F-35 Static arives in UK !

[fallmonk]

Sorry if reported on here before but i just found this thought it might be of be intrest to people on here


The North Spin - News: F-35 'AG-1' Arrives in the United Kingdom for Static Testing (http://www.thenorthspin.com/news09/042709lockheed.html)


4/27/2009 - FORT WORTH, TX -- After a three-week ocean voyage, a static-test version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, has arrived in the United Kingdom. The F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant aircraft, called AG-1, will undergo testing in the Structural and Dynamic Test facility at BAE Systems’ site in Brough, East Yorkshire, England.
Mick Ord, BAE Systems' managing director of the F-35 Lightning II business said, "This is another major milestone in the F-35 program and we’re delighted to take delivery of the full-scale static testing airframe. BAE Systems is a principal subcontractor to Lockheed Martin on the F-35 program and brings military aircraft expertise that is critical to the F-35 Lightning II airframe and systems. We lead on several work share areas, of which structural testing is one."
AG-1 began its travels on March 27 at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Tex., plant. It was shipped overland to the Texas coast, where it was placed aboard a U.K.-bound cargo ship. AG-1 is one of six static test airframes constructed for the System Development and Demonstration phase of the F-35 Lightning II program, which is developing and validating all of the aircraft’s systems and manufacturing techniques. Another 13 F-35s are dedicated to flight testing.
"The work BAE Systems is performing on AG-1 highlights just one of the United Kingdom’s many indigenous industrial capabilities that this program relies upon," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager of F-35 Program Integration. "We are conducting the largest-ever test program for a fighter, and the BAE Systems structural test facilities expand our bandwidth and help us maintain our schedule."
Ord added, "BAE Systems is responsible for carrying out a large percentage of the structural and fatigue testing required to qualify all three of the F-35 variants. Some testing has been carried out on smaller components, but this will be among the first of the full airframe tests to be carried out."
The Structural and Dynamic Test Facility at Brough is BAE Systems' center of excellence for structural testing, responsible for providing evidence that airframes meet the design requirements for structural strength and durability.
The F-35 airframe will be connected to a highly complex test rig in which 165 hydraulic actuators will replicate the loads the aircraft would see in flight. The data from the test will be captured by 4,000 sensors bonded to the airframe.
The test rig itself weighs around 365 tons and has approximately 53 miles (85km) of wiring spread around it to connect all the systems and sensors. The computing power available to control the load applications is roughly the equivalent of 25 high-specification personal computers.
Testing is planned to begin in late July and will take about 15 months, certifying the strength of the airframe and its components and contributing to the aircraft’s flight envelope expansion requirements. Upon completion of its static testing program, AG-1 will be shipped back to the U.S.
The F-35 is being built in three variants: conventional takeoff and landing, short takeoff/ vertical landing (STOVL) and carrier variant (CV). CTOL and CV durability airframe tests will also be undertaken at BAE Systems Brough site. Static testing of other F-35 airframes is under way at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility.
In March, the U.K. Ministry of Defence announced it intends to order three instrumented STOVL F-35 Lightning II test aircraft and associated support equipment for Operational Test and Evaluation purposes.
Background
The F-35 airframe, AG-1, departed Lockheed Martin’s site at Fort Worth, Texas, on April 5, crossing the Atlantic by ship before arriving at the port of Hull on April 24. The airframe was transferred by barge up the river Humber, and lifted by crane onto BAE Systems' Brough site on the morning of April 25.
The airframe was transported with wings and canopy installed to the main fuselage, and was shrink-wrapped to provide protection against the elements. The resulting shipment was 51 feet long, 35 feet wide and 13.5 feet high, and weighed some 22 tons.
The Structural and Dynamic Test Facility has been performing to the highest standards for over 50 years. The Brough facility is a modern, purpose designed complex, comprising four large test halls, development laboratories and supporting infrastructure. Currently also undergoing tests in the Structural and Dynamic Test Facility are Nimrod MRA4, Hawk and Typhoon airframes.

[VinRouge]

Interesting. Will the F-35 have to go through a full envelope clearance or will we be able to piggy-back off the US tests?

Are BAE systems doing the vibs tests for the US DOD or only the UK customer?

Seems nuts to do 2 sets of aeroelastic trials without datashare across the 2 nations?

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

Hmm

That the same one that was photo'd on deck of one of our lickle carriers a few months back on a thread here ?

[Double Zero]

If it is the same example they'll get some interesting test results, as I understood that one on the Illustrious was a mock-up !

[L J R]

As BAE systems are involved in this project, one must ask when will you get the front line jet??

[airborne_artist]

one must ask when will you get the front line jet??

I think we can be pretty certain that no-one on this forum now will fly it. Come to think of it, the people that might fly it are still in nappies :}

[Tarnished]

F-35 Fighter Two Years Behind Schedule: Pentagon Panel

By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff

An internal Pentagon oversight board has found that the Joint Strike Fighter program is two years behind the schedule that has been publicly announced, according to multiple congressional aides who are familiar with the findings.

The Pentagon’s Joint Estimate Team (JET), which was established to independently oversee the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, is at odds with the fighter’s Joint Program Office, the aides said. The oversight panel’s calculations determined that the fighter won’t be able to move out of the development phase and into full production mode until 2016, rather than 2014 as the program office has said. That’s assuming there are no further problems with the program, which has already faced cost overruns and schedule delays. The Government Accountability Office said the delay could cost as much as $7.4 billion.

“In every parameter and in every respect, the Joint Program Office’s projections were always a hell of a lot rosier than what the Joint Estimate Team found,” said one Senate aide who was briefed on the findings.

As Congress has debated the future of the F-22 fighter program, lawmakers have used the promise of the F-35 plane’s completion as a key plank in their argument that the F-22 line could be ended without a significant risk to national security.

Now, senators and aides are lamenting that the Pentagon oversight panel’s more pessimistic view on the F-35 program was not publicly released during the F-22 debate and are calling for more open disclosure of the problems with the development of the F-35.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., who has often criticized the program, calling it the “Joint Strike Failure,” said his attempts to get internal Pentagon data on the program have often been rebuffed.

“They are wrapped so tight on that F-35,” said Bond, who added the Pentagon is so invested in the program they are loathe to release negative information, especially during a debate over Air Force funding.

“They bet too much on the F-35. It’s too big to fail,” said Bond. “It’s like Citigroup.”

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said there is no delay in the completion of the first production aircraft, which is due next year, but did not comment on the findings of the Joint Estimate Team specifically. He added there is no “attempt to suppress information about the program.”

John R. Kent, a spokesman for the F-35’s main contractor Lockheed Martin, said that despite the Joint Estimate Team’s findings, there has been no change made to the F-35 official production schedule.

Cheryl Limrick, spokesperson for the F-35 program office, said that the “JET analysis is grounded in past performance of other legacy fighter programs and does not fully acknowledge proactive F-35 management steps.”

Delays Attributed to Design Changes

The Joint Estimate Team reports internally to the Pentagon and includes representatives from each of the military services.

After extensive evaluations that included site visits and meetings with the program’s contractors, the team determined that added delays were caused by ongoing complications with the engineering and design changes to the plane as well as the difficulty of organizing some 7 million lines of software code, Senate aides said.

The Joint Estimate Team is probably more reliable than the program office because they don’t have a stake in the program’s success, one Senate aides argued. “Their objective is to be objective.”

The team’s findings were based on data from September 2008 and the next report won’t be available until at least October, likely to be well past consideration of the fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations and authorization bills, the aide said.

The discrepancy between the Joint Estimate Team and the F-35 program office was noted in a March report by the Government Accountability Office, but received little attention at the time.

Delays to the F-35 program schedule, as noted by the Joint Estimate Team, could add as much as $7.4 billion to the cost of the program and the Defense Department’s desire to accelerate production could cost an additional $33.4 billion, the GAO found.

F-35 “development will cost more and take longer than reported to the Congress last year,” the report stated, adding, “Despite cost and schedule troubles, [the Pentagon] wants to accelerate [F-35] procurement.”

Appropriators are dubious of speeding up F-35 production and have already reduced the president’s request for F-35 procurement by $530 million in the House’s version of the Defense appropriations bill, shifting much of that money toward research.

“This is a cut because we think they just can’t spend the money [that they requested],” said John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. “They’ve got to do a better job of oversight.”

F-35 Used To Undercut F-22

Administration officials and senators repeatedly touted the F-35 program as the best bet to preserve U.S. air power superiority and as a primary reason that the F-22 program should be capped at 187 planes, as the Senate voted 58-40 to do on July 21.

“If properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come,” said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in a July 16 speech at the Economic Club of Chicago, “if — and it’s a big if — money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft.”

Experts said Gates’ tough rhetoric on the F-22 and his determined efforts to pressure senators to support the administration’s plan to end F-22 production would have been hurt had the Joint Estimate Team’s findings been widely known.

“If this information had been part of the debate over the last couple of months, several Democrats, many of whom switched their votes at the last minute, would have been much harder to persuade,” said Tom Donnelly, director of defense studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Any delay in full production of the F-35 would affect the entire fighter fleet, said Donnelly, because the F-35 is meant to take the place of so many planes, including the F-15, the F-16 and the F-18.

Although the Senate voted to strip the defense authorization bill (S 1390) of the F-22 funding, the debate over the plane is sure to resurface when the House and Senate move their fiscal 2010 draft Defense appropriations bills.

“The F-22 debate is not over, so the administration’s credibility on the F-35 could really be hurt by this information,” Donnelly said.

Even Senators who were fighting to save the F-22 referred to 2014 as the Pentagon’s official estimate of when full production would commence, although there were hints that might change.

“The F-35 was scheduled to begin construction in 2010. Since then, of course, it has been pushed back 4 years to 2014,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., an F-22 supporter, said during the floor debate, adding, “There are some rumors that this date may be pushed back even further.”

A delay in F-35 production could have international implications as well, because several allied countries are tied into the F-35 program and are depending on that plane to contribute to their own defense structures.

“Customers such as the United Kingdom, the Air National Guard, the Marine Corps, and others are on very tight schedules because their current equipment is rapidly aging out,” said Douglas Birkey, director of government relations for the Air Force Association, “They need the F-35 as a backfill.”

[Yeoman_dai]

Defense Tech: F-35B "Warthog" (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004991.html#comments)


What it looks like with Weapons... (stupid article name mind you)