sites for fatigue cracking.

‘’So has the RAAF once again followed the great Australian tradition of substandard defence engineering and purchasing?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-...osion/11085220
Sunfish is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 02:57
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 27
Posts: 377
Potential risk, detailed analysis, solutions and recommendations made.

What exactly is the problem?

As an aside, all recent RAAF projects have gone pretty well wouldn’t you agree Sunfish? Super Hornet, Growler, C-17, P-8, Falcon 7X, KC-30 and Wedgetail have matured into the best systems of their type in the world. I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to infer, unless you’re trying to use projects from decades ago that aren’t relevant... but I’m sure you wouldn’t be grasping for attention by clutching at straws; would you?
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 03:40
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,731
The problem, my dear VH-LFA, is how the poor bloody taxpayer can afford to pay for it.


Sunfish is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 03:40
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 232
Sunfish having another anti-ADF rant. We get it, you don’t like ADF Aviation and you think we’re all bloodthirsty baby killers.
Slezy9 is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 03:49
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 27
Posts: 377
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
The problem, my dear VH-LFA, is how the poor bloody taxpayer can afford to pay for it.


Considering where defence spending ranks as a percentage of GDP (still less than 2%), I’m sure it’ll be fine mate.
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 04:20
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,643
Some of us love ADF aviation.
Proudly followed in our household.
Hmmm - intergranular corrosion; would that be anything to do with the fact they're being flown near to or in a salty environment?!
Sorry ABC - I smell a bit of a beat up...
tartare is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 05:51
  #7 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,953
Fact remains that Lockheed have had similar problems before on the C141, C130, C5, and P3. I am not sure if this is related to the corrosion issues found in 2017.

Most times it has been traced back to the material selection and lack of primer.
swh is online now  
Old 7th May 2019, 07:36
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Might I politely suggest this topic is more apt for the 'Tech Log' forum ?
A30_737_AEWC is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 07:41
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Further reading

For those interested in further reading on the matter, here are the links to the Defence Department 'Freedom of Information' (FoI) responses which solicited the KPMG analysis report quoted by the ABC article linked to above.

FoI Response - 'Staement of Reasons'
http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/D...tOfReasons.pdf

KPMG Report - 'F-35 Cost Study on Corrosion Mitigation Options'
http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/D..._Documents.pdf
A30_737_AEWC is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 11:02
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,890
One of the ‘Big 4’ was engaged? That settles it.

They call the Federal government “The Dairy”.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 14:57
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,731
Thank you A30, I note “the annual cost is (redacted ) -meaning it will enrage taxpayers.

VH - LFA: ‘2% of GDP” is a LOT of money.

Slezy: Not anti ADF but anti ADF engineering.

First interest - the @#$% naval morons that allowed flexible fuel lines to be fitted to HMAS WESTRALIA.

- seeing first hand the state of HMAS Tobruk some years before it was decommissioned.

- the Seasprite saga $1.4 billion

- the F111 DESEAL/RESEAL disaster.

- the collins class submarine.

......and probably many more hidden.


Sunfish is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 15:17
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
- the F111 DESEAL/RESEAL disaster.

The F111 deseal/reseal mess was one of about four case studies in an OH&S textbook I read about ten years ago.
The point was made that the reason Australia had health problems with RAAF personnel, while the USAF had no problems was that...

Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
......and probably many more hidden.
...in the US the job was contracted out, and the contractors used illegal Mexican labour, then walked away from their workers long before problems arose.

In Australia we had a problem because we did things somewhere near right, while in America they hid their problem by inflicting it on people who would go away.
nonsense is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 01:52
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 1,762
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post

First interest - the @#$% naval morons

We are in worrying times an 2% is not enough to spend on defence. But as a taxpayer who wouldn't be concerned with the blunders ? You look at Singapore for example, often savvy buying and they do localise equipment!


Whereas the RAAF on paper seems to be indisputably the most capable air arm in the region, there is no less an urgency for a potent navy. Bungled projects, strategies and national pork barrelling have left the navy short of where it needs to be.
Gnadenburg is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.