PDA

View Full Version : JSF Hit By Serious Design Problems


ORAC
3rd Dec 2007, 20:34
The AD software module issue seems a mirror image of the Typhoon A-G issues that so many have been slagging off for so long. So maybe it won't be that much better than the GR9 in the AD role for a while. Standby for further slippages and price escalations....

DID: F-35 JSF Hit by Serious Design Problems (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-jsf-hit-by-serious-design-problems-04311/#more)

On May 3, 2007, during the 19th test flight of the prototype of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a serious electrical malfunction occurred in the control of the plane. After an emergency landing the malfunction could be identified as a crucial problem, and it became clear that redesign of critical electronic components was necessary. Producer Lockheed Martin and program officials first announced there was a minor problem, and later on they avoided any further publicity about the problems.

The delay has become serious, however, and rising costs for the JSF program seem to be certain......

On May 3, 2007 with the second test pilot Jeff Knowles at the stick, a serious malfunction hits the JSF. At 38,000 feet (12 km) level flight and at a speed of some 800 km/hour, the plane executed a planned, 360-degree roll but experienced power loss in the electrical system about halfway through the manoeuvre.

In an emergency procedure, power is restored and Jeff Knowles regains control of the plane. The pilot cuts short this 19th test flight and makes an emergency landing in Fort Worth, TX. Due to control problems with right wing flaperons, the JSF has to make that landing at an exceptional high speed of 220 knots (350 km/hr). The plane's undercarriage, brakes and tires are damaged. The plane is stopped, surrounded by emergency vehicles, and towed away, but several eyewitnesses take pictures of the emergency landing.

Lockheed Martin technicians identify a component in the 270-power supply as the culprit in the near-accident. The JSF's new technology includes new electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs) for the flight control system, replacing more conventional hydraulic systems......After several weeks of evaluations, the engineers learn that there are serious design problems in this new electrical system. Expensive redesign will be necessary.....

Another fact was discovered via a military employee of one of the European air forces, who works within the JSF project team, and is a liaison person for several air forces. He says that flying in 2012 with the JSF may be safe and the JSF can be used as a plane to fly around. But, the several software modules for weapons system integration will not be ready. Ground attack capability is the priority, so early-build F-35s will primarily be "bomb trucks" until the additional software modules can be tested and loaded. Air superiority capabilities will be restricted, and completed only after 2015. This means that full multi-role capability is possible by 2016 at the earliest, if and only if no major problems occur in development and testing of the weapon systems software.......

Nor are these the only challenging problems facing the F-35 program. The F-35C naval variant's Hamilton Sundstrand power generator was mistakenly designed to only 65% of the required electric output. To accommodate the required increase, it will also be necessary to redesign the gearbox for the standard Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which will be fitted into the conventional F-35A version as well as the naval F-35C. The contract announced by the US Department of Defense in August 2007 says that this engine update won't be ready for use until the end of 2009, which is almost the beginning of low-rate initial production.

Lockheed Martin can issue a subcontract to Hamilton Sundstrand to fix the F135's power generator without any publicity, and they have done so. As of December 1, 2007, neither Lockheed Martin's nor Hamilton Sundstrand's 2007 news archives show any trace of this award. Pratt & Whitney has a separate government contract for the F135 engine, however, and the award's size forces the Pentagon to announce the award under its rules for publicizing contracts.

Although it seemed probable that last October the JSF would fly again, a new problem arose. During a test run of the F135 engine, part of the engine was blown up by overheating. On November 14, 2007, an eyewitness took pictures of the transportation of a new F135 engine. The date for test flight number 20 (of the scheduled 5,000 test flights) is still unknown.........

XV277
3rd Dec 2007, 22:01
The electrics failed when it was upside down - gravity switch in the generator?:)

green granite
4th Dec 2007, 07:37
Marinized Typhoon any one? :)

ZH875
4th Dec 2007, 09:45
The electrics failed when it was upside down - gravity switch in the generator?:)


Nah, the battery fell out!.

Sunk at Narvik
4th Dec 2007, 10:07
That has to be worth reconsidering, esp in light of current budget problems. IIRC the F35 part of the carrier spend is around £8bn? Using Tranche 3 Typhoons instead would seem a good idea even without F35 probs and a budget squeeze....

FoxTwo
4th Dec 2007, 11:06
Would certainly be a break in tradition! :}

WE Branch Fanatic
6th Dec 2007, 20:04
So maybe it won't be that much better than the GR9 in the AD role for a while.

But the F35 will have a radar, and hopefully link 16/22, so perhaps a better comparison would be with the AV8B+, or the dear old Sea Harrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152)?

Since the new carriers are likely to be delayed from the intended dates of 2012 and 2015 for entering service, this may not be as big an issue as it might appear.

bakseetblatherer
7th Dec 2007, 08:48
The thing which caught my attention was the estimated costings (from a computer geek website DailyTech, so I dunno if they are good!):
"Costs for the program have ballooned from $30 billion USD in 2002 to $40 billion USD today. And according to the Air Force, a single F-35 will cost $100 million USD when production is comfortably underway in 2013 -- this compares to $50 million USD for a single F-16 or $132 million USD for a single F-22 Raptor."
Man who would want 4 JSFs when you could have three Raptors! An it saves on pilot costs ;)

Boldface
7th Dec 2007, 09:42
Man who would want 4 JSFs when you could have three Raptors!

Maths not your strong point then backseat?!

artyhug
7th Dec 2007, 10:15
Ummmm, 1x JSF $100 million so 4 x JSF $400 million.
and then 1x F22 $132 million so 3 x F22 $396 million......

can't see the problem with the maths myself or am I thick?

Like This - Do That
7th Dec 2007, 10:31
'Scuse my ignorance (civ but not mil flyer; mil but not civ shooter) and also 'scuse the shiraz I've been knocking back tonight.....

Is the 'J' in this whole thing worth it? Is this 'J' as idiotic as McNamara's grand plans 45+ years ago?

Why faff around creating a 80% solution for every situation in (basically) one airframe, engine & avionics system, when more specific 95% solutions in (basically) three different systems for three (or more) situations might each have had a chance of coming in (roughly) on time and (roughly within 50%) of budget?

Has it been worth all this $$$$$ to create one system to try and do almost everything?

Back to the vino .....

Radar Command T/O
7th Dec 2007, 17:06
"Costs for the program have ballooned from $30 billion USD in 2002 to $40 billion USD today."

$30billion in 2002 - about £20billion
$40billion in 2007 - about £20billion

Gotta love that weak dollar! :}

bakseetblatherer
7th Dec 2007, 18:03
Nope maths is not my strong point- my strong point is my charm and good looks-, but as pointed out by good old artyhug (how are ya mate?), it is better than yours, Boldface ;)

artyhug
7th Dec 2007, 18:06
See now I, for a moment, put aside my envy of life in the sun but you just had to push it too far..... Charming and good looking my a*se. Now get back to your vineyards whilst we harrumph around in the rain......;)

bakseetblatherer
7th Dec 2007, 18:18
Well the sheep here think I am charming and good looking, I often don't even have to use the velcro gloves!:E

F34NZ
7th Dec 2007, 18:36
bakseet, don't mention the sheep. Things are bad enough up here without them finding out about all that smooth kissing; how many more migrants do you want down there, bro ?

glad rag
7th Dec 2007, 18:44
Well all aircraft have initial design problems but getting the flight control actuation wrong from the start is a bit off :suspect: .......going to cost $$$$$'s to sort along with massive program delays.
Hmmm, maybe going French might not be such a ££££££ bad idea, after all Rafale HAS already been on Afgan ops.....:cool:

WE Branch Fanatic
8th Dec 2007, 18:54
But surely one of the problems with the JSF project is the amount of publicity - so much that every mishap is portrayed as a disaster? The first flight was nearly a year ago and presumably test flying has continued.

There is a wealth of infomation at the DOD JSF project website. (http://www.jsf.mil)

ORAC
8th Dec 2007, 19:13
But surely one of the problems with the JSF project is the amount of publicity - so much that every mishap is portrayed as a disaster? The first flight was nearly a year ago and presumably test flying has continued. There is one aircraft to date in the flying program. The flight where the control problem occurred (flight 19 out of 5000) was in May. There have been no flights since.

No date, as far as I am aware, has been announced for the resumption of flying and test flight 20.

glad rag
8th Dec 2007, 20:19
so much that every mishap is portrayed as a disaster

You said it. A financial disaster in the making, a slow, overweight, performance limited aircraft that has had it's avionics and defensive systems slimmed down for budgetary limits all for the holy grail of "stealth" except some will be more stealthy than others!




That should set the cat amongst the pigeons....:}

Gregg
8th Dec 2007, 22:49
http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/348727.html

Looks like it flew again.

LowObservable
10th Dec 2007, 12:49
Shiraz is not bad stuff, you know...

Yes, it could have been argued that the right way to do it would have been to build three aircraft. The Marines could have dispensed with all-round stealth, since their core missions are CAS and defensive counterair, and would have a lighter and simpler aircraft; the AF would probably have ended up with a slightly stealthier, delta-winged design, maybe a bit like a stealthy F-16U; and the Navy would have had a son-of-A-12.

All sorts of parts, procedures and processes would have been common. It would basically look like the Airbus program, with common parts on all sorts of aircraft from the A318 to the A380 and A400M.

Unfortunately, the concept was way too sophisticated for anyone to sell it to the White House or Congress; and the usual Optimism Disease set in, in which if the Pentagon utters a requirement, nobody will say it can't or shouldn't be done.

maxburner
10th Dec 2007, 15:13
LowObservable.....

Is that really you Bill?

Engines
10th Dec 2007, 19:36
LO,

Your proposed solution is actaully quite close to what the JSF programme IS doing, and you are being a little too hard on the Pentagon.

The 3 JSF variants are quite markedly different in detail, especially the F-35C. A number of changes mark out the F-35A and B as well, although the overall planform and shapes are quite similar. The 3 variants are quite like Airbus, in that they share a number of common components, especially in the Mission Systems area - where the cost savings are significant.

The idea that 3 different types could have been built for the three customers was never a runner. The USN wanted a twin engined aircraft, USAF wanted an F-16 (high G, low cost) and the USMC wanted STOVL. Traditional requirements generation would have meant 3 totally separate aircraft. That had been tried, the Pentagon were looking at the wreckage of a number of failed tactical aircraft programmes and had to do something different.

Some fairly smart people (in the DoD) realised that melding these requirements around STOVL (when CALF became JAST) would restrict the aircraft to a single seat single engine layout and so contain costs. The process of getting to the JSF Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD) was actually an object lesson in how to do it - and it was certainly not 'uttered by the Pentagon'.

People might not like the look of the plane, but it's a balanced tactical strike aircraft designed to do supersonic STOVL, cat and trap and also land based ops. That's a tough shopping list. I give the US high marks for even attempting it.

LowObservable
11th Dec 2007, 03:38
Engines,
Thoughtful and right to a point...
But..
The F-35A and F-35C have this huge hole just behind the cockpit, which is nice to some extent for extra fuel but is not in the right place...
The F-35A and F-35B have two more tails (at least) than they need...
The F-35B has an internal weapons bay (which it won't need all that much) and no internal gun (which arguably it will need)...
And single engine does not necessarily mean cheap.

LowObservable
11th Dec 2007, 03:40
Maxburner,
Thou darest attempt to out me, sirrah?

Engines
11th Dec 2007, 18:31
LO,

To answer your points:

1. The fuel cells on the A and C are fully used - C of G is always a challenge on combat aircraft, and the more fuel you have at the ends the better you can control it - with some clever fuel scheduling.

2. A and B tails are miles smaller then the C's. Same shape, but very different size. IIRC around 35% smaller.

3. B needs an internal weapons bay for the same reasons as the A and C - bay to get the range/payload it needs, and also for LO reasons.

4. Yes, internal vs. external gun is a real poser - one could argue that fitting it only when you need it saves weight and gives more options - and integrating the gun they have chosen is a real challenge - heavy, takes up fuel space, adds drag (big bump) and getting an LO gun muzzle to work is not easy.

5. You are right that single engine doesn't necessarily mean cheap - but single engine and single seat is a powerful way to keep overall weight down - and that is still a major cost driver.

Regards, Engines

WE Branch Fanatic
15th Dec 2007, 22:13
Lockheed Martin readies F-35B STOVL JSF for roll-out (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/12/14/220301/lockheed-martin-readies-f-35b-stovl-jsf-for-roll-out.html)

I wonder when the first deck landing will be?