JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[UlanBatori]

What I was going to post is that the real US DoD Mission for single-seater combat aircraft is against mud huts and Toyota jeeps in FATA, for which the LCA armed with guns, missiles and cowdung (biological markers) is a heck of lot better suited than the F-35.

[brar_w]

Not quite. The relevance of JSF to BRF is that it is one option that India may consider purchasing.

It still has absolutely no bearing. Does the Rafale bill of $65 Billion for 100-150 odd aircraft matter to the IAF? No. The FMS customers pay what is paid by everyone else. No new development partners are being added. South Korea Paid FMS price, and so did Japan and Israel. in line with what everyone else paid. The advantage to development partners is that they get product work that is related to the size of their investment while FMS customers pay the cost, and get offsets in return (offsets that may not be related to the JSF - It could be anything from Satellite technology, or wind tunnel data on 5th generation fighter research).

Surely the promise of STOVL attracts ppl. It is ideally suited for Indian Road Conditions, and no will complain if they do a full-thrust vertical takeoff from one of the National Highways because the potholes and rubble and melted tar splattered all over will be indistinguishable from the rest.

Neither has one been sought, or one been offered (STOVL). Till date the STOVL version is only being used, and ordered by Navies that co-deply their aircrafts. The USMC, RAF and others are buying it for its dual role.

So the relevance is entirely in Indian Rupees because that is what will be converted to the dollars of that time at - what? 63 to the dollar today? 75 tomorrow if they keep buying such things from abroad? And the relevant comparison is to the alternative of making do with Indian-developed weapons systems.

In the HYPOTHETICAL event that the F-35 is a serious contender for whatever the IAF seeks in the future, why would its overall project cost to the US be converted to INR and offered to the IAF/MOD? This makes absolutely no sense. FMS deals have happened, and one can see what each one of those paid as the entire list of aircraft to be supplied, spares and supplies to be added, weapons package is clear for all to see.

http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files ... 3-10_0.pdf

Should South Korea have converted $391 Billion dollars into WON and claimed that is what the program will cost them?

The A-STOVL had NOTHING at all to do with JSF. Just happens to be also supersonic, Sometimes VL intentionally, seldom VTO.

It was a STUDY and not an actual program where they developed an aircraft for the purpose of induction. Many studies contibuted to the JSF, ASTOVL and JAST. You can go back to the 1960's if not earlier when Pratt and Whitney patented the 3BSN and claim that it was then that the JSF officially begun. Just don't expect the vast majority of the people to buy that argument.

BTW, if the $85M/unit cost of the F-35 is based on 2400 units, the real per unit cost is going to be something very interesting. I note that F-22 is stuck at 195, at which point per unit cost is ****ONLY*** $180M each

That is not the case. The $85 Million cost is based on achieving a production rate in excess of 100 jets per annum which the program is on track to do around 2020. Once you ramp up, it makes little difference if you sustain it for 18 years or just 12 years. So far much of the cost-decrease has been realized through the "learning curve" and production line efficiencies. While there is most likely some more room to do so, the majority of the economy would come from "SCALE" as was planned all along.

Unlike the F-22A, the F-35A has no real alternative in sight and the number of aircraft that the USAF and the USN/USMC loose to Retirement is fixed per annum. The USN is expecting to loose between 32 and 38 aircraft every year due to retirement and this number will fall down to around 26-30 aircraft by 2022. There ramp therefore to 40 Aircraft per year (B's for USMC and C's for USMC and USN) is going to replace outgoing capability and build back the squadron strength. Similarly, the USAF's annual production rate starting FP1 @ 80 aircraft per annum reflects the amount of F-16's and A-10's they will loose to retirement between 2020 and 2038.

So neither the USAF nor the USN can afford to shrink their F-35 acquisition without SERIOUSLY impacting the size of their squadrons and number of fighters they have. Alternatives will take a long time to develop. The USN's FA-XX is currently in AOA stage, and the USAF's F-X is yet to get into AOA stage. These programs are at a stage where the F-35/JSF was in the mid 1990's.

The F-22A had a high URF because they never reached the high rate of production they intended to because the orders were cut. The overall cost was high because they spent R&D money for 700 aircraft and that got divided over just 180 odd frames (Classic POGO trick). Same was the case with the B-2. In case of the F-35, the URF cost target is achieved @ Full rate of production so if the overall number is cut, you will simply have to bear the "CLOSING DOWN" cost earlier. No one divides the overall R&D on the number of aircraft built except POGO (they are always looking for the highest possible number to make a point) but you are correct if the number falls to 1500, the R&D cost would be divided over 1500 instead of 2400. But the R&D cost has already been spent so what matters most is the URF that is how much the DOD pays per year to buy its 120 fighters.

There is a Democrat/Liberal in the Whitehouse and BCA is under enforcement. Yet, neither the DOD, Congress or the Services have cut their orders in any significant amount. In fact the numbers to be procured have remained steady. The FRP plans have held since the baseline and there is no indication to any one that follows the program that as they come out of the BCA in the next 2-3 years, they will all of a sudden begin cutting orders even though they resisted when they faced the most challenging times under the BCA. Both the F/A-18 and F-16 fleets have had higher utilization than what was budgeted and modeled and this is going to force early retirements as airframe lives deplete faster then expected. There is a reason why the USAF has the F-35 as its NUMBER ONE acquisition and development priority. Without it, they would have to CONSIDERABLY shrink the size of its force and they do not plan on doing so.

[TSJones]

What I was going to post is that the real US DoD Mission for single-seater combat aircraft is against mud huts and Toyota jeeps in FATA, for which the LCA armed with guns, missiles and cowdung (biological markers) is a heck of lot better suited than the F-35.

think they gots Ah..Ah...paches for that stuff. and some of them there .....drones?

[brar_w]

But that is all pure coincidence. Lockheed was certainly NOT working on anything like this in 1985. I see that now!

Look back into the thread to see the History of the Aircraft. Studies do not mean a program. They were studying Hypersonic vehicles back in the 1970's, and one would most likely show up in 2050's. Does that mean that that product took 90 years to deliver? ASTOVL was a study to test the feasibility of having a supersonic, STOVL aircraft for the joint US and UK. It was just that. The study along with others were spun into technology demonstrator work, that later grew into a full fledged program to develop something.



here are 6th generation studies on at the moment. This doesn't mean that the program has begun. They haven't even conducted an AOA yet. Studies do not equate to an actual program of record, that invests billions upon billions to develop a capability. That began in the late 90's and the program in all ernest began in 2001. They didn't even know what the range, payload, signature requirements would be at the ASTOVL or even the JAST phase.

Historically, programs are measured from a time when they are officially started (usually this begins with setting up of a program office and beginning to formulate requirements) not when you are developing generic capability for future requirements. At even that ASTOVL only told them what needs to be developed it didn't actually develop it.

Before you embark on a formal developmental program you first do an assessment of your needs, and then do an assessment of the technology and whether it exists or not. If it doesn't exist, you chart out a roadmap to develop that technology before embarking on a formal program of record. Every aircraft program in the west does that. The french had proposals and studies they did before formally launching the Rafale. The Europeans, did so as well. The USN did so as well. ASTOVL and later JAST matured technology and demonstrated through DARPA that if requirements were to be framed they could deliver the performance sought. That was the scope of those activities. No one developed a supersonic fighter in this weight class, with Signature requirement and internal payload during those phases. Based on that work the JSF program successfully awarded two contracts to Lockheed's teams and Boeing's teams for the X-35 and X-32/2 (Lockeed already built another X-32). Lockheed's aircraft first flew in 2000 and they won the competition and received an SDD award in 2001. It was then did they fully embark on actually doing the R&D work to arrive to the requirements demanded from them. Same was the case with the ATF and the F-22A, many studies, and smaller technology maturity programs existed before that and I have a rather lengthy post on them a few pages back. Yet no one started developing a fighter before they received the specs, and no one started funding the development of the fighter until they had selected a winner. From contract award to IOC took 15 years (EMD phase) for the F-22A, and it would take 15 years for the F-35A as well (SDD phase for CTOL).

EDIT: Here is a COMPONENT history that led to the eventual ATF and the F-22A. Even though some of these programs began in the 70's and some even began prior to the F-15 being fully inducted, does not mean that it was then that the ATF and the F-22A development was started. You never really BEGIN developing technology and capability, it is usually a constant that you keep on doing as you try to find out what sort of technologies you would require a few decades down the road. You don't begin an ATF program and then all of a sudden realize that you need an AESA. You put an AESA requirement in there because you have a roadmap for NG radars. There are limits to how many RISKY capabilities can be added to new_Starts. If the ASTOVL and JAST efforts had not de-risked the technology for the F-35B, those requirements would not have been able to earn their place into the program. There are very few capabilities below TR6 (Technology readiness level) that are allowed on a new project, especially one that is not classified.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6203&start=1880#p1798501

[Viv S]

And the relevant comparison is to the alternative of making do with Indian-developed weapons systems.

What 'Indian-developed' alternative? Neither the Rafale nor the PAK FA were/will be even partially developed in India. The F-35 delivers better value than both types.

The Tejas is an entirely different class, meeting an entirely different purpose.

[Mort Walker]

^^^South Korea is buying 40 F-35 for $6 billion or $150 million each. The final cost of the 36 Rafale deal for the IAF is not known at this time, but if it's greater than $150 million each, then I would say scrap the Rafale and ramp up on the Tejas and Su-30MKI. It would be too expensive and take too long to see it arrive in any significant way.

Even with all of the issues with the F-35 program and particularly its engines, LM has better resources, both in material and skilled manpower, to produce more F-35 in two years than Dassault can produce in two years.

[brar_w]

^^^South Korea is buying 40 F-35 for $6 billion or $150 million each

The FMS announcement was 60 Aircraft for 10.8 Billion. This did not just include the aircraft, but everything (but the weapons) that they need to introduce a fifth generation aircraft into their fleet. What the ROKAF pays for the F-35A URF is exactly what the JPO pays. The JPO buys the F-35A on the behalf of all customers and there is one price for one variant unless you have additional stuff that is unique to your aircraft (IDF). The URF is $108 Million per aircraft, but you will obviously need to order a lot of stuff on top of that and this is explicitly stated in the FMS announcement. FMS customers buy a system (not just an aircraft). The Aircraft itself comes with a bed down kit of spares and components (logistics) to be able to operate it, but new customers obviously have significantly larger needs including the all important "SERVICES" components of getting their flight crews trained, maintainers graduated and getting a hang of things before they receive the aircrafts. Its not like they say, send us the aircrafts and the manuals and we'll figure these things out ourselves .

The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F- 135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

Do note however that their delivery dates include a portion in LRIP. Deliveries dates that start off within the Full rate of production will bring costs down even further. LRIP 8 to FP1 is expected to be a 22% reduction in URF cost across the board (including engine).

he final cost of the 36 Rafale deal for the IAF is not known at this time, but if it's greater than $150 million each, then I would say scrap the Rafale and ramp up on the Tejas and Su-30MKI

The French Media has reported that cost to be around $5 Billion. We should know more in the next few months once the deal is signed (I think they expect it to be signed by June). Regardless, the F-35 ROKAF FMS deal is going to deliver jets around the same timeline as the Rafale is going to do to the IAF (I think...) but its not indicative of what a future FMS customer would pay, as most of the slots available now are going to be in the 2020's, and that would bring the cost down considerably. I see the Rafale and Typhoon cost advantage fading away for customers looking to order the aircraft around 2018 or so and the weapons are of course going to be significantly cheaper for JSF customers. The biggest fear a lot of these foreign companies have is that the ramp on the JSF will cause its price to be competitive to theirs especially when they are looking to "cool off" their deliveries with many orders being realized by early 2020's.

What I was going to post is that the real US DoD Mission for single-seater combat aircraft is against mud huts and Toyota jeeps in FATA, for which the LCA armed with guns, missiles and cowdung (biological markers) is a heck of lot better suited than the F-35

While the Tejas (especially MkII) is a great aircraft for the IAF needs (and for many other possible operators), The USAF does not need an LWF. They had one in the F-16A, and the converted that into a medium class fighter years ago. The range requirements they have for the future fighters can only be met with an F-16 with CFT’s and 2 EFT’s (with the desired payload) and in that configuration the F-16 handles much like a Boeing 737 and cannot even evade much without securing a “mission kill” on itself (Jettison the tanks, dump fuel, drop bombs = MISSION KILL).

What the realized was that they needed a radius that was in between the F-16 block 50/52 (with EFT’s) and F-15E (with CFT’s) and they obtained that due to a medium weight/size fighter design with high internal fuel capacity and an optimum flight profile thanks to its Low Observability (The F-35 need not fly as low to avoid SAM’s as the RCS and other electronic mesures (EA/EW system and cooperative engagement) allows it to shrink SAM envelopes considerably). In certain scenarios the F-35A out ranges even the F-15E (graphic provided for the same earlier), which by most definition is a “heavy”.

As far as bombing Taliban “types”, they have the F-16 for that. The F-16:F-35 ratio in the USAF would continue to favor the Viper till the second half of next decade, and the F-35 is designed for the 2020-2050 time-frame and for a broader threat. Its size, capability and “planned growth (Just like the F-16)” is also targeted for that timeframe. That is why we see block 4 Preliminary contracts being awarded in FY16 (budget already released). The “2022-2030” F35” is already being Planned and they are making investments both in software (Block 4), new weapons (Both new to the F-35 and new weapons in general) and propulsion (USN funded upgrades to the F-135, and development of advanced Adaptive engines for the future which incidentally are in the F-35 thrust class). ALL THE DEVELOPMENT NEWS have been provided in this thread.

Decisions on SIZE, WEIGHT and RANGE are made after taking many things into considerations, including basing support, logistical footprint, tanker support and tanker reliance. If you can successfully operate a tanker 50nm from hostile airspace you can do with a much smaller design. If you have to move from 50nm to 200 nm you need a larger fighter. If you need to move from 200nm to 500 nm you need an even larger fighter etc etc etc In fact tanker reliance, and how well you can protect and defend your tanker fleet plays a very significant role in the USAF’s wargaming for future requirements. There is a reason they are looking for as much as 35% increase in SFC with the new engines. The enterprise as it grows would have a significant pressure to get more range, and range/payload. They are therefore making HUGE investments in adaptive/variable cycle engines at the moment in anticipation of the future needs (2030’s). Until these new engines are designed and delivered they are also upgrading current engines. The USN funded P&W to get another 5% SFC improvement by block 4. Pratt & W also has programs underway, to incorporate further adaptive engine developed technologies into the F-135 that could yield as much as 15% SFC improvements in the 2020’s. Every program has room to grow designed in it from the start. Each and every component inside the F-35 (and this doesn’t apply to just the F-35, but to all products in general be it, US, French, Indian or Russian) has a roadmap for capability addition. The EOTS sensors has upgrades planned, the EODAS has upgrades planned. The ICP’s (Brain of the f-35) are being upgraded every other block to keep them cutting edge and this would allow sensor fusion enhancements in both radar performance, and Electro Optical performance (a lot of growth is software driven and they aren’t software limited but computing limited).

[Viv S]

^^^South Korea is buying 40 F-35 for $6 billion or $150 million each. The final cost of the 36 Rafale deal for the IAF is not known at this time, but if it's greater than $150 million each, then I would say scrap the Rafale and ramp up on the Tejas and Su-30MKI. It would be too expensive and take too long to see it arrive in any significant way.

These are package deals with variations in support, training, offset requirements, so they aren't directly comparable. The best benchmark for pricing still remains the flyaway cost of the aircraft. Extrapolating from that there's maybe a 20% difference in cost currently which will fall to under 10% in 2-3 years time.

Also, while the Su-30MKI & Tejas are adequate if not ideal (considering the cost) for the majority of the IAF's tasks, there's still a gap present at penetration roles - SEAD/DEAD, ISTAR, anti-AWACS, deep strike etc. For those, the Rafale has basic limitations (non-LO design) while the PAK FA's reliability is a major question mark.

Even with all of the issues with the F-35 program and particularly its engines, LM has better resources, both in material and skilled manpower, to produce more F-35 in two years than Dassault can produce in two years.

There was only one basic design flaw with the engine and that's been addressed. Teething issues aside, the engine has flown 30,000 hrs and will be at least as reliable as anything else in the P&W inventory.

[brar_w]

Engine reliability is a process. This also applies to every other component on how reliability is measured, addressed, issues raised, rectified etc etc. This portion usually takes many years past the induction of the airframe and weapons system. For the F-35, they won't have reliability data sets till the fleet reaches closer to 200,000 hours or around 2020. Reliability never really ends, they are still constantly looking at the F-16 reliability models, updating them and finding areas to improve so that overall LCC can be reduced. You never stop doing that.

In fact the entire shift to AESA radar for the F-16 has a RELIABILITY, mission availability and COST focus in addition to the capability focus. If you can shift to an active array, you do not need to have the jet down as much due to repairs on your mechanical array. This equates to greater mission reliability, and higher availability. This process never really ends...even though formal development ends with the SDD. As I said, no one at the JPO is loosing sleep over the engine and the IOC's will occur as planned. Software and production ramp are what they are working day and night to get on track! Its one of those "MEDIA ISSUES" rather than a technical challenge that would require significant engineering prowess to overcome. Much like the TAILHOOK that had the media go crazy for almost a year until they fixed it (fairly simple fix) and went 124 for 124 on the boat. Pratt Claims they'll nail down 60 of the 61 issues by July, and the remaining 1 by year end. I don't think the JPO is worried much regarding those time-lines from what the Program boss and his spokesman have said. The next GAO report will obviously reflect this just as the DOTE reflected the much successful carrier ops where they actually performed early work for the next testing phase (because they did everything at a faster pace).

There are some VERY LEGITIMATE challenges still to overcome (Listed earlier), yet no one that has followed this program from the and has objectively read each and every report published will claim the ENGINE to be one of them

[UlanBatori]

(This is a profitable enterprise, i c..)
So isn't all this hoopla about the engine just a cover for other issues? The F-35 was limited to 19 degrees angle of attack last year. NINETEEN DEGREES! Even a B737 can do 20 degrees, i think. What sort of fighter plane is that? Come to think of it, my Mark IV Ricksha can do 33 degrees AOA.

What is special about 19 degrees? Coffee spills over? Gravity-fed petrol tank? I think there is a huge cover-up in progress here.

I assume this was posted here by someone b4..

Hiding Today’s Failings While Building a Huge Future Cost “Bow Wave”

We need some orders from some suckers Oops! I meant Strategic Allies... helloooo injuns?

[Mort Walker]

Be assured the 36 Rafale will also be a package deal including spares, training, and logistics support. So a direct comparison with SK's purchase of the F-35 is relevant. FMS may say qty. 60, but other news is stating 40, in any case it will soon be clear.

The F-35 logistics tail will be long and is ideally suited for the USAF & USN. What the availability is for FMS customers, particularly outside of NATO, Japan, and SK, we just don't know.
There is a lot of gobbledygook, FUD and misinformation coming out of LM to take at face value at this time. We'll simply have to wait it out and see what the experience of other operators are. If all is good as LM and their lobbyist say, then there is nothing to worry about.

There was only one basic design flaw with the engine and that's been addressed. Teething issues aside, the engine has flown 30,000 hrs and will be at least as reliable as anything else in the P&W inventory.

Is this actual operation time because that translates to nearly 3.5 years of continuous operation? The 30K hours seems like an extrapolated number. OEMs state all sorts of MTBF values based on faulty assumptions.

[brar_w]

So isn't all this hoopla about the engine just a cover for other issues?

No it was a legitimate issue last year when the incident occurred and the RCA (Root cause analysis) had not yet concluded, and no fix was designed or approved. The current GAO report is talking about Q3 of 2014 , the Q3 2014 to Q3 2015 development would be reflected in the report that is published in March of 2016. We however aren't limited to this report, we know that towards the end of the Q3, the pre trenching fix was approved and by March of this year all ITT aircraft (Test aircraft) had received the fix except the one that could not (because it was at Mckinley undergoing climatic testing).

Furthermore of the 61 issues identified by the GAO, 60 would be solved by July and the remaining by the year end. The GAO is not required to list the PROCESSES IN PLACE to make the necessary changes to remove deficiencies. Its not their mandate. the Program office and its leadership however have to make sure, problems are ID'd, solutions are designed, solutions are approved and eventually implemented. The GAO generally only reports on the first of these processes.

The data in the GAO report was taken from the end of the third quarter in 2014

The F-35 was limited to 19 degrees angle of attack last year. NINETEEN DEGREES!

It was precautionary while the RCA was underway. This is SOP for all programs whether those in development, or those already inducted into the force. If there is a catastrophic Class A incident on the F-15E tomorrow, the chain of events would be ;-

Ground all F-15's ----> Institute a board enquiry to find the Root cause ----> Based on preliminary analysis (usually within a week to 10 days) decide on whether to lift the grounding -----> If they decide to lift the grounding decide on whether to place flight restrictions or not ------> Conclude the RCA ------> Inspect the entire fleet to see whether the same RC is present (whether the problem is systemic or not)----->Based on the RCA design fixes --------> Implement the fixes fleet wide, or on those aircraft that require them.

This won't change in 2020 or even 2030. F-15, F-16, F-22, PAKFA and Su-30MKI fleets have been grounded in the recent past. In some instances, flight restrictions are lifted relatively soon and in others not so soon.

Point is that those above mentioned aircraft are IN SERVICE, MATURE systems. The F-35 is in Research, development evaluation and testing phase. The F-16 was grounded on multiple occasions after crashes (including one crazy incident at its first flight). Even the GRIPEN has been grounded, and restrictions placed in its development. This isn't something that is unheard of. Just to prep you, there are likely to be more groundings of the F-35 in the next 4 decades or so of its operation, just as there have been in service groundings on the F-15, F-16, F-4, Mig-29, Su-30, F-22 etc. It is part and parcel of some proper fleet management, safety procedures and incident investigation. You err on the side of caution during peacetime.

What sort of fighter plane is that? Come to think of it, my Mark IV Ricksha can do 33 degrees AOA.

It was a transient precautionary phase in the development. Fast forward to April 2015, and the F-35A has already demonstrated 100+ Degrees AOA without any trouble in testing. Restrictions after incident are a function of SAFETY. As the aircraft is still in development, what good could the F-35 have done if they restricted it to 30 degrees AOA for a few months? Would it have made any difference to the combat capability? Since the thing isn't expected to be operational till 2015 and 2016 for the USMC and USAF?

What is special about 19 degrees? Coffee spills over? Gravity-fed petrol tank? I think there is a huge cover-up in progress here

It was a safety requirement established by a board that was interested in only one thing. SAFETY. While the RCA was being conducted, and fix designed they did not wish to put additional aircraft in harms way. This is SOP worldwide. Safety protocols have been developed after a very painful process of loosing a lot precious pilots and aircraft during the development phase. No matter how much the pilots may like the people in charge of these decisions only concentrate on one thing and that is SAFETY. Until the process is followed, they will not lift those requirements unless there is an urgent requirement to send the thing out to combat.

Hiding Today’s Failings While Building a Huge Future Cost “Bow Wave”

POGO has been thoroughly exposed in the past by umpteen number of individuals. They are part of the famous anti-defense establishment and have had their links with them exposed in the past. There is yet to be a system that they like, and no one really cares! I have posted some of the research on their organization and deceptive tactics that they use. You can either google it, or search at BR for more info. I don't think its worth discussing their non-sense.

What is special about 19 degrees? Coffee spills over? Gravity-fed petrol tank? I think there is a huge cover-up in progress here.

There is no cover up. When a safety incidence occurs (let alone a Class A incident) the SOP kicks in. The fleet is usually grounded unless it can ruled out immediately that it wasn't a component issue (such as a bird strike) and then the safety protocol kicks in. Because they grounded the aircraft for a few weeks, and put restrictions on the flight profile while the RCA was underway, and the problem studied, does not mean that there is some MAGICAL COVER UP especially when the ITT fleet was quickly retrofitted with the Pre trench fix and the High AOA testing began to take place. They even managed to cover most of the High AOA time that they had lost to grounding and operating in the flight restrictions phase for the ITT. The F-35 vs F-16 testing that was to take place in November-December right before the Holidays, ended up taking place in early January of 2015. There was quite insignificant delay in testing due to the GROUNDING or the FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS, and none of that delay would result in any slippage in either the F-35B IOC with the USMC, or the F-35A IOC with the USAF.

They were quick to release/share the PROBLEM when it occurred. In fact they did this within days of the fire -



The SOP's and the investigation are not managed by the JPO but by the Service since it occurred on a squadron aircraft and not a test aircraft. That procedure was similar to what the USAF does irrespective of whether the aircraft is in testing or in operational.

Furthmore, the F-35 2014 testing milestones were shared and they despite of having a grounding, and flight restrictions for a few weeks to a few months, they still managed to meet an overwhelming majority of test points they set out for 2014

Here is a video on what they did in 2014 (INCLUDING HIGH AOA )










Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers

There is a lot of gobbledygook, FUD and misinformation coming out of LM t

No need to read or listen to what LMA have to say. Talk to the JPO, and service chiefs around the world that have ordered it and that have an independent review of the system based on both classified and unclassified data. The USMC commander was on the hill a few weeks ago, so was the CNO and the CSAF was up there as well. Neither the USMC, nor the USAF expect any delays in their IOC. The IDF does not expect delays in either the IOC configuration or the timeframe for its 2016 deliveries. The RAAF does not expect any delays in its IOC of around 2020 with full SDD and neither does the RAF.

[Viv S]

Be assured the 36 Rafale will also be a package deal including spares, training, and logistics support. So a direct comparison with SK's purchase of the F-35 is relevant. FMS may say qty. 60, but other news is stating 40, in any case it will soon be clear.

Only if the degree of support, training, offsets etc are comparable. Take the Gripen E for example, it beat out the Rafale in Brazil & Switzerland. Clearly a cheaper aircraft. Yet SAAB's all inclusive offer to Switzerland was priced at about $150 mil each (by which we can infer Dassault's offer was significantly higher).

Another example is Netherlands which is buying 37 F-35As for $5.6 bn ($150 mil each). Would the Gripen E have been cheaper for that same package? Probably. Reading between the lines however it does appear that the F-35 & Rafale's costs are comparable i.e. in the same bracket.

The F-35 logistics tail will be long and is ideally suited for the USAF & USN. What the availability is for FMS customers, particularly outside of NATO, Japan, and SK, we just don't know.

The length of the logistics tail is irrelevant. We don't source spares from individual suppliers. For an FMS customer, everything is provided by the US govt which is its single point of contact. Unless the US DoD has some internal logistical issues with its contractors, no customer is affected.

There is a lot of gobbledygook, FUD and misinformation coming out of LM to take at face value at this time. We'll simply have to wait it out and see what the experience of other operators are. If all is good as LM and their lobbyist say, then there is nothing to worry about.

LM or P&W? The aircraft is not ready yet, but then neither is the Rafale F3R. And whatever doubts exist, pertain primarily to the software being ready 'in time'. Not an issue for a new customer receiving aircraft in 2018 and later. Everyone else will just patch their software builds to the new standard. The hardware on the other hand, is ready and working (including the engine).

In contrast, Dassault's claims about the Rafale being capable of penetrating an airspace as heavily defended as China's, despite lacking any LO capability, are a lot less credible.

[Viv S]

So isn't all this hoopla about the engine just a cover for other issues? The F-35 was limited to 19 degrees angle of attack last year. NINETEEN DEGREES! Even a B737 can do 20 degrees, i think. What sort of fighter plane is that? Come to think of it, my Mark IV Ricksha can do 33 degrees AOA.

As of today, operational AoA limit is 50 degrees. (Just FYI, same figure for the Rafale is 32 degrees.)

[Mort Walker]

The length of the logistics tail is irrelevant. We don't source spares from individual suppliers. For an FMS customer, everything is provided by the US govt which is its single point of contact. Unless the US DoD has some internal logistical issues with its contractors, no customer is affected.

And that is precisely the problem. For example, there are electrical components that are the same if not better, but are not certified by the prime, that must be used to ensure the aircraft follows configuration. DoD will charge an arm and a leg for the items and actual LCC will be considerably higher for a non-allied country like India. This is a risk for a new cutting edge aircraft like the F-35. The F-15, F-16, F-18, C-17 and C-130J have been around for a long time with many different operators, so you know what you're getting in to.

[brar_w]

That is the risk with Dassault as well. You do not have to rely on the FMS route for either support or logistics. If any customer wishes it can either move into a FMS hybrid deal (As India is doing with Chinooks or Apaches) or completely shift to a DCS.

For example, there are electrical components that are the same if not better, but are not certified by the prime

The prime does not certify any components, that portion is up to the JPO. If someone wants a different missile, its up to the missile_developer to work with the OEM and the Program management to get it certified. UK, Norway and Turkey are doing just that. If you want to go all out and be in a position to make those changes yourself, you would need TOT which as the RAFALE experience has shown won't come cheap (Supplier reluctance to offer TOT is usually a function of its success in the market and by that account the JSF TOT would be astronomical compared to the Rafale - Yet unlike the Rafale, the JSF program has a work-around that is called UAI).

Not sure what other electronic components you refer to since none are on offer.

Having said that, there will always be a RISK when you are buying a modern under_development aircraft, be it the F-35, or the PAKFA as opposed to buying an aircraft that is IN SERVICE, and has been operational for over a decade (Rafale). There is nothing around that...5th generation acquisition comes with RISK both from a technical stand point (development pains) and from the COST stand point. Some will be comfortable with the risk others would rather wait till the types have been in operation for a while longer. Different air-forces have different needs and different approaches and this is reflected even within he F-35 customer base. Some, like the IDF, Turkey and RAAF are aggressive upfront while others shifted their orders to the right to get a more mature system.

there are electrical components that are the same if not better

What are those components?

[Viv S]

And that is precisely the problem. For example, there are electrical components that are the same if not better, but are not certified by the prime, that must be used to ensure the aircraft follows configuration. DoD will charge an arm and a leg for the items and actual LCC will be considerably higher for a non-allied country like India. This is a risk for a new cutting edge aircraft like the F-35. The F-15, F-16, F-18, C-17 and C-130J have been around for a long time with many different operators, so you know what you're getting in to.

For an FMS deal we pay the same price as everybody else, allied or otherwise. So as long as the electrical components are also being ordered for the remainder of the F-35 fleet, we wouldn't be charged any unusual price. No reason for us to go off-market when it comes to spares or upgrades.

This is more of an issue with the French, where the lack of FMS-enabling volumes means the prices can be jacked up by the OEM. As is what happened with our Mirage upgrade deal.

[UlanBatori]

The 30K hours seems like an extrapolated number.

If you can run 30,000 copies of the injun for 1 hour each without falling apart, that is 30K hours of operation, hain? Maybe they don't have 30,000 copies, but they must have built, say, 200 already.

AOA 50 degrees for F-35 vs. 32 for Rafale

Small difference: F-35 (some variant at least) is STOVL. Going to 50 degrees standing still is a bit different from maintaining control at 32 degrees while holding altitude due to aerodynamic lift, hain? See my Mark IV Ricksha analogy: main AOA limit is the point where the passenger's "courage" can be seen, to quote the old Ulan Batori legend. So not a valid comparison. The issue may not be pointing ability, but the airloads and structural loads and thermal loads due to pilot's coffee spilling.

The trouble with angle of attack in this case - search that article for the term 'buffet' and c what u c. I submit that this is the real problem with AOA > 19 degrees, NOT what has been announced so loudly. IOW, the plane's aeroelastic behavior makes it worse than a turkey, perhaps. I hear reliably unconfirmed rumors on the Ulan Bator grapevine cactus grove that there may be major-major fraud there. That, and not this engine stuff, is the real issue. OMB report hints at 'severe problems' that make it hard to point weapons, do combat maneuvers etc. My Mark IV Ricksha suddenly looks much more aero-combatic.

I think there may be good reasons why F-22 is not selling much better. Even KSAF and PAF haven't ordered / (begged for, in PAF case) it. A revolutionary air-superiority aircraft - stopped at 195 items?

[brar_w]

If you can run 30,000 copies of the injun for 1 hour each without falling apart, that is 30K hours of operation, hain?

30,000 hours are the cumulative flight hours for the fleet. The fleet includes the test fleet (ITT/ITF) and the operator fleet. The latter are the aircraft that are with the USAF, USN, USMC and the international customers. The ITT/ITF fleet gets through a lot more flying than the squadron fleet (per capita) since they aren't restricted in any way. The squadrons only fly the aircraft as per their regular annual allotment (250-300 hours) but the ITT push it a lot more. The AF2, which is designed for structural loads and AOA testing has piled up more than 1000 hours as of last year. It has flown the most out of all deliveries till date.

30K flight hours is only the physical flying and does not include bench testing or other rapid-cycle testing that is done on the ground. This from the last few pages here -

http://www.arnold.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123430646//

The issue may not be pointing ability, but the airloads and structural loads and thermal loads due to pilot's coffee spilling.

Other than trolling, what other purpose does this serve? The AOA and speed restrictions were applied due to safety considerations while the Engine RCA was under way. They also increased the inspection regime as a precautionary measure. All this was widely reported at the time and is widely understood. It was not because of anything else but the ENGINE. Once the ITF birds received the pre-trench they had their restrictions lifted which in the case of the AF2 allowed it to get back and do what it had to do in the high AOA area.

The trouble with angle of attack in this case - search that article for the term 'buffet' and c what u c. I submit that this is the real problem with AOA

NOPE. As has been shown once the RCA was conducted, the fix installed the flight restrictions are lifted. The aircraft are back doing what they are supposed to in testing.

hear reliably unconfirmed rumors on the Ulan Bator grapevine cactus grove that there may be major-major fraud there.

This is some serious trolling.

I think there are good reasons why F-22 is not selling much better.

Perhaps its because it is no longer in production?

Just dig through the last 10-15 pages and you'll find all that you need to know about the engine problem and the engine fix. This from a few pages back -

Pratt & Whitney Rolls Out Engine Fix to F-35 Fighter Fleet

Pratt & Whitney is installing a retrofit in its F135 engine to repair the problem that prevented the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from making its international debut last summer. It expects to complete the fix fleetwide by early next year.

An engine fire in an F-35A that was preparing to take off for a training mission at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., last June caused the Pentagon to ground the entire fleet, preventing the F-35’s planned international debut the following month at both the Royal International Air Tattoo and the Farnborough Airshow in the UK. The new time and place of that debut remain unannounced. Speaking with reporters in Washington, D.C., on March 24, show organizers said they do not expect the F-35 to appear at the Paris Air Show in June.

Investigators determined that the F135 fire started as a result of excessive rubbing of a polyimide plate seal between the second- and third-stage integrally bladed rotors in the engine’s compressor section. The rubbing caused excessive heating and led to the failure of the third-stage fan rotor.


Once the root cause of the engine fire was identified, Pratt & Whitney developed two fixes. The first, “controlled rub-in” procedure involves flying the F-35 in a series of planned maneuvers so that seal, which is designed to be abraded into a groove, or trench, wears in a controlled manner. The second fix was to create a “pre-trench” in the seal during the manufacturing process and retrofit the part in fighters that have been already delivered.

“We basically said, instead of rubbing it in, let’s just cut it out,” Mark Buongiorno, Pratt & Whitney’s F135 program vice president, told AIN. “We basically machined that trench in as part of the manufacturing process as opposed to letting the engine do it itself. That fix has been validated. We demonstrated that there was an insignificant loss in performance because of it and we are in the process of retrofitting the fleet to that pre-trench configuration.”

Interviewed during Pratt & Whitney’s media day in Hartford, Conn., on April 2, program officials said the retrofit has been installed on all but one of 17 system development and demonstration (SDD) fighters; the exception being an F-35 that was unavailable because it was undergoing climatic testing at Eglin AFB. The engine manufacturer is rolling out the retrofit to the remainder of the fleet using its field technicians. As of late January, F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin said it had delivered 131 fighters to the Department of Defense.

Buongiorno described the retrofit as “relatively minimally invasive” and accomplished in two eight-hour work shifts. He said the manufacturer is on track to complete the retrofit on the F-35Bs the Marine Corps plans to use to declare initial operational capability (IOC) this summer, and on F-35As the Air Force plans for IOC in 2016.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... hter-fleet

There is nothing in the GAO/IG report that contradicts this. Their report was based on the information they had from the third quarter of 2014. They are accurate based on that information. But unless you are not willing to any research on your own, you do not have to rely on dated information. The pre-trench treatment was developed, incorporated in the ITF, incorporated in the new builds and will be incorporated int he IOC birds by JULY and all the existing fleet by early next year. Regardless, those jets that are on their way to being declared operational will have it. the rest will get it even prior to IOC.

Much of this is in the previous dozen or so pages if you have the time to go through them.

[Viv S]

Small difference: F-35 (some variant at least) is STOVL. Going to 50 degrees standing still is a bit different from maintaining control at 32 degrees while holding altitude due to aerodynamic lift, hain? See my Mark IV Ricksha analogy: main AOA limit is the point where the passenger's "courage" can be seen, to quote the old Ulan Batori legend. So not a valid comparison. The issue may not be pointing ability, but the airloads and structural loads and thermal loads due to pilot's coffee spilling.

The AoA limit for the CTOL F-35A is 50 degrees.

[And 50 deg AoA in STOVL flight is a silly idea. All vertical takeoffs and landings are conducted at near-level flight (i.e. stable 0 deg AoA).]

[brar_w]

[And 50 deg AoA in STOVL flight is a silly idea. All vertical takeoffs and landings are conducted at near-level flight (i.e. stable 0 deg AoA).]

You mean this isn't 50 degrees AOA?



While some AOA is good for a rolling vertical landing, it is in no way the reason why the JSF has a much better AOA capability then the F-16 it replaces (or the F/A-18). Rolling landings have continued to be performed while all this non-sense is going on . The reason why the f-35 has significantly better AOA, pointability and low speed performance compared to the f-16 is because A) They saw that this could help through the F-16 VISTA program (see the latest codeonemagazine article), you can keep on saying whatever you say but until the "TRIBE" gets to see something they like they are unlikely to endorse it and B ) They could finally have the a capbility that blends in the best of the F-16 and the F/A-18...The lifting body and the Engine (surprise surprise) allow for this. What do the Viper drivers like - ACCELERATION and sustained turning..What do the Hornet drivers like - High AOA and low speed...The F-35 gets the Viper pilots better acceleration despite the range/payload calculus and gets the hornet pilots better AOA without the other compromises the Hornet makes..It will never match the F-16 when the Viper is clean...but a clean viper with less than 40% fuel cant do much then RECON. While the F-35 with an internal load, 18K+ pounds of fuel and embedded sensors can do every mission set and still go supersonic and turn like a modestly loaded Viper...

Meanwhile, away from all this BS and the insane and crazy reporting on the matter (French bloggers/reporters reporting about US Rose Bowl flyovers for example) the Brits are quietly running their test program away from the limelight. They are at the moment doing SKI RAMP testing and certification at Pax River....

Can't blame them look at the BS that has passed for reporting recently -

- Can't Turn
-Can't Trap
- Can't fly at night
- Can't see
- Can't fly through lightning
- Costs $400 Billion as if ONE AIRCRAFT costs $400 Billion
- Costs 1 Trillion

and the biggest perpetuating myth of all time i.e. SOMEHOW THE STOVL CAUSED PERFORMANCE SHORTCOMING ON THE CTOL. Even though none can effectively define how exactly that has happened.

and on and on and on.

[UlanBatori]

Ah! b4 u go off with long words like "trolling" and perhaps hurt yourself, let me ask you one simple question: On your declaration:

It was not because of anything else but the ENGINE.

How would you have any idea, please?

On the engine "fix", please do some thinking: P&W has built thousands of engines. They all started as new engines. Why would engine 'rub-in' cause fires on this aircraft - and not all those others? What was so different?

[brar_w]

How would you have any idea, please?

Because independent sources, both those from the program and those whose entire job is to audit the program and oversee it have reported it. From the JPO (The Military leadership (bound by their obligation to transparently run the program on behalf of the military), the Independent DOT&E, The General Accounting Office, and the Inspector General. Furthermore, there is considerable international scrutiny on the program including independent auditors in each and every country that has procured aircraft in the program, or has contributed to its development.

The Program was quick to announce the engine fire. The first press-breifing they did included folks from the Industry, Folks from the program office, and folks from outside both those (Civilian US Leadership for whom LYING about the incidence would mean impeachment and removal from office). Furthermore, the process was also laid out quite transparently and was in line with the SOP for an engine class A Incident (its not the first time there has been an engine fire incident in the US DOD). It was managed in copy book style, despite of some media reports (that had no supporting basis) claiming that they'll make an exception just so that the jet could make an appearance at Farnborough. As it turned out those in charge of the safety, did not budge and for good reason (Its there job to value one thing above else i.e. SAFETY).

Furthermore, as the fix was described it begun its process of getting approved. Once the approved fix began being installed in the ITF their envelope restrictions absolutely disappeared and as AvWeek, and other reputable publications reported the aircrafts began unrestricted testing that they had to suspend due to the temporary restrictions that were placed on the program.

This is what is known. There is nothing more from any source, when it comes to the current performance restrictions. All the performance restrictions, whether they were concerned with AOA, Speed or putting a time limit on engine inspections followed the engine fire and were subsequently lifted in the ITF aircrafts once the fix was installed earlier this year (IT Fleet wide).

There is no room for any conspiracy theory here..because not even the most ardent BASHERS of the system (outside of your rumblings) have indicated that the ENGINE INCIDENT was a COVER for something.

The engine fix report, and the report of them "getting close" and finally getting a fix "approved" began appearing late last year, and finally by march and April of this year it was widely reported that the fix has already been installed on all but one of the ITT/ITF aircraft. It was subsequently revealed to AvWeek when they toured the ITF that the aircraft had begun going up against F-16's to validate its handling and maneuverability early on in the year (JANUARY). It was also revealed that they had achieved the entire envelope, and had tested the aircraft till 110 degrees AOA, a full 60 degrees past its FCS limit.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers

Your conspiracy theory has absolutely no merit!


All you need to do to establish the timeline is go back a dozen to 20 pages on this thread...

perhaps hurt yourself

Could you elaborate.

[UlanBatori]

So why did these engines rub and start fires on the flying airplane, and not before? Didn't they do 'bench' testing? Just stuck new engines inside new airplanes with live pilots inside and hit the ON switch, hain?

Your method of evaluating the possibility of a technical concept seems to be "has anyone announced this before?" Figures, entirely consistent with what I have observed,.. Which is why I ask again:

How would you have any idea, please?

[brar_w]

So why did these engines rub and start fires on the flying airplane

How the fire occurred, and how it occurred in that particular instance has been discussed. You can look it up. I bet I had posted something to that end at the time. Basically (and I am not going to google up the details for you) the blades were supposed to rub with the surface. They knew it was going to happen and this was the design. However, the temperatures they had expected were exceeded in this case. The "TRENCHING" was supposed to occur through routine use until the trench was created. The trenching process however resulted in far greater temperatures then they expected and this resulted in the catastrophic damage.

The solution was rather simple. Either you TRENCHED the system through controlled maneuvers, or you PRE TRENCH so that this situation does not occur. They are apparently going with the latter solution. When it comes to trenching there is limited testing you can do on the bench..Bench aircraft do not maneuver at 9G..

Your method of evaluating the possibility of a technical concept seems to be "has anyone announced this before?" Figures, entirely consistent with what I have observed,..

HAS ANNOUNCED THIS BEFORE? I don't know what this means.

In the case of this particular incident, there would be room for discussion if the forensic investigation into the RC, did not result in a positive finding. However, they did find the root cause, reported and consequently developed a fix for it, and had it approved. Since then the have opened up the envelope for every ITF aircraft that has had the fix installed and those aircraft are performing high AOA, Mach 1.6 and all other asymmetrical load testing that was earlier restricted due to the precautionary grounding and subsequent envelope limit that was put while the RCA was being conducted and pollution designed.

The three-stage IBR sits behind the front fan in the F135 and compresses the air before passing it into the high-pressure core. Each stage is separated by a stator and rotates within the casing, which is lined with an abradable strip to maintain tight clearances between the blade tips and the inner wall of the compressor casing. This enables tight tolerances while reducing pressure loss and some rubbing is acceptable. In the engine for AF-27, the blades were rubbing far in excess of the design, creating excessive heat and microcracking in the blades. The resulting high cycle fatigue failure forced the section to “come apart,” Bogdan says, prompting the fire June 23 at Eglin.

The pilot safely egressed and the flames were extinguished with foam....


Senior Pentagon officials say the problem thus far appears isolated; officials have inspected all 98 Pratt & Whitney F135 engines in service, Bogdan says. “All 98 of the other engines did not indicate the same phenomena as the one that failed,” he said. “We have created a body of evidence now that we think is ample enough to fully understand what happened.”

Investigators narrowed their focus on the third stage fan in the IBR about two weeks after the fire took place, Bogdan says. That was last week, well after four F-35Bs were slated to make a historic flight across the Atlantic Ocean for their international debut at the Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford last week followed by flying displays at Farnborough.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-la ... se-emerges

From September 2014 (After the GAO had concluded its 2014 duty)

Root-cause analysis of the F135 engine failure that grounded the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter fleet in July will be completed by the end of the month. Meanwhile, the problem is already sufficiently understood for Pratt & Whitney to have devised an interim fix. F-35s are flying again, but with borescope inspections mandated every three flying hours. The flight envelope restrictions that were previously imposed now vary, with four key development aircraft cleared for greater maneuverability.

Bennett Croswell, P&W president for military engines, said that “there’s more movement of the engine” within the F-35 airframe “than we thought when we designed it.” Both Bogdan and Croswell emphasized that some movement is normal. The problem had not been identified earlier in the development program, because at the time the aircraft had not been cleared for “more aggressive maneuvers,” Croswell said. The problem could not possibly have been detected during engine ground testing, he added.

The problem is excessive rubbing of a polyamid plate seal between the second and third stages of the F135’s fan. The rub strip is flat when a new engine is built, Croswell explained, but during acceptance tests it is designed to be abraded into a groove, or trench. This method ensures that air does not leak forward, a migration that wouldreduce engine efficiency. But in the engine incident that happened while an F-35 was taxiing at Eglin AFB on June 23, the plate seal heated to 1,900 degrees C, causing microcracks to form and propagate in the arm, which eventually failed and penetrated a fuel tank, causing a fire. During inspections, three more engines (out of 165 delivered) were found to have “hard rubbing” that could potentially lead to a similar failure.

“We are validating the root cause on a ‘rub rig’ at our West Palm Beach facility,” Croswell continued. “We’ll test different densities of polyamid, and the orientations that occur in its formation.” P&W and subcontracting supplier Cobham are “pre-trenching” some stators before engine assembly, to determine whether efficiency is significantly affected. Another approach could be to specify a uniform set of flight maneuvers to “burn in” the trench, Croswell said.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... s-progress

[UlanBatori]

The trenching process however resulted in far greater temperatures then they expected

Words like "trenching process" sound sooo deep, no pun intended, but have you asked yourself why and how? What was so 'unexpected'? They didn't know the engine rpm? Metal properties? P&W ppl haven't heard of "friction"?
And why would the temperatures in flight be so much higher than in engine operation on the ground in test-stand testing? pre-flight testing?
At this point, someone with any technical background like in the Ulan Bator Yak-Cart and Bicycle Shop should be putting on the Thinking Helmet With the Goat Beard Lining, so I am trying hard to figure out why someone of your obvious expertise and accomplishment are not able to think about this?

Incidentally, their "fix" was to dig deeper "trenches" around the blade tips? That means significantly higher secondary losses in the compressor. Its like having a pump with big leaks around the edges. Big loss in efficiency and hence performance. So no, the 'fix" was **not** without large cost, and I bet the people who had to do that to their lovely engine are livid. IOW, the problem that caused the fires has ***NOT*** been fixed, it has just been circumvented at high cost, hain? A few more such "fixes" and it WILL become equal to the British plane - i.e., the 1960s Harrier.

[brar_w]

Words like "trenching process" sound sooo deep, no pun intended, but have you asked yourself why and how? What was so 'unexpected'? They didn't know the engine rpm?

They have explained the process to the extent they should for a reasonable conclusion to be drawn. They have also held press-conference where the media could ask them about whatever they wished to know. Engine specific conferences have been held by the developer, by the contractor, by the JPO, and by the Pentagon (Frank Kendell, DOTE boss etc).

They didn't know the engine rpm? Metal properties? P&W ppl haven't heard of "friction"?

They have but $hit happens in development. Such is the nature. It can happen to P&W, GE, Saturn, RR or any other out there. That is a reason they do not move straight from design to induction and put something like 8-9 years of testing in between.

Did Saturn not know about fires? Don't they know anything about engines?



Don't the russians (widely regarded as the experts in them) know anything about ejection seats?

http://www.janes.com/article/45026/indi ... seat-fault


Don't Lockheed know anything about tail hooks because the tail hook needed redesigning? Such absurd arguments can be applied any which way but the point is that advanced aerospace development is complex and not a cake walk. You could be a rookie or you could be very experienced OEM with decades of legacy. You are going to eventually make mistakes, require re-designs and quick fixes.

[UlanBatori]

Soo nice to be able to believe that "the folks above know best". "They have held Press Conferences!" Sure, sure! So why again did the fires happen in flight on these engines, and not on other P&W engines on other airplanes?

Sh1t happens. Fate. Karma. Nothing is Perfect. Bhavitavyam Bhavet Eva. All is Maya

The religion of all accident investigation communities.

[brar_w]

Soo nice to be able to believe that "the folks above know best"

Yeah those folks aren't forum members and aviation enthusiasts like you or I, but experts whose entire mandate was to isolate faults and find the root cause for a problem. There investigation was done as per the SOP (who did the RCA for the Su-30 issues? Can you trust them? Why not go around and question their assumptions? Perhaps they also do not know what they are doing like the team the Pentagon put together?) and report was submitted and accepted by the authorities. This isn't the first fighter developed int he US, nor is it the first one that had to overcome complex testing with plenty of things being uncovered and rectified along the way (F-16 CHECK, F-18 CHECK, F-15 CHECK, F-22 CHECK and god knows F_18E/F Check!). Since the system is quite transparent, there is ball by ball coverage of events, the reporting and how and what is being done (and when). Show me an equivalent IG report, DOTE report, or the GAO report on the T-50/PAKFA??

So why again did the fires happen in flight on these engines, and not on other P&W engines on other airplanes?

Are you being serious? You do realize that each engine is different, and problems with estimation the finer details that are not easy to model can be different for one engine that has its entire envelope expanded and cleared testing while it could be totally different for an in-developemnt engine that hasn't yet finished its entire envelope?

Why do they even bother testing engines anymore? Since the previous generation engines made by Pratt and Whitney and GE are working fine, they should move straight from design and induct them without the complex, expensive and time consuming testing !

The religion of all accident investigation communities.

Of course because ideally they never happen and should never ever happen. There should be no need to test and gradually induct an advanced weapons system because $hit can never go wrong EVER. They need to learn much from you! Why did the T-50 catch fire? That can obviously never happen, because its outrageous for an in-development aircraft to not perform as expected because it should o so right off the design table !

[UlanBatori]

Now I suggest that you look up the definition of "trolling"....

Since the previous generation engines made by Pratt and Whitney and GE are working fine, they should move straight from design and induct them without the complex, expensive and time consuming testing !

And your point is? I sure hope they didn't do that on the F-35? They must have tested for hours on the actual airplane? Before they flew it. And then things were different. Why? What was unexpected? Or, since you evidently don't want to think, I'll post the question even more clearly:

Why was the friction and engine casing temperature so much higher in flight than in ground testing? Much more than expected?
What they had to do, was effectively to shave off a couple of inches on a door because it no longer fits in the crooked frame, though that lets the winter draft in. Because there was no way to straighten the frame, hain?

[brar_w]

And your point is? I sure hope they didn't do that on the F-35?

You were making the point that why did the F-135 have trenching issues while previous generation engines made by P&W did not. That is an absurd analogy. Every engine is different, and those engines perform as desired because they have gone through the SAME process of testing, envelope expansion and design and re-design based on lessons learnt form testing. They didn't begin by performing as expected from day 1.

They must have tested for hours on the actual airplane?

Yes, but incidents do occur and they isolated the maneuver based on the previous flight investigation that caused the micro-cracking. The RCA revealed that the a relatively new F-35 was subjected to a ridge riding maneuver that resulted in excessive forces that caused friction in the 3rd stage IBR. As the aircraft flew for a few weeks after the flight (uneventful flights) the friction caused greater cracking that eventually led to the catastrophic event.

Your questions are borderline absurd. Why did just one T-50 catch fire and not other? Why did it catch fire on that particular flight and not on other flights?

Why was the friction and engine casing temperature so much higher in flight than in ground testing? Much more than expected?

Test engine do not "MOVE" as they are not subject to maneuvers, high G's and roll and yaw forces. Prior to the incident the aircrafts were software limited to their mission envelope. As the envelope lifted (with the arrival of new software) they began doing he hard flights and it was then that the friction and the heat generated because of it, became significant more than what they had modeled and resulting in micro cracking. they cannot test these things on test-beds, hence the envelope expansion phase of the aircraft is extremely important portion of testing.

Furthermore, the found 3 cracks out of 98 engines expected so the problem was not systemic although they are obviously going to pre-trench the fix on all aircraft since that is what you do when you find issues (you do not wait for problems to appear).

[UlanBatori]

Your questions are borderline absurd.

Thanks. They usually are, to people who find their (***amazing insights***) cornered.
So if the problem was limited to one airplane, why fix on all planes? That plane where it happened, happened to be the only flying prototype, didn't it?

Ridge riding maneuver that new F-35s do

. Oooh! Sounds grand! Makes any sense to you? Not to poor absurd me, sorry. Why would that make an engine rub, please?

[UlanBatori]

they cannot test these things on test-beds

Ah! V r getting warmer. Signs of
So when they design airplanes to X Gs, those are just words? They don't design engines and engine casings to operate under those conditions? So then isn't the problem going to happen to all F-35s, or is only the first one intended to fly in the airshow, hence pull Ridge Riding maneuvers, and all others fly gently under 19 degrees angle of attack? This makes sense to you? Because if it does not, the "maneuver loads were not expected until the NEW SOFTWARE came in" argument is (I mean, very uplifting)

And I MUST congratulate you for this insight:

but experts whose entire mandate was to isolate faults and find the root cause for a problem. There investigation was done as per the SOP

Of course they must know best, and if they followed SOP, that is so reassuring.

[brar_w]

Your arguments are getting increasingly absurd...

So then isn't the problem going to happen to all F-35s,

The problem could have been more widespread but it wasn't. Call it luck perhaps. Out of all the engines the inspected they found micro-cracks in 3. They are in the process of making the required changes (PT) so that this does not happen.

or is only the first one intended to fly in the airshow, hence pull Ridge Riding maneuvers, and all others fly gently under 19 degrees angle of attack?

The envelope has been expanded as you have been told. Other then theatrics I see no point of this? The aircraft are going to have FULL ENVELOPE EXPANSION.

At the risk of repeating the same thing over and over again -

A new government report says the flight testing restrictions that have been in place on the F-35 ever since the Air Force version of the jet caught fire in late June, will be lifted by next month.

http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/0 ... ngine-fire

The envelope has expanded for the ITF fleet that requires to test the full envelope. Furthermore, starting with the USMC aircraft that IOC in a couple of months the fixes are going to be added and the entire fleet of USMC, USAF, USN, and international jets would receive those fixes by early next year (Check the link a couple of posts above).

Therefore the point that only one aircraft flies high AOA while the fleet is restricted to 19 AOA is entirely ABSURD and BASELESS. The plan to install fixes has been approved and is in the process of being incorporated..They have perhaps done 20-25 odd aircaft by now and will do this fleet wide by early next year.

This makes sense to you?

Yes it does, because the restrictions have been LIFTED on the aircraft as they get the fixes installed on them. Those that have already gotten them, are conducting full envelope expansion (ITF aircraft) including full 110 AOA testing. The rest of the fleet is in the process of getting upgraded as mentioned.

Because if it does not, the "maneuver loads were not expected until the NEW SOFTWARE came in" argument is (I mean, very uplifting)

The F-35's at the squadron are not OPERATIONAL YET. They won't be till 2016 for the USAF and later this year for the USMC. As the software is developed, the envelope is expanded. While the ITF test birds may be flying software 2B that has some envelope expanded in the FCS (FCS has to be flight tested and approved) the fleet could be flying software 1b and 2a. Only when 2a is approved and fully certified as flight tested does it move to the rest of the fleet. Similarly, only when the flight portion of 2b is tested does it move to the fleet and only when full weapons clearance has been completed for 2b is that envelope opened for the fleet.

This is how the US has always tested its aircraft. Performance and envelope expansion with software block was clearly mentioned in the program from the start.

Flight envelope is software dependent and the software is tested in batches (and sub-batches) by the ITF and gradually released to the fleet -



So if there are aircraft that have 2a software, until they get interim block 2b they cannot go supersonic, or go past 18 degrees AOA. Only when the FCS and software clears that envelope through ITF testing is the software block released to the fleet and they approved to fly that envelope.

The Squadron jets are not operational yet....as I mentioned so its not like 18 degrees AOA is holding them back in combat duties..the training syllabus gradually expands as more software versions are delivered to the fleet and this is by design.

[UlanBatori]

And I have to go off and see if the yaks have returned to their sheds, sorry, but this has been most enjoyable. You have proved the point I made about the unconfirmed rumor. The deflections of the airplane in actual flight were way beyond what was expected from the design documents.

The point of aero-elastic analysis and structural dynamics analysis is to predict these deflections far before any airplane is built. Obviously the airplane was built after the predictions were made, with enough margins of safety. Your argument (not mine, of course, mine are just absurd trolling questions) conclusively points to the fact that in-flight loads, even in the initial test flights, were far beyond the predictions and anything expected in bench/ground testing, to the point that aluminum caught fire under the compressor blades. That is not static load due to maneuver, BTW, but sustained vibratory loads, which means the whole thing was shaking worse than a PSN bus going over a Mallostani road. You can't operate sophisticated electronics and hope to get any kind of accuracy if that kind of shaking occurs. Fatigue cracks will start appearing like cobwebs in a New York Times editor's brain.

The 'fix' was not to cure the vibration, just to create more space around the engine blades to prevent fires, even if the performance stinks. This is the proof that there is a scandal here. The reason is probably fraud in the 'software' used to 'predict' the aeroelastic deflections and structural vibrations.

What next? Cracked wings? Tails? Canopies? Leaking fuel tanks? hydraulic fluids? All can be expected if the vibrations continue un-fixed. Short of beefing up the structure at great cost in weight, I don't know what they can do now.

THIS is why they are saying that there is a Cost Bow Wave coming. With 600 billion dollars at stake, no one is going to come out and say: "This airplane is a dog!" anytime soon. The reports and press conferences will be all techno-babble like "Ridge Riding Maneuver For Trenching SOP"

If you really want to find out, ask someone what codes are used in predicting aeroelastic deflections and vibrations in flight. Ask who paid for them, how much was paid, and why the predictions are so ***** wrong - and why they didn't stop it, because they sure SHOULD have known about it.

You proved it by brilliant reasoning, congratulations! Blow the whistle, you now have the detailed goods. They'll probably give you 35% of the penalties recovered. Please donate a small amount to the Ulan Bator Yak and Goat farm when the $30B reward comes through, thanks onlee!

[brar_w]

That is not static load due to maneuver, BTW, but sustained vibratory loads, which means the whole thing was shaking worse than a PSN bus going over a Mallostani road. You can't operate sophisticated electronics and hope to get any kind of accuracy if that kind of shaking occurs. The 'fix' was not to cure the vibration, just to create more space around the engine blades to prevent fires, even if the performance stinks. This is the proof that there is a scandal here. The reason is probably fraud in the 'software' used to 'predict' the aeroelastic deflections and structural vibrations

Yup you have uncovered proof of a scandal. Report it fast and claim victory! They are just waiting for someone to read your post and point to the smoking gun!

Meanwhile in the program, nothing is going to happen as far as engine is concerned. The ITF birds are back doing what they are supposed to do, i.e. expand the full 2b envelope which they would most likely have completed by now since as of late last month single digit test points remained.

The IOC for the Beach is also going to happen in time, and there is nothing being raised as far as the propulsion issue is concerned. No one is going "CONSPIRACY" on this and nothing is going to come up that has already not been known, or addressed to the satisfaction of the main operators. But I guess those clearances would also have a CONSPIRACY elements..Basically they'll continue on with this conspiracy until someone puts an end to it and exposes the "real deal" which basically means one of the folks with the right intentions has to read this thread and voila...

There will be much significant issues with the program that would require serious sollutions, Production ramp, software and ALIS are 3 of the main ones along with LCC. Engine issue is not causing any sleepless nights for anyone and it will soon fade away like the "lighting strike" , TAILHOOK etc issues. Lets re-visit this in July when the USMC gets clearance to IOC, or after 1 year or so when the next GAO report is issued.

If you really want to find out, ask someone what codes are used in predicting aeroelastic deflections and vibrations in flight. Ask who paid for them, how much was paid, and why the predictions are so ***** wrong - and why they didn't stop it, because they sure SHOULD have known about it.

You proved it by brilliant reasoning, congratulations! Blow the whistle, you now have the detailed goods. They'll probably give you 35% of the penalties recovered. Please donate a small amount to the Ulan Bator Yak and Goat farm when the $30B reward comes through, thanks onlee!

No I'll leave that for you since you did all he brilliant holmesian investigative work! You seem to have found a true conspiracy and uncovered a scandal that seems to have escaped a bunch of fairly smart folks around the world.

Also as to what resulted in faulty predictions on the rubbing is for investigators and P&W to investigate and sort out. They pay for the fixes as its a concurrency issue and ultimately they need to get tot he bottom of this. As far as the operators are concerned, they are concerned with what happened, why it happened, what the fix is, getting the fix on the aircraft and getting it certified. They began doing that and as of early April all ITF aircraft minus the one at Mckinley had already received the fix and were operating at full mission envelope.

All FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED because of the engine fire, have been lifted on the aircraft that have received the FIX and as more aircraft receive the fix they'll have their restrictions lifted as well. The current concentration is for the USMC IOC in July and they would want to do this around end of this month or early next month but the plan is to get the engine fixes installed in 99 or so engines that were flying (and another 40-50 that were in production phases) by next year and much before those physical aircraft IOC.

The 'fix' was not to cure the vibration, just to create more space around the engine blades to prevent fires, even if the performance stinks. This is the proof that there is a scandal here. The reason is probably fraud in the 'software' used to 'predict' the aeroelastic deflections and structural vibrations.

What next? Cracked wings? Tails? Canopies? Leaking fuel tanks? hydraulic fluids? All can be expected if the vibrations continue un-fixed. Short of beefing up the structure at great cost in weight, I don't know what they can do now.

Nothing that is available points to any of this other than your fantasy and the POGO fantasyland "bow wave".

With 600 billion dollars at stake, no one is going to come out and say

Oh so 600 Billion...Why not 700 Billion? or 2 Trillion? Since we are just pulling random numbers out of the backside?

Lets see if wings keep cracking, avionics don't work, fuel tanks leak and HUGE WEIGHT penalties are incurred because of your conspiracy theories that are completely baseless and not substantiated with any evidence emerging form anywhere.

If this doesn't happen they must have fixed it by magic because apparently science can obviously not solve it !

[Mort Walker]

If you can run 30,000 copies of the injun for 1 hour each without falling apart, that is 30K hours of operation, hain?

30,000 hours are the cumulative flight hours for the fleet. The fleet includes the test fleet (ITT/ITF) and the operator fleet. The latter are the aircraft that are with the USAF, USN, USMC and the international customers. The ITT/ITF fleet gets through a lot more flying than the squadron fleet (per capita) since they aren't restricted in any way. The squadrons only fly the aircraft as per their regular annual allotment (250-300 hours) but the ITT push it a lot more. The AF2, which is designed for structural loads and AOA testing has piled up more than 1000 hours as of last year. It has flown the most out of all deliveries till date.

30K flight hours is only the physical flying and does not include bench testing or other rapid-cycle testing that is done on the ground. This from the last few pages here -

http://www.arnold.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123430646//

So, what our yak herder suggested with around 200+ engines running combined up to 30K hours was correct? I'm sure P&W will get the engine to work, eventually, but quoting a figure of 30K hours of operation is misleading. I really don't see a scandal in all of this, but I would take what the JPO says very skeptically and actual cost will may likely be 20% above original estimate. I still remember very vividly in the late 1980s waiting for the A12 Avenger only to have it cancelled by Dick Cheney in 1991.

[brar_w]

So, what our yak herder suggested with around 200+ engines running combined up to 30K hours was correct?

The 30,000 hour flight milestone took place early this year. The fire happened last summer. There were never 200 F-35's delivered and there aren't even 200 NOW. The number was between 100-120 and possibly around 100 when the incidence occurred. The priority in addition to getting the fix to the ITF so that testing could resume was to get it as fast as possible to the production line.

I'm sure P&W will get the engine to work, eventually, but quoting a figure of 30K hours of operation is misleading.

The total F-35 fleet as 30,000+ accumulated flight hours till date (April 2015). This is only the F-35 flights and includes all 3 versions of the jets. Pratt and Whitney do not make this claim, but the program office has issued the number in its routine briefings and this is the number currently used by all suppliers. The current fleet stands at 30,000 hours, and 65% of the overall Test and evaluation has been marked as complete. Between April 2014 and April 2015 the combined fleet flew 15,000 hours according to the official website. From April 2015 to Jan 2020 they expect to fly another 190K flight hours primarily because of the ramp up and greater availability.

EDIT: As of April 23rd, 2015, 140 F-35's had been delivered.

http://www.filedropper.com/f-35fastfacts2q2015

I really don't see a scandal in all of this, but I would take what the JPO says very skeptically and actual cost will may likely be 20% above original estimate

the ACTUAL cost of the aircraft is in the SAR and is for all to see. The JPO does not give cost data, only internal URF cost targets. Anything and everything the JPO says, or issues as a document is subject to oversight and can be used by any one to find faults with both it and the conclusion drawn. So far Bogdan has been fair in his criticism of Lockheed and pratt and Whitney when required, but also pragmatic in the sense that he is trying to get this program to deliver what it should be delivering and what is required. He has attacked the contractors and sided with them when it makes sense. You do not get cost reductions by bashing OEM's, you do however bash them when required (STICK) and work with them not the BFA to obtain the best results. He is doing it and the LRIP 1 to LRIP 8 cost data is in the SAR and for all to see.

The SAR puts the unit recurring flyaway (URF) cost of an air force F-35A at $108 million in the eighth lot of low-rate initial production (LRIP , which was finalised in late 2014 – $4 million less per aircraft than the US government paid in LRIP 7.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 35-410439/

[Mort Walker]

the ACTUAL cost of the aircraft is in the SAR and is for all to see. The JPO does not give cost data, only internal URF cost targets. Anything and everything the JPO says, or issues as a document is subject to oversight and can be used by any one to find faults with both it and the conclusion drawn. So far Bogdan has been fair in his criticism of Lockheed and pratt and Whitney when required, but also pragmatic in the sense that he is trying to get this program to deliver what it should be delivering and what is required. He has attacked the contractors and sided with them when it makes sense. You do not get cost reductions by bashing OEM's, you do however bash them when required (STICK) and work with them not the BFA to obtain the best results. He is doing it and the LRIP 1 to LRIP 8 cost data is in the SAR and for all to see.

When the OEM puts out information like 30K hours of operation or an RCS of 0.0001 sq.-meter, you have to question the numbers to see if it makes any physical sense and how they came up with those. One can quickly see they don't make any sense and a sales pitch is being pursued. Bogdan is a fair enough person, but he's in been put in a bad position which may be a career ender. No matter, he'll get picked up by LM a year after he retires. From the information you've posted, I think your company or organization is getting a piece of the multi-hundred-billion dollar pie. More power to you and I genuinely wish you success. It is good hard work. The rest of us can be viewed as "the haters gonna hate".

[UlanBatori]

Like I said at the start, very profitable venture. Such Loyalty! Such Faith! Touching.
Might want to take a break from posting to read up on F-15, F/A-18, F-117 and F-22 history of structural fixes. But in those days (pre-F-22 - there is no excuse for the mess on the F-22) there was no such comprehensive prediction software where they could cheat on "perfect correlation" and falsely claim ability to predict, when the knew quite well that they could get the "predictions" to match anything at all by tweaking the gazillion knobs. F-22 and F-35 are pretty bad coverups of problems. Fortunately, as our friend pointed out, F-22 production is stopped at 195 planes instead of thousands. Hangar space is at a premium, and even in the desert airplane graveyard, real estate is at a premium. Maybe they can turn the VTOL F-35s on their noses and use them as ventilator fans. Or wind turbines.