NP.dhiraj wrote:Enjoyed . Did someone say JSF as junk strike fighter. Sorry bad joke . Please don't mindrajanb wrote: Interesting read and I am sure there will be interesting comments.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... 20July%209
Enjai!
Literature on the F-16 development and conception is some of the most interesting and fascinating thing to study especially when one compares what is happening with the F-35 program. The media machine was @ full throttle in attacking the program. Even some of the pilot community was against it, including those that advocated the F-15. Things like crashes and groundings added to the madness to a point that the F-16 crashed so much that the name Lawn Dart stuckNRao wrote:
NP.
Better than a turkey-that-cannot-fly days.
Things have drastically improved on this thread, but old habits die hard, even with proper data.
(borrowed from the F-104 of course). Issues with Fly By Wire were abound and many claimed that FBW would never find its way into mainstream fighter designs etc etc etc The concurrency argument existed even then. Things with single engine safety and operations were also another concern. Its been 40 years for the F-16 program and more than 4400 have been built. It turned out to be one of the strongest multi-role fighter programs in the west (EVER) despite of having very very shaky development and testing and many near misses with outright cancellations. The biggest difference is that the F-16 development was not in the internet era where every rumor, oped (+ or -) gets regurgitated all over the web.Not quite true. There was the Usenet. But, no beat writer used it - only geeks (had easy access to it).The biggest difference is that the F-16 development was not in the internet era where every rumor, oped (+ or -) gets regurgitated all over the web.
Agreed. But many are not aware of those because to find out the negativity surrounding the program one would either have had to seen it with one's own eyes or read books on the F-16 development history (books are not fashionable anymore as people want LINKSNRao wrote:Not quite true. There was the Usenet. But, no beat writer used it - only geeks (had easy access to it).The biggest difference is that the F-16 development was not in the internet era where every rumor, oped (+ or -) gets regurgitated all over the web.
I was rooting for the plane (FBW was bleeding edge thinking), but not the code.
(F-16 code) was written in C++ (Brady Booch made it happen (I am sure much to the chagrin of Pierre Sprey - who must have designed the brick)), and as a UNIX/C hotshot, I did not like any OO creep. So, when the F-16 came into being I left UNIX/C.
). The Risk appetite thing is going to be tough in most western nations, I wonder what would have happened in Europe if the Air forces decided to push fully stealthy fifth generation fighters instead of pursuing less risky programs. Capability comes with an attached risk and that risk requires an appetite. 
)We may get an inkling if Argentina were to win the world cup.I wonder what would have happened in Europe
A CTO wrote: Fail is more than an option, it’s a reality. It’s how you recover that matters
It's where you fail that decides the recoveryNRao wrote: Fail is more than an option, it’s a reality. It’s how you recover that matters
New tech could lead to night vision contact lensesdhiraj wrote: Enjoyed . Did someone say JSF as junk strike fighter. Sorry bad joke . Please don't mind
Totally agree with that. It was rather poorly managed in many aspects both at the government level and at the OEM level especially when considering that it was always a multi-national project and required astute management of both international customers as well as international industry that was both competing for work share and cooperating to lower prices at the same time (coopetition). Yet in terms of poor management it was not in some sort of exclusive territory. Delays and cost over runs are pretty standard on most cutting edge defense programs throughout the world. The Typhoon blew its budget and was delayed, The F-22 blew its budget and was late to IOC by nearly 4 years. The F-16 was late to IOC as was the F-15. Defense development and procurement is not like developing a consumer electronic or an automobile, costs do go over and the degree is directly proportional to the risk the program takes on. 5th generation aircraft are pretty much the riskiest defense programs out there at the moment so expect the risk to hurt in the cost department (as each program goes through the tough time of development and getting everything right) but eventually pay off in the capabilities department.The F-35, IMHO, should have been better managed. That would have made it a much more palatable project (I guess).
Fairly accurate imhoThe JSF attracts more unreasoning bile than any program I've ever covered
The last statement shows perhaps the most positive aspect of the JSF,the lack of more accidents normal to any programme as some have been pointing out. One must acknowledge this. However,as problems keep occurring,delays are inevitable and for an already much-delayed aircraft must be of considerable concern to all stakeholders and those foreign allies who've jumped upon the JSF bandwagon.However,many minor glitches plague the programme,especially the software which is the true unique feature of the JSF concept.The project management as one worthy put it ,for LM,is "a disgrace".All LM's spin on the programme cannot absolve it from its primary responsibility. Gen."Bogged-Down" has been doing a most unenviable task of "kickin' ass" very laudably to steer the programme to success and has made a difference to some extent.He has been quite candid however when faced with interviews and searching Qs from the House. His statements posted earlier shows him to be a man with no illusions. Unfortunately it is the engine this time which is the problem,which is unusual as US engine manufacturers have a very enviable reputation for reliability.Perhaps the weight-cutting exercise all round was to blame.We'll have to wait for the results of the inquiry.A June 23 fire that severely damaged a Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., is “definitely” related to the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 after-burning turbofan, multiple sources told USNI News.
The Pentagon grounded the entire F-35 fleet on July 3 after it became apparent the June fire on an Air Force variant of the fighter was much more serious than originally thought. The fire, which started at the rear of the aircraft while the jet was taking-off, was initially believed to be a one off incident possibly related to the jet’s integrated power pack.
The power pack combines a 200hp gas turbine with battery and acts as a starter for the F135 engine.
While the F-35 Joint Program Office has declined to comment on the investigation, the focus is on the aircraft’s engine. Sources unanimously pointed to the engine as being at the center of the investigation.
“P&W has the engine now [and is] doing a tear-down,” one military source told USNI News.
“No smoking gun, yet.”
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has ordered additional inspections of F135 engines installed across the roughly 104 aircraft strong F-35 fleet. That includes all three variants flying with the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. Pratt & Whitney officials said the company is cooperating with the investigation.
“We are working closely with the Air Force Safety Investigation Board to determine root cause and inspect all engines in the fleet. Safety is our top priority,” company spokesman Matthew Bates told USNI News on Monday. “Since the incident is the subject of an investigation it is inappropriate to comment further.”
The Air Force has classified the damage to the stricken F-35A as a Class A incident—where the cost estimates for repairs or write-offs exceeds $2 million.
USNI News understands that the F-35A in question suffered extensive damage and may be considered a write-off.
The June fire is the most severe incident to occur in the more than decade old F-35 program that — despite widely reported cost overruns and changes to the program — maintains a very good record for safety.
A new entrant of the cruise missile club, South Korea, has also been developing a supersonic Haeseong-2 LACM from the existing ASCM Haeseong-1 (Sea Star, or SSM-700K). In September 2011, Korea Times reported that the missile was slated for deployment by the end of 2013 and has a range in excess of 500 kms
The Program head has said that he does not expect many delays just recently. The problem with grounding is about the concurrency backlog and not loss of test time. The program ever since 2010 when it was restructured built in wiggle room for "new-discoveries" and even software testing and debugging delays have been factored into the IOC dates. This is the reason why the USMC IOC is between July of 2015 and December of 2015. Right now they are confident of July, but if it goes to August or September the program would be well within its goals established in 2010. Same applies for International customers. Australia for example has a 12 month wiggle room built into their own IOC plans with block 3f, and the USN itself has a 6 month range when it wishes to IOC. Delays due to known issues (software testing) and unknown issues such as this recent incident have been factored in more aggressively compared to prior to the restructure.However,as problems keep occurring,delays are inevitable and for an already much-delayed aircraft must be of considerable concern to all stakeholders and those foreign allies who've jumped upon the JSF bandwagon
That is always going to be an SI issue with no matter which program one looks at (modern). The F-22 had minor software issues right unto its IOC and some existed even past it. These are SI issues not technical hardware faults, so not a huge problem but yes, software is the single most significant headache for the program, the program head has said as much. But the software that is actually behind is the 3F which does not effect the majority of the F-35's IOC. If Lockheed martin cannot shave 4-6 months over 3 years there are contingencies in place. The USN could IOC with 3i like the other services, they could wait for 4 months (big deal) or could take 3i+ configuration (each software block is not a monolithic patch but a collection of smaller sub-blocks). Currently the program status is that 80% of the Block 2B software is tested. The goal is to test the remaining 20% before year end (testing and debuting does not require flying, only validation for the test points do) and send it for certification. Once the 2b is done and dusted with the program moves to testing block 3, and primarily the 3f components because 3i does not add much software if any (Just faster ICP's - hardware computers). 2015, 2016 and 2017 will be the block 3 testing time, and that will determine if the 4-6 month delay can be covered up or not, but remember even if that cannot be covered the C would still be in its required range of IOC timeline.However,many minor glitches plague the programme,especially the software which is the true unique feature of the JSF concept.
If you look at it through a microscope then perhaps. However a program is judged over its entire lifetime, not just through early teething problems that delay it. The F-16 back during its own set of troubles could be labeled as a DISGRACE with a far greater degree of certainty then the F-35 (It actually had multiple crashes), but those that judge programs do so over their lifetime that extends to 4-5 decades. If you look at related programs you will pick up similarities. If we divide the 40 year F-16 program into eight 5 year phases and we take the F-35 and divide it into 5 year phases we can see that both had troubles around the same time although the F-35 had more troubles early on. Both programs required a re-structuring and for both programs the main area of trouble was the one which was most technically challenging. FBW for the F-16, Integrating the Software for the F-35. It could however be argued that the F-35 has come out of the trouble with much less "mess" to clean up compared to the humongous concurrency bubble of the F-16 which ultimately lead to a decision not to upgrade each and every one of the 1000+ units produced to block 30 standard.The project management as one worthy put it ,for LM,is "a disgrace"
If you actually study the program in detail you will realize that its not just him that is responsible for the turn around. There was a management shakeup at the OEM level as well. Lessons learned impact all project managers and with these lessons they get better. This is management 101 especially in the aerospace sector where you learn as you go, because you cannot get those experiences from anywhere else. Systems integration is a challenge, has been for everyone including the likes of Boeing (Project Wedgetail), and Northrop grumman. Only way to reduce the SI trouble is to scale back on ambitious and develop Super Hornet like weapon platforms which are much less risky.Gen."Bogged-Down" has been doing a most unenviable task of "kickin' ass" very laudably to steer the programme to success and has made a difference to some extent.
SOKO need not bother with internal carriage if the range is 500km or beyond. Same way the USN with the LRASM may even choose not to arm the F-35 with it, since its stealth and sensor fusion is going to be pointless if the mission involves lobbing a LRASM from 600+ Km away..Better to use the Super Hornet for that mission.Incidentally,as to weaponry compatible with stealth birds' internal weapons bays, Dr.Pillai at KL in April ,while attending a def-expo there,said that BMos-M,the smaller version of BMos would be fitted to the MKIs X 3,the MIG-29K X 2,and also for the FGFA. Whether it would be able to fit inside the bay of an FGFA isn't yet known. There was another report of a new SoKo LR supersonic cruise missile worth studying.
The P&W F-135 is very much an in developmental testing engine as is the entire program. Despite of that mission readiness currently stands at 98%. Whatever issues come up would have to be addressed, but the fact that the engine is having issues during a phase of testing where it is usually the case is hardly surprising. Production issues have occurred in the past and have been tackled rather swiftly. Overall reliability of propulsion does not remain a concern, and the real measures start once IOC and FOC is achieved. 500 Vertical landings during testing phase without a single incident speaks volume of the propulsion design.Unfortunately it is the engine this time which is the problem,which is unusual as US engine manufacturers have a very enviable reputation for reliability.Perhaps the weight-cutting exercise all round was to blame.We'll have to wait for the results of the inquiry.
Agree with you mahadevbhu. I may not always be on his side but I find brar_w posts extremely well researched, referenced and consistent.mahadevbhu wrote:brar_w, you post gold, in general. well done.
I do not have access to the level of information on Indian systems as literature does not exist on them as abundantly as one can find on western systems.brar_w: Would you be able to assimilate similar information on Indian aircraft / defence programmes?
Its on its way to working out the issues. 20% of block 2b testing is still left. Testing involves running the software load, isolating bugs, patching fixes and testing them. Other issues still remain such as those that have been clubbed under contingency reworks. By IOC they will be done as well. Still a year to go before one can claim that all teething troubles from 2b configuration have been worked out. Process involves delivering a fully tested block 2b software build. Sending it to the USMC board that certifies it, receiving the certification and then sending the 12-24 F-35B's for depot runs to get retrofits from the concurrency. The current plan is to finish 2b testing by end of the year, receive certification by march 2015, and depot runs should begin by Jan for the First squadron.Now that the F-35 has entered low rate production and worked out most of its teething issues
how far has the per unit cost fallen?
Prices for all variants have reduced by half or more. The CARRIER VERSION's price in LRIP 7 was 116 million USD plus the engine cost compared to 98 million plus engine for the A version (112 total with the engine).If that # hasn't fallen pretty dramatically, then it's hard to put a positive spin on the F-35 program
Cost and practicality are relative terms. What is a reasonable cost for a 5th generation fighter compared a 4.5 generation fighter?At that cost, it's just not practical and the naysayers would be correct in wanting to can the program.
The prices of the aircraft that have been paid already were at 116 million plus the engine for the most expensive version (C) and one which has the lowest LRIP block production.At $300 million apiece it's pretty much impossible to justify the F-35 when the latest versions of the F\A-18 & F-16 can be had for less than 1/5 that amount
Washington D.C., July 10, 2014 – Today, the Department of Defense announced an agreement aimed at reducing the price of an F-35 Lightning II 5th generation fighter to the equivalent of today’s 4th generation fighters by the end of the decade. Designated “The Blueprint for Affordability,” the DoD and F-35 industry partners – Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems signed an agreement to implement cost reduction initiatives to lower the production costs of F-35 aircraft.
The agreement is built upon the U.S. Government’s Better Buying Power 2.0 initiative, which encouraged defense contractors and the USG acquisition community to determine new and innovative ways to reduce the cost of their goods and services. Leading the change is an upfront investment by Lockheed Martin and F-35 industry teammates BAE Systems and Northrup Grumman.
Specifically, LM, NG, and BAE will invest up to $170 million from 2014 – 2016 in affordability measures, directly resulting in a lower-priced aircraft. Only after a reduction of cost, will industry recoup the investment plus profit with the accrued savings from the cost reduction initiatives. From 2016-2018, the USG has the option to invest additional money if the initial cost reduction initiatives are successful. The primary way the government will realize its savings is through reduced F-35 unit recurring flyaway (URF) cost.
“This is a significant change in business approach within the F-35 program,” said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, F-35 Program Executive Officer. “Industry partners will make an upfront investment into cost cutting measures that the government and taxpayers will reap benefits from by buying F-35s at a lower cost. By 2019, we expect that the F-35 with its unprecedented 5th generation capability will be nearly equal in cost to any other fighter on the market, but with far more advanced capability.”
The reduced URF will have long reaching benefits for the program, and international countries purchasing F-35s will also benefit from this savings. In the future, the government is looking at similar ways to drive down the costs of operating and sustaining the F-35.
“We are taking these unprecedented measures in support of our customers’ affordability challenges,” said Lorraine Martin Executive Vice President and General Manager, F-35 Program. “We have total faith in the F-35 to support the U.S. and our allies’ future defense needs. Our industry team knows what is at stake given the current budgetary and global security demands to reach these cost milestones.”
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0708000093The Shenyang J-15, China's fourth-generation carrier-based fighter, is capable of defeating Lockheed Martin's F-35B fifth-generation stealth carrier-based fighter designed for the US Marine Corps and Royal Navy in a limited conflict, according to Cao Weidong, a Chinese military analyst, in an interview by the Hangzhou-based Qianjiang Evening News published on July 8.
Stating that the J-15 would be detected and shot down by the F-35B in a direct confrontation, Cao said the Chinese fighter has several advantages over its US counterpart. As the F-35B consumes more fuel than the J-15, it has a combat radius of only 500 kilometers while the latter has a radius of 1,000 kilometers, as the F-35B, with its vertical take-off capability, is heavier than the US Navy's F-35C.
Cao said the PLA carrier Liaoning would able be able to defeat a ship like the Royal Navy carrier Queen Elizabeth, christened last week and set to be commissioned in 2017, in limited conflict, as it has a better carrier-based fighter. Cao said, however, that it is hard to predict which side would actually win in a potential conflict between China and the UK because both carriers do not yet carry fixed-wing early warning aircraft.
Cao said that the J-15 can only carry seven tonnes of fuel and munitions when launched from the ski-jump flight deck of the Liaoning. He characterized this as the biggest weakness of the PLA Navy's carrier-based fighters. Cao said that the HMS Queen Elizabeth, with a ski-jump and an angled flight deck, can make preparations for the launch of six F-35Bs simultaneously, giving it an advantage over the Liaoning, and meaning that the F-35B would still be a tough adversary for the J-15.
History did not work well for the USN if one wants to be a gentleman about it. If one wishes to be blunt, they kept shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly.I sometimes wonder why the USN didn't join the F-22 Raptor bandwagon and think about a naval variant
But the reality of things as they stand now is that even LRIP costs are below that 125 million (while slightly over for the CV variant only because its numbers are the smallest in the LRIP batches) and operating costs are on an aggressive downwards trajectory.t's when the price starts climbing beyond $125+ and operating life-cycle costs skyrocket ,that nations pause and wonder how many they can afford
-15 can defeat F-35B in limited conflict: Chinese analyst
Fairford, UK: Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan hates being labeled the man who oversees the trillion dollar jet fighter, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter as you can tell from the headline.
Breaking Defense readers will remember that this estimate is extends more than half a century and includes such assumptions as the Marines will fly the F-35 vertically or in hover much more frequently than they will horizontally.
Bogdan has bullied, wheedled, cajoled and enticed the companies who make the F-35 to cut those costs and to do a better job of communicating with him and the taxpayers about problems with the plane.
In fact, he told reporters today at a press briefing here where the Royal International Air Tattoo begins tomorrow, he spends almost as much time on the phone with Lorraine Martin, the woman who leads Lockheed Martin’s work on the F-35, and Bennet Croswen, who leads Pratt & Whitney’s woprk building the F135, the engine that powers the plane, as he does with his wife.
To bring down those huge estimated costs Bogdan has signed what Martin calls a “landmark agreement” with Lockheed Martin. In return for $85 million invested by Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems each of the next two years on cost saving measures, Bogdan has aggreed to let the companies keep the profits from the money saved.
There is, of course, a catch. The companies must first prove that their investments saved money. Only then do they get the profits.
In return, Bogdan will reap savings estimated by Martin to be north of $8 billion over the program’s life, after adding up results from the 300-plus savings efforts Lockheed and its partners have identified.
On top of those savings — which should bring the price of an F-35 in line with existing fourth generation fighters, as Martin has promised before. That should mean an F-35 will cost about $80 million each by 2019.
Bogdan also renewed an old idea Lockheed has been kicking around for years — implementing what are called block buys to save money. It would allow the United States to join with allies and to buy F-35s at discounted prices, thanks to the larger numbers Lockheed would produce.
This approach, which gets around the requirement that Congress approve multi-year buys and that their cost savings exceed 10 percent. Many of America’s partners in the F-35 program budget on a multi-year basis as a matter of course and want both the cost decrease and the greater flexibility block buys would yield them.
One example offered by Martin: changing the material with which the canopy bowframe is made, will reduce the price by an estimated $340,000. Throughout the fleet of 3,000 some planes that will save $31 million over life of program, Martin said. Add a few dozen of those together and the money starts to add up.
On the topical question of whether the Marine version of the F-35 would appear at RIAT or at Farnborough, Bogdan was carefully neutral while indicating he hoped the four planes would fly here from Naval Air Station Patuxent River as long as they were cleared for safe flight by NavAir.
“We won’t rush that decision by the air worthiness authorities but we will give them all the information we can about the incident,” Bogdan said.
PIlots are standing by and could take off immediately should the green light be given, he added.
While neither Bogdan nor Martin said so, they sounded pretty confident that the F-35Bs would be cleared for flight in time for the Farnborough Air Show, which begins Monday. Even though signs around Swindon, the biggest town near here, sported F-35 Debut logos in the upper right corner it looks pretty unlikely the aircraft will arrive there in time for Saturday flights at the tattoo.
That is a huge part of the 8 million lines of code.What is your favorite characteristic, capability or part of the F-35?
Nichols: The sensor suite on this jet is incredible and the way that it shows the information to you as the pilot is equally as impressive. On legacy platforms the pilot would have to allocate a huge amount of brain power to interpreting the jets many sensors. The F-35’s ability to do this computing for you means that the pilot can use that brain power to fight the aircraft and potentially help out the other platforms around him. This in itself is a game changer and something I look forward to exploring over the coming years.
How does the F-35's capabilities compare to other fighter jets that you have flown?
Nichols: The 5th Generation capabilities of this jet are unmatched in my previous platforms. On the STOVL (short takeoff/vertical landing) side of things life is pretty different, too. In the Harrier, conducting STOVL operations was a constant juggling act and could become quite an emotional event – in this jet the system takes a lot of that demand off the pilot, allowing you to concentrate more on the operation of the aircraft rather than the pure handling.
The PAK FA's weapons bay is 4.5m long while the BrahMos-M is about 6m. No real scope for internal carriage.Philip wrote:Incidentally,as to weaponry compatible with stealth birds' internal weapons bays, Dr.Pillai at KL in April ,while attending a def-expo there,said that BMos-M,the smaller version of BMos would be fitted to the MKIs X 3,the MIG-29K X 2,and also for the FGFA. Whether it would be able to fit inside the bay of an FGFA isn't yet known.
The Pentagon's chief weapons buyer told lawmakers there was "growing evidence" that an engine fire on an Air Force F-35A jet last month was not a systemic issue, which sources familiar with the situation said could pave the way for officials to lift an order grounding the fleet of warplanes.
The Pratt & Whitney engine on one of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s Joint Strike Fighters broke apart and caught fire while preparing to take off from a Florida air base on June. 23.
Defense Undersecretary Frank Kendall said on Thursday that all existing engines had been inspected and that no issues similar to the one that caused the engine failure were found, but an examination of the affected engine was continuing.
"We really want to get at the root cause of this to determine exactly what caused it," Kendall told a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.
"There's a growing body of evidence that this may have been an individual situation, not a systemic one. But we don't know that for certain at this point in time," he added.
Two sources familiar with the situation said U.S. and foreign officials could agree to resume flights of the F-35 jets soon but would probably require regular inspections of the engine part involved in the June fire.
Lifting the grounding order now would allow a small number of F-35s to travel across the Atlantic to appear in one of two air shows this month, possibly as early as Saturday, the sources said.
Organizers of Britain's Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) on Thursday said the planes would not appear at their event, which they describe as the world's largest military airshow.
British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said on Wednesday that while the F-35 might miss the Air Tattoo, he was optimistic it would fly at the Farnborough International Airshow, which starts on July 14.
The F-35 is the world's biggest arms program at $398.6 billion, and failure to appear at both the Air Tattoo and Farnborough show could undermine export interest in the jet just as several countries including Canada and Denmark, both of which helped fund development of the plane, are weighing orders.
Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, who runs the F-35 program for the Pentagon, told reporters in England that safety was paramount and that U.S. and UK authorities were waiting for more data before allowing flights of the F-35 fleet to resume.
Bogdan said he was glad the incident occurred on the ground and that the pilot and emergency crew were not injured. He said it was easier to deal with an issue early in the program, when there are about 150 engines in production or already delivered, as opposed to later when thousands of engines will be in use.
He said the program remained fundamentally on track despite the incident, given the additional margins included during a recent restructuring. (Additional reporting by Mark Potter; editing by Jane Baird)
Since none of the baseline F-35 configurations required a drag chute, the system represents the first modification to the F-35 design to come after the System Development and Demonstration Phase.
The drag chute system itself consists of a removable, or missionized pod. While Norway will likely operate with the pod installed full-time, other countries have the option of installing the pod as needed. The system is being designed much as a wing pylon so that the pod can be installed and removed with minimal time and effort.
Besides developing the pod and modifying the structure to accommodate it, the design team is evaluating the effects of the pod in terms of flight performance, signature, and sensor interaction, to ensure the aircraft capability is not degraded.
Structural changes involved adding a load fitting onto an upper fuselage bulkhead near the aft portion of the wing and redesigning the skins in the wing and aft fuselage. The tool fixtures used to manufacture the wing carry-through and aft fuselage structures were modified to allow for the change. These changes were made on the production lines in Fort Worth, Texas, and in Marietta, Georgia, for the wing and in Samlesbury, UK, for the aft fuselages that are produced there.
The Integrated Test Force operates F-35B test aircraft aboard the USS Wasp at twilight in August 2013. The tests were a part of Developmental Test Phase Two for the F-35B STOVL variant.
According to Lt. Col. Gillette, currently the X0 of the Squadron and in transition with the jet to Yuma as the CO of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, the initial operating capability of his squadron is set for 2015.
The Commandant has set the target as a six-month window from mid 2015 to the end of 2015.
There are certain requirements that need to be met in order to successfully declare that milestone in the F-35 program.
Specifically, it will require a certain number of jets, a certain number of air group training, maintenance to support that. In addition, that the air vehicle still needs to make some more progress in terms of its developmental tests, specifically, you have aerodynamic limitations that will be lifted, you have software limitations that will be lifted that will support core competency missions.
And then lastly, weapon certification. So those three things, air vehicle, the weapon certification, and then the people piece of being trained all have to come together. Those are all projected to merge, if you will, and come to fruition mid to the end of 15.
Why is the duct fan open on take-off I thought you'd want all power directed rearward?brar_w wrote:The Integrated Test Force operates F-35B test aircraft aboard the USS Wasp at twilight in August 2013. The tests were a part of Developmental Test Phase Two for the F-35B STOVL variant.
According to Lt. Col. Gillette, currently the X0 of the Squadron and in transition with the jet to Yuma as the CO of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, the initial operating capability of his squadron is set for 2015.
The Commandant has set the target as a six-month window from mid 2015 to the end of 2015.
There are certain requirements that need to be met in order to successfully declare that milestone in the F-35 program.
Specifically, it will require a certain number of jets, a certain number of air group training, maintenance to support that. In addition, that the air vehicle still needs to make some more progress in terms of its developmental tests, specifically, you have aerodynamic limitations that will be lifted, you have software limitations that will be lifted that will support core competency missions.
And then lastly, weapon certification. So those three things, air vehicle, the weapon certification, and then the people piece of being trained all have to come together. Those are all projected to merge, if you will, and come to fruition mid to the end of 15.
To get the air for the big fan.Why is the duct fan open on take-off I thought you'd want all power directed rearward?
For those who've been keeping up with the details, at this point, it appears neither too expensive, nor a boondoggle.Y. Kanan wrote:So the F-35 program is not the expensive boondoggle that it appears to be, but is in fact destined to be the F-16 style success story of the 21st century?
The thread was created long before the program 'turned the corner' as it was bound to do. As for whether India can operate it, its certainly been on the IN's radar for the IAC-2. And if the MMRCA boondoggle (accurate in this context) drags on..Y. Kanan wrote:I'm curious why all the attention being paid to the F-35 program on BR? Is there really any chance that India would ever purchase and operate this aircraft?
Why is India buying the Rafales if its also going to be acquiring PAK FAs? With its current timeline (2018+), induction is certainly not around the corner.And where does PAK-FA fit into all this? Why would India buy F-35's if we're also going to be acquiring PAK-FA's? The only reason I could see that happening is if PAK-FA ends up being a complete boondoggle like the LCA program.
FARNBOROUGH AIR SHOW: Frank Kendall, the head Pentagon buyer, appeared here today on a high-powered panel of senior Pentagon civilians and industry leaders, and averred that the F-35A fire last month does not pose a systemic risk to the program.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Peter Bogdan, head of the F-35 program, told a packed room of journalists at the media center here that all 98 engines in production or already installed on F-35s have been inspected and none of them showed the same sort of damage to turbine blades as occurred in the damaged F-35A that caught fire June 23 at Eglin Air Force Base.
This morning’s event — supposed to help materially boost the F-35s image and visibility — instead served mostly to highlight the fleet’s grounding and the plane’s absence, so far, from the show. For the first time, F-35 maker Lockheed Martin has test pilots here on call for the media and a small stand set up at the media center to take questions and provide a focus for the program separate from the company’s other ventures highlighted here.
“We are all disappointed,” Bogdan said at one point. “It would have been a wonderful thing for everyone to see that this is a not a paper airplane.”
But Kendall and Bogdan’s remarks made it pretty clear that the impact on flight testing should be “minimal,” and that the plane’s costs should continue to drop substantially. Considering the fire, the missed flights at the HMS Queen Elizabeth christening, the Royal International Air Tattoo and the first two days of Farnborough and some might argue it was a remarkably sanguine view of the program. But if you strip away the optics of the plane not flying when it was touted to, the fire appears to have had relatively little effect on the program beyond the fact that the planes were not flying, thus delaying some flight testing and making a great number of people either nervous or suspicious.
The other aspect of the program that will be effected is to do with communications among the services and the program partners and allies who are buying the plane. As Breaking Defense readers knew from the start, the accident and the perfectly correct actions of Air Education and Training Command in placing the plane under armed guard and protecting details of the accident made it extremely difficult for the Joint Program Office, the rest of the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines to know what had happened and how the investigations was proceeding.
I asked Bogdan whether the partners had complained about the communications and whether they were making significant changes to the program to handle subsequent incidents with more aplomb.
“Yes. We are going to formalize the process for mishap and safety reporting across all services and the partners,” he replied.
Sean Stackley, head of Navy acquisition, noted that this was “a unique incident” and one that generated “lots of lessons learned.”
Bogdan also clarified that the Safety Investigation Board analysis of the accident does not need to be completed before the F-35s are cleared to fly, once NAVAIR lifts the grounding order, known as a red stripe. Meanwhile, pilots for the four F-35Bs remain on 24-hour alert at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, ready to dash to their planes once cleared to fly.
They won’t get here at the earliest until Wednesday.
Tidbit of the day: Aaron Mehta of Defense News asked the august panel about a Facebook post on the official Pax River site saying the planes would leave Tuesday morning. Bogdan replied that he didn’t know Facebook pages were now places where official statements are made, much to the merriment of the panel. Of course they were all pretty much wrong. Facebook pages are used for official pronouncements by all sort s of organizations these days, as is twitter. But the panel’s reaction says more about the organizations for which they work than it does anything else.
F-35 Report: overview of problems with F-135 engine
Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl om 13:24 onder Global F35 News
KESTEREN, Netherlands — The grounding last week puts the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine back in the public spotlights, just one week before the planned international debut of the F-35B at the RIAT 2014 and Farnborough Airshows.
During 2007-2009 repeated problems with turbine blades contributed to significant delays in the F-35 test program and a partial redesign of certain parts of the engine. The grounding in February 2013 was caused by crack, found in a Low Pressure LPT3 turbine blade. Investigations of the latest engine fire seem to focus at the same problem.
The question is: are the F135 problems to be considerd as incidents or is something wrong in the design and do the F-35 operators have a structural problem?
Long history of engine problems since 2006
It cannot be excluded that the root cause of the current problem is more structural than a simple manufacturing error or an isolated incident. Since 2006 there had been a series of engine problems with the F-135 engine.
In May 2006, Aviation Week reporter David A. Fulghum wrote a detailed article “Joint Strike Fighter F135 Engine Burns Hotter Than Desired” and described the risk of a shorter engine life or engine damage caused by higher than expected temperatures on the F-135 engine.
In August 2007 and February 2008 there were serious problems. Turbine blades broke off suddenly by a form of metal fatigue. The cause was sought in a combination of factors. On 30 August 2007 in test engine FX634, after 122 hours of testing, a turbine blade in the 3rd LPT stage broke off completely.
On February 4, 2008 something similar happened to engine FTE06, also in the 3rd LPT stage, after 19 hours.
The JSF Program Office told the press that the engine failures in both cases were due to “high cycle fatigue testing”. These problems with the engine contributed significantly to the delays in the JSF test program for the period 2007-2008.
Redesign of the engine in 2008
In early 2008 an engine, the FX640 ground test engine, was equipped with numerous sensors and instruments. On April 21, 2008 a test process was started to find the cause of the problem. Through a detailed test plan the forces and tensions that arise in the engine were mapped in different power ranges.
At that moment it seemed to be primarily an issue of the F-35B STOVL (vertical landing) version. The cracks in the turbine blades were created in exactly the same place, and seemed to occur when switching from forward to vertical drive. Later in 2008, the results became available. The blade cracks seemed to have been caused by certain vibrations that triggered a material failure.
This led to a redesign of a number of elements in the engine. One of the upgrades was a change of the distance between the turbine blades. After the redesign the engine was retested and recertified. At the end of 2008 Pratt & Whitney issued a press statement, saying that they were convinced that the problems were solved.
In 2009, problems with redesigned engine
During testing in May 2009, Pratt & Whitney found that at high speed with full after burner and at low altitude certain pressure pulsations occurred. This “screech” problem, that prevented the engine from sustaining full thrust, has been addressed by modifications in 2010 and included design modifations in the fuel system, upgraded software and reductions of aerodynamic leakages.
In July 2009, the then head of the JSF Program Office, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David R. Heinz, was still was not happy with the F-135 problems. He told the press: “The problems include too many individual blades that fail to meet specifications, as well as combined “stack-ups” of blades that fail early. I’m not satisfied with the rates that I’m getting.”
A few days later he was ordered by the Pentagon not to comment publicly on problems with the F-135 engine.
On September 11, 2009, again serious engine problems were revealed during testing of the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine. At a crucial moment in the debate in the U.S. Congress on the choice of two competing engine types (the Pentagon wanted to axe the alternate engine (the GE / Rolls Royce F-136), a Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine broke down. Again, the cause seemed to lie in broken turbine blades. However, this time the same problem occurred in the new, redesigned engine with redesigned turbine blades.
Pratt & Whitney stated that a defected bushing led to damage of the some fan blades. Pratt & Whitney also announced that a “minor modification” would be incorporated in all ISR (Initial Service Release) engines.
Engine problems continuing in 2011
After the problems in 2009, officials no longer publicly commented about the engine problems. Also there were no indications that there actually were problems with the engine or that there were any reliability issues.
In April 2011, however, Admiral Venlet, the then Head of JSF Program Office, told reporters that some engine problems were impacting on the delivery schedule.
Pratt & Whitney confirmed to the press that “a small number” of F135 engines had been replaced with spares since March 2011 “with no impact to the F-35 test programme”. These replacements were ordered after detection of a mis-assembled ground test engine and further checks had identified the same problem on other (production) engines.
Two groundings in 2013
The F-35B STOVL variant was grounded Jan 18, 2013 after detection of a failure of a fueldraulic line in the aircraft’s propulsion system. The Pentagon cleared all 25 F-35B aircraft to resume flight tests on February 12, 2013. The Pratt & Whitney engineers diagnosed the problem as a crimp in one of the fluid lines of the fuedraulic system, which is a system that uses jet fuel (rather than standard hydraulic fluid) to lubricate mechanical parts.
A more serious issue was found when on February 19, 2013 a routine inspection took place of a Pratt & Whitney F135 engine at Edwards AFB, USA. During the inspection using a borescope, there were indications that there was a crack in a LPT turbine blade. It was confirmed after further investigation. The turbine blade is sent to Pratt & Whitney in Middletown (CT), USA for further investigation.
On Thursday, February 21, 2013, the Pentagon Friday ordered the grounding for all F-35 aircraft. The F-35 JSF Program Office said in a Feb. 22 statement to the press: “It is too early to know the fleet-wide impact of this finding, however as a precautionary measure, all F-35 flight operations have been suspended until the investigation is complete and the cause of the blade crack is fully understood.”
Some facts about the February 2013 incident
Involved in the February 2013 incident was the tenth F-135 engine with 700 hours, of which 409 flight hours. The aircraft was the F-35A test aircraft AF-2. The half-inch wide crack was found in a turbine blade of the low pressure turbine section. This makes it unlikely that it is caused by so-called FOD (Foreign Object Damage), such as a bird strike, because such an object has to pass the Fan Section (3 stages) Compressor Section (6 stages), combustor and high pressure turbine section before reaching the low pressure turbine section.
March 6, 2013 the JSF Program Office told the press that the problem was caused by thermal creep from stressful high-temperature, high-intensity testing at supersonic speeds and at low altitudes for a prolonged period of time, generating significantly more heat than expected.
New significant test failure December 2013
On December 23, 2013 ground engine FX648 experienced a “significant test failure” during accelerated mission tests (AMT) at Pratt’s West Palm Beach facility.
The engine suffered a failure of its 1st stage fan integrally bladed rotor (IBR, also known as a “blisk”) while doing ground accelerated mission durability testing. The stages are made up of integrally bladed rotors (IBR), the first of which is constructed from hollow titanium (the second and third are made of solid titanium).
The engine involved was the highest-time F135 in the test fleet, with about 2.192 hr. of running time, or approximately nine years of service as a test engine, more than four times the hours of any operational F-35 engine (By comparison, the high time SDD flight test engine has 622 flight hours and the high time operational engine has less than 250 flight hours).
This event was revealed months later, on March 26, 2014, by F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan during a testimony for the US House of Representatives,
Later he told the press that “they had underestimated the stress at low-cycle fatigue”.
Pratt & Whitney said in a statement: “Our investigation is ongoing, but we have determined this incident does not pose a flight safety risk and will have no near-term impact to the operational fleet.” In April 2014 the root cause of the problem was still unknown.
In-flight emergency F-35B after major oil leak - June 2014
A new fleet-wide grounding order was issued on June 13, 2014 after an in-flight emergency situation with a F-35B. The pilot landed safely at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma (Ariz.) after the F-35B what NAVAIR said in a statement to be “a major engine oil leak, the source of which appears tob e a separated oil inlet line from the oil flow management valve (OFMV) Rosan fitting. The fitting is common to all F135 engines.”
After engine-by-engine checks, most of the F-35 fleet (104 units at that time) was cleared to fly again some days later, but two other F135 engines were declared to have “suspect findings”.
F-35A with extensive engine fire at Eglin – June 2014
On Monday June 23, 2014 at 9:15 p.m. a F-35A, assigned to the 33rd Fighter Wing, 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, caught fire as the instructor pilot, was taking off as part of a two-ship formation for a continuation training mission. First reports told the “significant fire” originated in the tail of the aircraft, mentioning it a Class-A (big) incident.
The pilot successfully shut down the plane and escaped unharmed and the fire was extinguished with foam by a ground crew. The aircraft involved is the AF-27, s/n 10-5015, a LRIP-4 series aircraft that made its first flight on April 22, 2013 and was delivered on May 29, 2013 to the US Air Force. The F-35A was towed to a hangar. Accident investigators have collected any related foreign object debris at the same hangar for review.
No any pictures are known or published of the damaged F-35A. Uncorfirmed reports are considering the F-35A to be written-off.
Later, one eye-witness told, according to some press reports “The engine ripped through the top of the plane.” And, about six feet of debris was found on the runway around the jet.
All F-35A flight operations have been temporarily suspended at Eglin as they investigate the nature of the incident, but flight operations elsewhere continued.
However, after a week the Pentagon said it still had not found the cause of the fire, that the engine was the cause (not the Integrated Power Pack) and the technical air worthiness authorities of the Department of the Air Force and Department of the Navy issued a directive to ground the F-35 fleet based on initial findings from this runway fire incident. Additional inspections of F-35 engines had been ordered, and return to flight would be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data.
Investigation is said to be focused – again - to the third stage turbine of the F135 engine as the likely source of the fire. The third stage turbine is the second stage in the low-pressure turbine section and common to all F-135 variants – the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C versions.
Preparations continued for F-35 participation in international air shows in the United Kingdom, (RIAT 2014, Fairford and Farnborough). A final decision is expected July 10, 2014.
A spokeswoman of the Joint Program Office (JPO) told IHS Jane’s that they had “temporarily suspended” negotiations for the next lot of F-135 engines and that
Negotiations about the LRIP-8 series of F135 engines would resume when the scope of the latest engine issue and downstream effects would be known.
Conclusion
The repeated problems with the same part of the engine may be indications of a serious design and structural problem with the F-135 engine.
A future F-35 fleetwide grounding will paralyze the Western Airpower. Also, the lack of reliability will contribute to low service ability and to high operating and support costs of the F-35 fleets in several countries putting more pressure on the low defence budgets.
Since the F-35 will be the cornerstone of the NATO airpower and US homeland defence the next decades, the problems with the F135 engine need attention of the highest political decision makers.
BACKGROUND: History of previous F-35 groundings
May 2007 (electrical system, engine): The first incident was recorded in May 2007, when the F-35A prototype AA-1 experienced an electrical short that disabled flight controls on the horizontal stabliser. A grounding was ordered and continued until December 2007, due to time needed to redesign several parts of the 270-volt electrical system and F-135 engine problems.
July 2008 (cooling, electrical): On July 23, 2008, both flying F-35 prototypes were grounded after problems were detected with ground cooling fan electrical circuitry, DCMA reported on Aug 18, 2008 that tests were delayed as a result of testing anomalies on the 28 Volt and 270 Volt Battery Charger/Controller Unit, the Electrical Distribution Unit and the Power Distribution Unit. It was due to design problems. Flights were resumed first week of September-2008.
December 2008 (engine, ejection seat): On Dec 12, 2008 the F-35 was grounded again as a result of engine and ejection seat anomalies. Seat anomalies were observed in ejection seat sequence during an escape system test on Nov. 20, 2008. It took nearly 3 months to solve the problems and aircraft AA-1 did not return to the skies until Feb. 24, 2009.
May 2009 (most likely engine): The F-35 fleet didn’t fly between May 7, 2009 (84th flight of prototype AA-1) and Jun 23, 2009. Short after reports about new engine problems (the “screech” problem). No comments were available from JPO or L-M.
October 2010 (engine, fuel pump): F-35 fleet grounded after the fuel pump shut down above 10,000ft (3,050m). A fuel pump sequence error, caused by a software bug, could have initiated an engine stall.
March 2011 (Integrated Power Package): The entire F-35 fleet was grounded some weeks after test aircraft AF-4 experienced a dual generator failure on March 9, 2011. After both generators shut down in flight, the IPP activated and allowed the F-35’s flight control system to continue functioning. The problem was traced to faulty maintenance handling.
June 2011 (software): Carrier-based F-35C suspended from flying after engineers at NAS Patuxent River discovered a software problem that could have affected the flight control surfaces. Grounding was from 17 June until 23 June, 2011.
August 2011 (Integrated Power Package): A precautionary grounding of all 20 F-35s that had reached flying status was ordered Aug. 3, 2011 after a valve in the Integrated Power Package (IPP) of F-35A test aircraft AF-4 failed. On 18 August 2011 the flight ban was lifted to allow monitored operations. A permanent resolution would be installed later.
January 2012 (ejection seat): 15 Lockheed Martin F-35s are grounded for about 12 days to repack improperly installed parachutes (reversed 180 degrees from design). The grounded aircraft are equipped with new versions of the Martin Baker US16E ejection seat, designated as -21 and -23.
January 2013 (engine, fuelhydraulic line): The F-35B STOVL variant was grounded Jan 18, 2013 after detection of a failure of a fueldraulic line in the aircraft’s propulsion system. The Pentagon cleared all 25 F-35B aircraft to resume flight tests on February 12, 2013. Problem caused by a manufacturing quality problem (wrongly crimped fuel line).
February 2013 (engine, crack 3rd stage): On Feb. 21, 2013, the Pentagon ordered a grounding for all F-35 aircraft, after a routine check at the Edwards Air Force Base revealed a crack in a low pressure turbine blade in an engines of a F-35A.
June 2014 (engine, oil inlet line): Fleet-wide grounding order was issued on June 13, 2014 for several days after in-flight emergency of F-35B at MCAS Yuma after major oil leak. Root cause: separated oil inlet line from the oil flow management valve.
June 2014 (engine): Fleet-wide grounding from July 4, 2014 after F-35A engine fire at AFB Eglin during take-off on June 23, 2014. Root cause unknown at this moment (July 9, 2014). Investigation focused on third stage turbine of the F135 engine.
Author: Johan Boeder, editor
JSFNIEUWS 09-07-2014/JB-jb
Which article is that (title please), thx.AWST latest issue has some good info on the JSF saga.The decision not to have an alternative engine option now being felt after the last fire incident
