F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Hempy]

Personaly I see this as a six decade programme that started for real say in 2000.

The first decade [2000-2009] sees the start of flying.

The second decade [2010-2019]covers most of the original development and flying machine clearances.

The third decade [2020-2029]sees the military really getting to grips with what they can and cannot do with it. Plus the manufacturer is testing significant upgrades.

The forth decade [2030-2039]it is the aircraft/system to beat plus upgrades are starting to reach the fleet.

The fifth decade [2040-2059]ditto and all the fleet will have reached the final standard.

The sixth [2060-2069]is where serious plans for its replacement have started.

Given the time frames you describe (and I have no argument with them), surely replacement planning must start in at least decade 2 or 3. Otherwise, assuming similar development time, F-35 will have to remain operational to decade 9 or 10 before its replacement is fully capable!

[Robert Cooper]

Rear Admiral Kirby said on Thursday that it was unclear whether the grounded F-35 would participate in the Farnborough air show in the UK July 19-20. “A final decision will come early next week.”

Bob C

[GreenKnight121]

Would love to be a fly on the walls in Ft Worth and the Pentagon right now!

FWIW my guess would be a relatively small group of engineers are beavering away in FW on failure analysis versus a relatively large group of bigwigs in Pentagon who are working out how best to "spin" the inevitable......

What does Fort Worth (Lockheed/Martin F-35 production facility) have to do with this problem?

It is the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine that failed - (P&W headquarters in East Hartford, Connecticut) and they are produced in Middletown, Connecticut (initial and primary production plant, produced most F135s that have been delivered) and West Palm Beach, Florida (second production location, delivered their first F135 in May this year - engine #137).

[Heathrow Harry]

what struck me about JF's intelligent post was that in

1914-18 you could replace "decades" with "weeks"

1920-1945 replace "decades" with "months"

1945-1980 replace decades with "years"

presumably in 2030 onwards it will be replace "decades" with centuries"

[ORAC]

What does Fort Worth (Lockheed/Martin F-35 production facility) have to do with this problem? No engines = no test flying.

The program has already slipped multiple times and tis will almost certainly cause another slip - particularly for the F-35C sea carrier trials. So, yes, I imagine there are a lot of meetings and contingency planning going on...

AW&ST: .....The F-35 flight test program has missed about 30 "flight test opportunities," or scheduled flight test sortie slots, since the fleet remains on the ground after an F-35A caught fire June 23 while preparing for takeoff, says U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the program executive officer overseeing the project........

"Is it a big deal in the big scheme of things? It is not," Bogdan said of the effect of the stand-down thus far. To catch up, testers can simply add a couple of flights weekly for a short period — but only if flights resume soon and if no major shortcomings are found in further flight tests.

The F-35C, designed for use on U.S. aircraft carriers, is the variant most sensitive to schedule disruptions at the moment because it is being tightly managed leading up to its initial at-sea trials on an aircraft carrier this fall. "That is the thing to make up the most time on" once aircraft return to flight, Bogdan says, noting carrier schedules are rigid. "Their schedule is not going to flex for us." If the F-35C misses its window for sea operations in the fall, Bogdan says there are backup opportunities for those tests in 2015......

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by John Farley


Personaly I see this as a six decade programme
that started for real say in 2000.

The first decade [2000-2009]
sees the start of flying.

The second decade [2010-2019]covers most
of the original development and flying machine clearances.

The third
decade [2020-2029]sees the military really getting to grips with what
they can and cannot do with it. Plus the manufacturer is testing significant
upgrades.

The forth decade [2030-2039]it is the aircraft/system to
beat plus upgrades are starting to reach the fleet.

The fifth decade
[2040-2059]ditto and all the fleet will have reached the final
standard.

The sixth [2060-2069]is where serious plans for its
replacement have started.



That's an interesting timeline John, and not one I've seen posited before. How does this decades-long cycle marry with Moore's Law though, where computer memory is doubled every six months?

For example, just a decade after entering service the UK's Apaches began struggling with obsolescence issues on account of their basic transistor chips no longer being in production.

If the F-35 programme is spread out over 80+ years, how does it address obsolescence issues such as this. Surely, it will be obsolete and effectively unsupportable decades before it has even entered operational service, no?

It's also interesting to note that the MoD has 2048 as the JSF's OSD (just at the time that the fleet is attaining its final standard, by your timeline), so they're certainly not playing the long-game.

[John Farley]

Chaps

Many thanks for comments on my post 4744.

First may I say I have no insider info from either side of the pond and what I say is just based on my interpretation of the past and my guess of the future using what is my version of common sense.

In my time development included quite a lot of aerodynamic changes. Today such things are less likely to be necessary. However what is totally different now is the role equipment fit side of life – both hardware and software. This applies to both development stages and throughout service life.

Re the point Melmothtw makes about the Apache pains I suspect that a lot of very much brighter people than me are fully aware of such issues and are finding ways of alleviating the problem. Future proofing can be real not just a buzzword.

The quote that MOD have an OSD of 2048 strikes me as so unlikely to happen that I would bet my house on it!

Re Hempy's point about the need to start planning for a successor earlier than my comment he is of course right.

The sixth is where serious plans for its replacement have started.

I should have said something like

The sixth is where work on its its replacement is looking good.

[glad rag]

Laser in F-35 PDF broken URL info amended above - meanwhile - back at dat ranch....

Investigators Eye Third-Stage Turbine As F-35 Remains Grounded | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/investigators-eye-third-stage-turbine-f-35-remains-grounded)


"The low pressure section of the F-135 has bediveled the program before. The fleet was grounded from Feb. 21- March 1, 2013, due to the discovery of a 0.6 in. crack discovered on a third-stage low-pressure turbine blade on AF-2, an F-35A used for testing, at Edwards AFB, California. Pratt officials attributed it to a one-off manufacturing issue and not related to high-cycle fatigue."

[Wander00]

Wonder what the USMC would take for a few AV8-Bs.......................hat, coat, running........

[Wrathmonk]

What impact does the l a s e r have on the -B variant? The image posted by Spaz and the words in the pdf link ("the concept for integrating a SSL into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would place the laser system in the fan cavity of the short-take-off-and-vertical-landing version of the aircraft and use the fan shaft to power a megawatt-sized generator") suggest you can either a STOVL variant or a l a s e r variant but not both together. Or have I missed something?

[Willard Whyte]

The idea is that the STOVL becomes a 'C'TOL; it's an 'instead of' not 'as well as' option.

[Wrathmonk]

So, not an option for the RAF\FAA fleet then.....perhaps they can develop a non-stealthy pod version!:ugh:

[Willard Whyte]

Give it 50 years and maybe UKsville will come to terms with the 21st century.

[Whitewhale83]

There was, way back when, talk that Dave-B's not operating off a carrier would have their lift fans removed and replaced with an additional fuel tank to substantially improve the range when in a conventional mode. There has been no mention as far as I'm aware recently so I expect the plan was dropped. Supposedly utilising the lift fan slot and the driveshaft as a power source the B could carry a very high power energy weapon.

I wouldn't expect to see it for another 20 years though!

[melmothtw]

It would make more sense just to do a split buy with the A, rather than carving up the B. This was also a plan, but since scrapped by the Mod on account of once bitten twice shy with regard to the mess with the B/C switch and switch back. Also, suspect there will no longer be enough bought for 'carrier' and 'non carrier' specific airframes.

John, I get what you say about the 2048 OSD. Unfortunately the recent precedent has been to bring forward OSDs - Jaguar, Harrier, Tornado, C-130J - rather than to put them back.

[John Farley]

I have never suggested the B would swop its fan for a laser geny. Nor do I think anybody else would.

The A's front tank is another matter though at mid life.

As for the increased range that the front tank gives over the B I feel some people don't understand the need for fuel reserves when landing an A. If you can hover they are much reduced - especially if operating from a ship.

[Courtney Mil]

Melmoth, yes, you are right about recent OSDs, but I think that's only been to save coin. In all those instances, they ("they" being the wizards, or something) thought they could pass the role onto another type and scrap an entire platform and all it's support. Platforms with no obvious replacement, I would imagine, might be more likely to be extended than scrapped. Once we have only two FJ platforms, the decision might not be so simple. Dunno. What do you think?

[melmothtw]

Yes Courtney, it always comes down to coinage. You're right that it's harder to gap an FJ capability when faced with the lack of a suitable replacement than, say, an MPA capability.

I do think 2048 is far to near for an F-35 OSD, but that's the date they've given.

Who knows eh? ;-)

[SpazSinbad]

Will youse Brits be trainin' here (OR only the RNers) until UK trainin' starts?

F-35B training squadron arriving in Beaufort, to start training in October 05 Jul 2014 MATT McNAB
"...Classes that start in October will be composed of experienced pilots transitioning to the new aircraft, said Troy Ward, MCAS Beaufort Site Activation Task Force program manager. New pilots will begin training in 2015. Foreign pilots are also slated to train at the air station, but their arrival is still being worked out.

Training will take between six and eight months, but won’t involve much use of the vertical capabilities of the aircraft. About 70 percent of the training uses conventional takeoffs and landings, Ward said....."
F-35B training squadron arriving in Beaufort, to start training in October | Charleston/ Beaufort military bases | The State (http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/05/3549166/f-35b-training-squadron-arriving.html)

[melmothtw]

617 Sqn will stand up at Beaufort in 2016, before relocating to Marham in 2018.

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks for that info. I'll hope all their SRVLs aboard CVF are as tranquil as shown at the end of this new version of the SRVL explaino video....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uPWjq23vL0&list=UUO01b-vlaWyyhLKV3MmXsBQ

[Willard Whyte]

I have never suggested the B would swop its fan for a l@ser geny.

I rarely get confused, but I don't think anyone did anything of the sort. But, get rid of the lift gubbins and there's a handy driveshaft with lots of kW attached.

Personally I'd rather have
https://forum-s3.pinside.com/201310/1205522/146265.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Willard, I've always known that Ray guns are the future, ever since I was a lad. But the ray guns they showed me didn't need half the airframe's space and power to make them work. With that space goes capability. When the frame is already short on range/payload/agility, this is hardly a great wonder for its future. Especially true as it's not yet op and failed to make it across the Atlantic.

So, too early to be imagining what it might do before it even does what it should, which is not even what it was imagined to do. Little steps...

[SpazSinbad]

:E Heheh... 'LO' will stop reading at the 'gc' which is probably a good thing...:}

"WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has begun carrying out a game-changing plan for sustainment on a global scale, one that relies heavily on competition to help drive down costs...."
Global Competition Opens For F-35 Sustainment Deals | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140706/DEFREG02/307060009/Global-Competition-Opens-F-35-Sustainment-Deals)

[Courtney Mil]

Oh good. Now someone in another country is contracting out our Mil support for us. This can only be a wonderful thing.

[rh200]

Oh good. Now someone in another country is contracting out our Mil support for us. This can only be a wonderful thing.

The funny thing will be when China or Russia become the lowest bidder.:E

[LowObservable]

Once the jet has proven that it can be deployed and operated normally, if a partner nation is willing to invest, it may be assigned the regional responsibility for repairing the nose landing gear.

No mention of how anything related to stealth materials/coatings or other sensitive technology will be "assigned". But in any case it will be done on the JSFPO's determination of "best value".

So what becomes of the Netherlands' or Italy's or UK-Norway's plans to carve out big shares of support work?

[Kitbag]

So what becomes of the Netherlands' or Italy's or UK-Norway's plans to carve out big shares of support work?

As with all things 'B' they're shafted



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Courtney Mil]

Nice one, Kit!

[LowObservable]

Meanwhile...

F-35Bs would have to ferry across the pond on Wednesday in order to do demo flights for RIAT on Thursday. This means they have until Tuesday, latest, to announce that a root cause for the fire has been found, establish RTF actions and implement those actions on the Marine birds at Pax. They'd have to get the RTF actions established today to have any chance of getting the U.K. jet over.

[Heathrow Harry]

Stick one in a Galaxy and have it towed up and down past the screaming crowd at Farnborough?

[melmothtw]

Stick one in a Galaxy and have it towed up and down past the screaming crowd at Farnborough?

It does make you wonder why, given the PR importance of the aircraft making it to this side of the pond and the challenges of ferrying single-engine and short-legged 'developmental' aircraft over the Atlantic, they didn't opt to ship them over via C-17/C-5 well ahead of time in the first place.

[glad rag]

That is quite a succinct question indeed.

Maybe Spaz will viff his way over from the previous page with an appropriate LM press release?

[sandiego89]

Quote:
Stick one in a Galaxy and have it towed up and down past the screaming crowd at Farnborough? It does make you wonder why, given the PR importance of the aircraft making it to this side of the pond and the challenges of ferrying single-engine and short-legged 'developmental' aircraft over the Atlantic, they didn't opt to ship them over via C-17/C-5 well ahead of time in the first place.

Perhaps because it won't fit in a C-17 or C-5. 35 foot span on the B- too big without taking the wings off, and that would be a major reassembly. A smarter move would have been to ferry a few B's over on a LHD as part of an exercise, "training" or a deployment.

[melmothtw]

Perhaps because it won't fit in a C-17 or C-5. 35 foot span on the B- too big without taking the wings off, and that would be a major reassembly.

Thanks for stating the blindingly obvious sandiego. Of course the wings have to come off, just as the rotors have to come of a helicopter when that is airlifted also.

http://defensetech.org/2011/08/25/ouch-navy-super-hornet-goes-home-in-a-c-5/

[PhilipG]

I think that I did ask why they had not put them all on the F35 trial ship USS Wasp, they might have got here, unfortunately I understand Wasp is busy being refitted, so she can carry F35s.

[SpazSinbad]

'glad rag' I will never do your bidding but thought it appropo to suggest that I could not give a rats arse whether youse BritUKcrabs see any F-35Bs soon. What do I care? If anything I would care that if the Bs do travel over water that they do so safely etc.

[glad rag]

'glad rag' I will never do your bidding but thought it appropo to suggest that I could not give a rats arse whether youse BritUKcrabs see any F-35Bs soon. What do I care? If anything I would care that if the Bs do travel over water that they do so safely etc.

OK. I just thought, from your previous postings that you had your finger on the Lockheed PR pulse thats all, an information conduit to the latest from the manufacturer direct to <these> pages.

Obviously not.

[LowObservable]

You and the other fans might care more if it turns out that, after 12 years and $40+ billion, and a year before supposed "operational" capability, the jet can't manage a very benign deployment with almost unlimited support.

[MSOCS]

I don't think there's anything "benign" about a trans-atlantic trail in a single-seat, single-engined jet ac, having planned and flown many myself.

Regardless, I'm highly confident that there are many on both sides of the pond making considerable efforts to ensure that whatever can be done to get the ac to the UK is being done and with safety as a priority.

If they don't make it, the right decision will have been made. If they do make it, ditto.

[SpazSinbad]

How the thunking goes at moment:

No Decisions Yet On F-35B UK Flights; Tomorrow Looms « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/no-decisions-yet-on-f-35b-uk-flights-tomorrow-looms/)
&
Sources: Engine ‘Definitely’ to Blame for June F-35 Fire 07 Jul 2014 Dave Majumdar

http://news.usni.org/2014/07/07/sources-engine-definitely-blame-june-f-35-fire

[rh200]

There are those on here who will blindly think the F35 is the ducks nuts and can do no wrong, also there are those who are of the opposite opinion and are just as extreme.

The fact is its a complex program with many things going on in parallel. Like all complex project management programs, they have to juggle competing interests.

The current issue is nothing more than a blip at a inconvientent time. We are not at war, the free world isn't hanging on a thread waiting for it to help us against the hordes. The piece of sh!t has had a major component failure in the engine. It is only prudent to ground it until the risk and cause is at least partially understood.

It would be complete stupidity to risk, 1) a pilot 2) a expensive airframe, when there is some unknown probability of a catastrophic engine failure.

I do believe this is not an unusual situation, in recent memory we have had A380 grounded, F22 grounded, etc etc.

[SpazSinbad]

Most F-35 engines inspected; U.S. contract talks on hold for now 07 Jul 2014 Andrea Shalal (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=andrea.shalal&)
"...Officials investigating the fire have determined what happened to the F135 engine built by Pratt, a unit of United Technologies Corp, but are still trying to understand why it happened, said one source familiar with the program...."
Most F-35 engines inspected; U.S. contract talks on hold for now | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/08/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSKBN0FD00H20140708)

[Hempy]

I don't think there's anything "benign" about a trans-atlantic trail in a single-seat, single-engined jet ac, having planned and flown many myself.

Did the single seat, single engined aircraft you planned and flew across the Atlantic come in at approx £90,000,000 each?

You'd hope anything worth that amount of coin would indeed be capable of crossing an ocean 'benignly'.....

[MSOCS]

rh200 has it spot-on! Well said Sir.

Hempy - those aircraft cost way more than the £90M you quote because they are Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) airframes. When Full-Rate Production (FRP) is in full swing you might see them come in at the price you quote (from where btw?!), or it could be higher (or lower, but I doubt it). I think the cost is irrelevant in many ways to this argument, unless of course you can quote an ac cost that would be acceptable in similar circumstances?

If it comes to the UK, great. If it doesn't, the more mature visitors to this forum will understand why.

[LowObservable]

MSOCS - Maybe "benign" is not the right word. However, an operation with unlimited resources and months of planning, in summer, is not the same as the combat deployments for which this aircraft will supposedly be ready this year.

Flight safety is paramount, and to suggest anyone thinks otherwise without evidence is a strawman argument. The underlying issue is the reliability and maturity of the platform, almost eight years into flight test.

[Squirrel 41]

Any chance that we can use this to restart development of the F136 Alternative Engine.... after all, competition was a great driver in the F100 / F110 engine war. :ugh:

S41

[Not_a_boffin]

Already out there...

Alert 5 » Poll: Should the Pentagon revive the GE F-136 engine program? - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2014/07/08/poll-should-the-pentagon-revive-the-ge-f-136-engine-program/)

[WhiteOvies]

USS Wasp is just out from a long dry docking overhaul period so is in no way fit for any type of aviation right now. That's why that is not an option.

I really hope the aircraft make it across but flight safety comes first and Bogdan is mature enough to make the right call despite the undoubted political and commercial pressures. Whilst the PR of a grounding and missed airshows is bad for the aircraft it is nothing compared to the what would happen if the worst happened mid-Atlantic.

Of note there has been alot less press about the PAK/FA (T-50) that caught fire recently. I'm waiting for the conspiracy theorists to come up with why all these stealth jets keep catching fire!

[LowObservable]

S41 - The decision to cancel the F136 was rational. Why, the pro-GE side even raised the spectre of an engine-related fleetwide grounding! No way anything like that would happen.

The jets may make it to England - but the way the story is coming out right now reminds me of being stuck at DTW at 2015, and thank you for your patience, folks, we're waiting on maintenance and should have an update for you in another 20 minutes...

[Courtney Mil]

Sorry if this has already been posted. Was reading and found it. Seemed relevant although haven't been here yet today.

A current grounding of the entire Lockheed Martin F-35 fleet has no bearing on the UK’s plans to order the fifth-generation type, according to defence secretary Philip Hammond.

Speaking to reporters after attending a naming ceremony for the new Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth at Rosyth dockyard in Scotland on 4 July, Hammond said the grounding – imposed the previous day – was “unfortunate”. However, he notes: “It’s the kind of thing that happens in aircraft development programmes.”

While Hammond says the Ministry of Defence “would very much like it to be here for Farnborough”, he adds that “we are not going to take any chances with safety”. One of the short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs which has been scheduled to appear at the show after making a debut appearance at the 11-13 July Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) is UK-owned aircraft BK-3.

Oh, and I love the fact that they've now decided that the engine is the most likely cause of the engine fire!

[Kerosene Kraut]

So will the F-35 be permitted to fly at Farnborough this year? Any news on this?

[sandiego89]

USS Wasp is just out from a long dry docking overhaul period

I can confirm the WASP is still in the yard- I can see her from my office as I type! She has been there for months, first in the dry dock, then floating alongside the pier. Deck has been covered with tents for some time, must be fitting that magical heat resistant non-skid. Lots of work. Iwo Jima came and went with a much shorter yard period.

[LowObservable]

“It’s the kind of thing that happens in aircraft development programmes.”


Remember that Davis chap a few years ago? A general of some kind. He was always telling us how his program was different and how simulation and modelling were going to make testing a matter of validation. Anyone recall what project he was in charge of?

[rh200]

S41 - The decision to cancel the F136 was rational. Why, the pro-GE side even raised the spectre of an engine-related fleetwide grounding! No way anything like that would happen.

I mentioned several pages about how wise it was to have all your eggs in one basket, with regards to the F35. The same applies to engines.

Any piece of equipment can manifest some kind of systematic fault at any stage of its life, no matter how good the testing regime is. The probability of that gets lower as we understand the engineering and modeling better, but its not perfect.

So yes, one argument is that a staged implementation of a system with any hours dependent issue, can be managed. But there's still a " what the f#$k" amount of dead time when something happens, and when you can decide that parts of the fleet can keep operating.

Whilst in the early stages of deployment, this wlil not be a problem as their are other platforms to take up the slack, this is not the case for countrys that rely on it, or when you have retired your other platforms.

There must be some ballsy strategists and probability experts in some countries. In our case nothing will change, we can just go running back under the yanks skirt if the worst was to happen:p

[Turbine D]

rh200, The current situation is not unusual unless problems with the engine prove chronic over time.

The program is complex because L-M, DoD and Congress made it complex, it could have been simplified and orderly. L-M sold DoD on a bill of goods to fulfill DoD's dreams and wish lists to assure winning the contract. The technology offered was immature or nonexistent at the time and didn't develop on the proper timetable. So in order to catch up, which is impossible to do, items that should have been accomplished in series are being accomplished in parallel. All it takes is one thing to fail and another work around plan results, more complexity and with higher risks.

Congress (the guardian of money paid by the United State's taxpayers for this program) never acts, only reacts once all the money escapes and more is needed. Half of them, if you yelled F-35, would think it was a callout at a bingo game, yet it is the most expensive DoD program, ever.

If you are in the technology business, be it golf clubs or airplanes, time to market is the technology edge. The longer that time takes, the less the technology advantage until it reaches a point where there is no advantage at all and IMHO, that is where we are headed. 19 years before a fully capable fleet is operational is appalling. Heathrow Harry's time line may be most appropriate the way we are headed.

As far as hanging on a thread, we are not hanging now as we still have excellent operational aircraft, none of which took 19 years to become fully operational. But since the F-35 is a be all, do all aircraft of the future, compromises to accommodate the be all and do all included, will we all be hanging on a thread?

[ORAC]

US Marine F-35Bs Could Make Airshows, Even if UK Jets Do Not (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140708/DEFREG02/307080026/US-Marine-F-35Bs-Could-Make-Airshows-Even-UK-Jets-Do-Not)

WASHINGTON — The F-35 joint strike fighter fleet remains grounded, even as the deadline to make two major British air shows quickly approaches. The good news for supporters of the JSF: It may be possible for most of the fleet to stay grounded while a few planes attend what has been billed as a major showcase for the program.

Pentagon inspectors continue to review the technical data gathered in the wake of a June 23 fire that claimed an F-35A model at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. As part of that investigation the entire fleet of F-35 models was grounded last Thursday. However, the Marines may decide they have no concerns about their F-35B jump-jet models and allow the jets to travel overseas, a result of the complicated ownership issues that arise from having nine international partners and three US military services invested in the program.

“There are separate and distinct processes [for each partner], and they all involve different technical reviews,” Kyra Hawn, a spokeswoman for the F-35 joint program office, said. “As part of that, there is the possibility NAVAIR would allow for return to flight before the Air Force or the UK did depending how they analyze and accept that data and manage risk.” In other words, even if the United Kingdom or US Air Force says it is not ready to clear their F-35s, the Marines could still make the trip and fly at the airshows.

In theory, this could provide the easiest solution on how to get the F-35 to its appointments at the Royal International Air Tattoo this weekend or, more likely, next week’s Farnborough International Airshow. Originally, the plan involved flying over a mix of Marine and UK-owned B models to show off to international customers, but if the UK does not clear its models for flight those would be left behind in the US.

Getting UK flight worthiness is likely to take longer than from either of the US services, the result of far stricter rules than in America. In the UK, whoever signs off on air worthiness for an aircraft can be held personally responsible if an incident occurs. While the UK F-35B may not make the trip, the Marines could easily paint their jets with the UK’s colors and present just as much a spectacle while flying...............

[LowObservable]

Are there not laws regarding the use of false markings on military aircraft in international or foreign airspace? In any event I would expect the RAF and MAA to throw a fit over any such subterfuge.

I would also speculate that the whole idea of performing public displays in the UK with an aircraft currently grounded by MAA would raise the odd eyebrow in Whitehall and the legal profession.

Alternatively, this may be an attempt to blame the uptight, panty-waist Brits for a no-show and deflect attention from the fact that the US-made engine done blowed up for reasons (as yet) unknown. I'll go with that one.

[500N]

Are there not laws regarding the use of false markings on military aircraft in international or foreign airspace?

Like the Iranian fighter jets with painted over Iranian AF markings and most of the rego number bar the last two numbers painted over and flown to Iraq ?????

[sandiego89]

Are there not laws regarding the use of false markings on military aircraft in international or foreign airspace?

While it may be against international law to "operate" in false markings (and a definite Geneva violation if the intent is to subterfuge in times of conflict), I believe it is not unheard of to have aircraft at big shows painted to look like a future operator or a potential customer. Air chiefs and polititians love to see potential aircraft in "their" colors. Usually the plane is flown to the show (or shipped as air or sea cargo) in normal markings and they recieve a quick repaint or roundels once at the show. Or roundels are taped over. Many display aircraft are actually leased back from the military branch to the manufacturer and flown at the display by company pilots. I am sure lots of lawyers are involved, and I can not imagine the red tape if one on lease back got bent.

[LowObservable]

This raises the improbable but vastly amusing scenario in which the faux-RAF F-35B and its formation-mates are intercepted by Typhoons and forced down at Lossie...

[CoffmanStarter]

After todays Air Power Conference the Defence Secretary told journalists he is optimistic the F35 Lightning Two will be cleared to fly in time for the Farnborough Airshow. However, hopes of its debut at this Friday's Royal International Air Tattoo at Fairford are fading fast.

More here ...

Hopes For F35 to Appear at RIAT 2014 Fading | Forces TV (http://www.forces.tv/12221823)

Apparently there will be a full report on tonight's British Forces News TV

[John Farley]

the faux-RAF F-35B and its formation-mates are intercepted by Typhoons

Not sure about that Lo.

The trouble with intercepting a hot air balloon when one is in a fast jet is that you don’t have long to make the correct international hand signals when passing by at 2.something miles a minute.

As an interceptor you need to be in a better hot air balloon. But we gave all ours away some time ago.

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by Forces TV
After todays Air Power Conference the Defence Secretary told journalists he is optimistic the F35 Lightning Two will be cleared to fly in time for the Farnborough Airshow. However, hopes of its debut at this Friday's Royal International Air Tattoo at Fairford are fading fast.

I thought that the rules for Farnborough were that if no validation display was done in the week prior to the show then you can't display (all validations displays currently being done this week) in which case Farnborough is blown as well....??

[melmothtw]

Is that still true if the aircraft is actually operating out of Fairford, as is the plan? Did the F-22 and B-2 have to do validation flights before their appearances?

[Speedywheels]

F-22 did validate on 16 July 2010 (Friday before), the only time I saw the B-2 was in 1996 and it only did a flyby so, presumably, didn't need to validate.

[melmothtw]

From what I hear, the F-35 display isn't intended to be much more than a series of flybys so problem solved.

[Speedywheels]

There have also been occurrences where validation flights have taken place in the evening of the actual show when previous attempts have been deemed unsafe. I can recall an unfortunate F-18 pilot who never managed to pass the validation rules, he had been a late replacement after the season display pilot had been killed in an accident just before the Farnborough week. I think the Russians also struggled one year to get the cobra manoeuvre validated and he was having repeat efforts in the evening as we shuffled back to the hotel.

[glad rag]

Will they, won't they, the anticipation rises.

while we await, here's a video, from 2006, to wet your appetite.

bK1GChMOnrQ

[SpazSinbad]

AIR International has a good special edition July 2014 on the F-35. Some info is repeated but also updated. I have not read about the two position STO throttle before - I would be interested in any comments about that aspect please. Thanks. The article is very long whilst only a few STO paras are below:

Jumping Jack Flash July 2014 unknown author AIR International F-35 Special Edition
“...STO-ing...
...There are three ways to conduct a short take off (STO) in the F-35B: stick STO, button STO – and auto STO. “That’s a completely automated way to STO the aircraft off the flight deck. You punch in a distance and the aircraft will auto rotate to its optimal fly-out condition. It’s all based on distance: we know where the aircraft is spotted and where it should start its actual rotation,” explained Rusnok. “Unlike a Harrier, which launches off the end of the ship flat, the F-35 rotates at about 225 feet from the bow, sits on two wheels until it gets to the end of the ship and actually takes off, a much different process to a Harrier. From a pilot perspective, you lose some sight of the front of the ship; in a Harrier you can see all the deck. But that’s all part of optimising a 35,000lb aeroplane to get off the ship compared to the Harrier, which is only 16,000 to 25,000lb.”

With stick STO the pilot controls the take-off by pulling back on the stick, holding it there and then rotating to the optimal pitch angle to fly off. In button STO, the pilot uses a trim switch which rotates the aircraft when pushed in, activating it when the aircraft passes the yellow STO rotation line positioned 225 feet from the bow of the ship.

“That was a temporary marking applied on the flight deck for this trial and is now being permanently installed on the ship with lighting,” explained Rusnok. “It’s based on optimising the performance of the aircraft and its flying qualities, so we can get the aeroplane off with the maximum amount of nozzle clearance and performance. The STO line is our visual cue to either pull the stick aft or hit the button; or if you’re on automated STO you should start seeing the aeroplane’s flight controls moving by the line, otherwise the pilot can intervene and pull back on the stick. [b]We’ve never had to intervene.”

The pilot also has command of the throttle. Two power setting options are available for take-off: Mil STO and Max STO [have not read about this before], as Maj Rusnok explained: “When you taxi to the tram line you stay in mode one, the conventional flight mode. You convert the aircraft into mode four, the STOVL flight mode, and it takes about 15 seconds or so for the doors to open up and the lift fan to engage.

“Then you push the throttle about halfway up the throttle slide into a detent position at about 34% engine thrust request. It sits there and you check the engine gauges: if the readings are okay you slam the throttle to either Mil or Max position and then release the brakes simultaneously. Pushing through to max is like an afterburner detent. But it’s not an afterburner – you can’t go to afterburner in mode four.

“It’s a very fast acceleration. The closest we would spot from the bow is 400 feet, so about 175 feet before we would actually start rotating the aeroplane [at the STO rotation line]; so very, very quick.”

One of the big test points for DT I was to ensure adequate nozzle clearance in all the different test conditions. The engine nozzle swings down and back up during the take-off in accordance with inputs from the aircraft control laws.

“It’s all automated,” said Rusnok. “The pilot is not in the loop whatsoever – either they’re pushing the button and letting the aeroplane do its own thing or pulling back on the stick to help it. Monitoring systems cue when something is wrong, so you have to rely on them to keep you safe because the flight controls are being moved unbelievably quickly.”

Maj Rusnok said the take-off was very much like that ashore, with very little sink off the end of the deck. “The aeroplane is ridiculously powerful in STOVL mode. Just raw, unadulterated power.”
AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014

[kbrockman]

But that’s all part of optimising a 35,000lb aeroplane to get off the ship compared to the Harrier, which is only 16,000 to 25,000lb.”

Just a question but did they already tried a take-off from the deck @ MTOW (60,000lbs) with the B, or have they tried using a ramp already ,supposed to have happened in the summer of '12 but I don't think they did so up until today,no?

[SpazSinbad]

I would suspect when the max. weight STO deck takeoff is accomplished we will know about it (which ship?). Ski Jump testing at Pax River was due to start in 2012 I believe until the UK switcheroo from B to C and back to B put the ski jump tests back to probably later this year? Recently on this thread there was a report that the Pax River ski jump was carefully measured for accuracy of the build.

[bobward]

The Marine F-35's are shown as being cancelled in the latest RIAT show update.:*:ugh:

A picture in today's Telegraph shows a plastic replica being rolled out at Fairford.....

That reminds me of the old Goon Show, and a cardboard replica of Dartmoor Prison. (One for the very old, or fellow Goon Show enthusiasts....)

[Simplythebeast]

At least the plastic replica will do what it is supposed to do.

[500N]

Doing what the Aussies do, fly in the replica so our PM and the two chosen pilots can stand in front of it and make an announcement.

[sandiego89]

F-35s Will Not Fly At Air Tattoo; Farnborough Appearance In Jeopardy | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35s-will-not-fly-air-tattoo-farnborough-appearance-jeopardy)

RIAT a no-go. Farnborough not decided yet, but time is running out. Bet much midnight oil is being burned, and crews still seems to be a Pax River for the call. Would like to see a last minute go. Wonder if they could do a tame flyby without a verification flight?

[sandiego89]

STO - AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014
AIR International has a good special edition July 2014 on the F-35. Some info is repeated but also updated. I have not read about the two position STO throttle before - I would be interested in any comments about that aspect please. Thanks. The article is very long whilst only a few STO paras are below:

Jumping Jack Flash July 2014 unknown author AIR International F-35 Special Edition

Quote:
“...STO-ing...
...There are three ways to conduct a short take off (STO) in the F-35B: stick STO, button STO – and auto STO. “That’s a completely automated way to STO the aircraft off the flight deck. You punch in a distance and the aircraft will auto rotate to its optimal fly-out condition. It’s all based on distance: we know where the aircraft is spotted and where it should start its actual rotation,” explained Rusnok. “Unlike a Harrier, which launches off the end of the ship flat, the F-35 rotates at about 225 feet from the bow, sits on two wheels until it gets to the end of the ship and actually takes off, a much different process to a Harrier. From a pilot perspective, you lose some sight of the front of the ship; in a Harrier you can see all the deck. But that’s all part of optimising a 35,000lb aeroplane to get off the ship compared to the Harrier, which is only 16,000 to 25,000lb.”

With stick STO the pilot controls the take-off by pulling back on the stick, holding it there and then rotating to the optimal pitch angle to fly off. In button STO, the pilot uses a trim switch which rotates the aircraft when pushed in, activating it when the aircraft passes the yellow STO rotation line positioned 225 feet from the bow of the ship.

“That was a temporary marking applied on the flight deck for this trial and is now being permanently installed on the ship with lighting,” explained Rusnok. “It’s based on optimising the performance of the aircraft and its flying qualities, so we can get the aeroplane off with the maximum amount of nozzle clearance and performance. The STO line is our visual cue to either pull the stick aft or hit the button; or if you’re on automated STO you should start seeing the aeroplane’s flight controls moving by the line, otherwise the pilot can intervene and pull back on the stick. [B]We’ve never had to intervene.”

The pilot also has command of the throttle. Two power setting options are available for take-off: Mil STO and Max STO [have not read about this before], as Maj Rusnok explained: “When you taxi to the tram line you stay in mode one, the conventional flight mode. You convert the aircraft into mode four, the STOVL flight mode, and it takes about 15 seconds or so for the doors to open up and the lift fan to engage.

“Then you push the throttle about halfway up the throttle slide into a detent position at about 34% engine thrust request. It sits there and you check the engine gauges: if the readings are okay you slam the throttle to either Mil or Max position and then release the brakes simultaneously. Pushing through to max is like an afterburner detent. But it’s not an afterburner – you can’t go to afterburner in mode four.

“It’s a very fast acceleration. The closest we would spot from the bow is 400 feet, so about 175 feet before we would actually start rotating the aeroplane [at the STO rotation line]; so very, very quick.”

One of the big test points for DT I was to ensure adequate nozzle clearance in all the different test conditions. The engine nozzle swings down and back up during the take-off in accordance with inputs from the aircraft control laws.

“It’s all automated,” said Rusnok. “The pilot is not in the loop whatsoever – either they’re pushing the button and letting the aeroplane do its own thing or pulling back on the stick to help it. Monitoring systems cue when something is wrong, so you have to rely on them to keep you safe because the flight controls are being moved unbelievably quickly.”

Maj Rusnok said the take-off was very much like that ashore, with very little sink off the end of the deck. “The aeroplane is ridiculously powerful in STOVL mode. Just raw, unadulterated power.”
AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014

Very interesting. There must be a different mode for the ski-jump launch. Would seem the software would be a bit different as there would not be the need for that rotation before reaching the end of the (flat) flight deck. Wonder how much deck run (and wind over deck) is needed for a max load take off?

[LowObservable]

From AvWeek:

"As of this moment, the airworthiness authorities need more evidence and we are providing that," Bogdan said.


Making Farnborough, at this point, depends on a few consecutive miracles.

[SpazSinbad]

Lockheed Martin rebuts F-35 critics on cost, progress by Chris Pocock July 15, 2010
“...When asked how the F-35B compared to the Harrier in terms of ease of takeoff/landing, Tomlinson replied: “It’s chalk and cheese–and so it should be! This is a single-button operation with no special controls–much easier than the Harrier. For short takeoffs you just power up; the system takes care of everything else. On the ski-jump, for instance, the system detects the change in deck angle & doesn’t apply any rotation as it would on a flat deck.”...”
Lockheed Martin rebuts F-35 critics on cost, progress | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/taxonomy/term/506881?q=node/25359)
_______________

Blue Sky OPS AIR International F-35 Lightning II 26 April 2012
Mark Ayton spoke with Peter Wilson, a former Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilot and now STOVL lead test pilot at NAS Patuxent River...
...F-35B Take-off Options
The F-35B STOVL variant has a range of take-off options using different modes to suit the basing. Take-offs from a ship, with either a flat deck or one with a ski jump, are also possible with a mode for each scenario. These are short take-off scenarios that can be achieved at speeds as low as 50kts with a deck or ground run of no more than a 200ft (60m). In the same mode, a take-off as fast as 150 knots is possible if the weight of the aircraft requires that speed. If the aircraft is light it can take off at a slow speed and faster when heavy.

Take-off at speeds as low as 5, 10, 15, 20kts (9, 18, 27 and 36km/h) are also possible, each of which is effectively a vertical take-off while moving forward. There are different ways of rotating the aircraft in STOVL mode, including the usual ‘pull on the stick’. Other ways are by pressing a button or programming a ground distance required after which, the aircraft control law initiates the rotation and selects the ideal angle for climb-out...."
AIR International F-35 Lightning II 26 April 2012

[LowObservable]

Big changes in four years....

Lockheed Martin chairman and CEO Bob Stevens declared, “There is no more affordable alternative capable of performing the mission.” He maintained that if Lockheed Martin can secure the production volume, the acquisition cost of the F-35 will be equivalent to a similarly equipped F-16 Block 60 or F-18 fighter. That would be around $60 million in current dollars.

But the fear of concurrency remains, particularly since there has been no apparent relaxation in the target date of 2012 for initial operating capability (IOC) of the F-35B with the U.S. Marine Corps. The planned IOCs for the U.S. Air Force F-35A and U.S. Navy F-35C are both in 2016, using Block 3 software.

[sandiego89]

Thanks Spaz for that research. Answered all my mode questions. Seems pretty automatic, you just point at the pointy end of the ship, throttle up and away she goes..... Still seems the ramp has the advantage of putting the aircraft on the correct trajectory towards purely wingborne flight.

Always a positive making the aircraft easier and intuitive to fly, but the down side seems to put so much on the flight control software and mode. More than one case of the plane (or the pilot) thinking they are in a certain mode, but they are not, or a simple sensor fault leading to erroneous inputs (like the water in the B-2 airspeed indicator on Guam). It's all great until the computer thinks otherwise...

[SpazSinbad]

SD (great spot on the planet eh - spent a few weeks there early 1973 - just like our Oz east coast) from my reading and the Rusnok quote above "pilot can intervene". However especially in STOVL Mode the computer does limit pilot input in case too much is asked. Anyhoo 'Engines' mentioned earlier that the roll posts were shut off for STO. The Americans have not mentioned this to my limited knowledge so far for their Flat Deck STO testing. I'm still mystified by throttle settings - meanwhile here is another quote:

CVF ski-jump ramp profile optimisation for F-35B A. Fry, R. Cook and N. Revill, FEBRUARY 2009 VOLUME 113 NO 1140
"...1.4 F-35B STOVL lift and propulsion system
The F-35B has a number of unique elements that facilitate its STOVL capability, and these are critical in the optimisation of a ski jump ramp profile for the aircraft. A basic description of the layout and function of the lift and propulsion system is shown in Fig. 2 and described below:

● a Lift Fan driven by a shaft from the main engine which provides vertical lift through a variable area vane box nozzle using louvered vanes to vector thrust between vertically downwards and partially aft.

● a three-bearing swivel module (3BSM), which vectors the main engine exhaust thrust from the core engine through vertically downwards to fully aft – the latter being the default for conventional mode flying.

● roll nozzles, ducted from the engine and exiting in each wing providing roll control and vertical lift. These are closed off during the initial portion of the short take-off (STO) in order to maximise forward thrust from the main engine, opening towards the end of the ramp in order to provide control and lift during the fly out...."
RAeS (http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/3324_COLOUR.pdf)

[SpazSinbad]

Pentagon: F-35 fire likely an isolated incident | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/211870-pentagon-f-35-fire-likely-an-isolated-incident) 10 Jul 2014

[Courtney Mil]

That last article is hopeful, but sadly not very convincing, Spaz. Let's hope he's right. It didn't take me in.

[LowObservable]

Better than "engine fires likely chronic" , I suppose.

[SpazSinbad]

Boy, Do I want To Get Away From Being The Trillion Dollar Airplane: Bogdan
10 Jul 2014 Colin Clark
"...On the topical question of whether the Marine version of the F-35 would appear at RIAT or at Farnborough, Bogdan was carefully neutral while indicating he hoped the four planes would fly here from Naval Air Station Patuxent River as long as they were cleared for safe flight by NavAir....

...PIlots are standing by and could take off immediately should the green light be given, he added...."
Boy, Do I want To Get Away From Being The Trillion Dollar Airplane: Bogdan « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/boy-do-i-want-to-get-away-from-being-the-trillion-dollar-airplane-bogdan/)

[rh200]

Better than "engine fires likely chronic" , I suppose.

Your a bit of a "glass half full" person:p.

[Robert Cooper]

Latest news from here is that that the F-35 will not be cleared to fly. Guess the guys at Pax River are biting their finger nails!

Bob C

[LowObservable]

The General may hate the trillion-dollar tag, but his contractor started it...

Jet Makers Preparing Bids For a Rich Pentagon Prize - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/12/us/jet-makers-preparing-bids-for-a-rich-pentagon-prize.html)

[SpazSinbad]

To add to the question here: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-242.html#post8556721 about the two STO Throttle positions here is some other info about dem rollyposts.

Powering the Lightning II April 2012 Chris Kjelgaard
"...According to Jones, the roll posts themselves are variable-area nozzles which are situated in the lower part of each inner wing section and act to provide roll control for the F-35B while it is in hover mode. In order to do this, the roll-post ducts direct bypass air from the engine to the roll posts, which drive the air out through the bottom of each wing. In the F-35B, 3,700lb (16.46kN) of thrust in the form of bypass air is directed out to the two roll posts while hovering.

Each roll-post assembly features a pair of flap-type doors in the bottom of the wing, controlled by the FADEC. Jones says these titanium doors are controlled by rotary actuators which allow fully variable opening, providing a degree of thrust variability and directionality so that the pilot can control roll while hovering. He says Lockheed Martin’s original X-35 concept demonstrator featured doors between the engine casing and the roll-post ducts which could be closed when the aircraft was not hovering, but in production aircraft there are no such doors and bypass airflow is constantly sent to the ducts. The only way to control roll-post thrust is via the flap-doors in the bottom of the wing...."
http://militaryrussia.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=28256 (PDF 14Mb)

[ORAC]

Hmmm. Ignore the engine problem for the moment, though that might be a bigger issue than a one off failure* - an alarm bell is ringing in the back of my head because of a throw away comment buried in the middle of this article. Looks like the weight saving removal of fire suppression systems might be coming home to roost....

AW&ST: F-35 Issues Complicate Cost-Reduction Rollout (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-issues-complicate-cost-reduction-rollout)

.......The halt in operations comes in response to an engine fire on a U.S. Air Force AF-27, a recently produced F-35, that was preparing for takeoff at Eglin AFB, Florida, on June 23. The pilot safely egressed...... Engineers were working to carefully dismantle AF-27 in order to examine aircraft components that might have started the fire. He [General Bogdan] said. “The aircraft is pretty well burnt because of a fuel tank fire”.........

*Should the F-35 not fly at Farnborough, it would be the second aircraft missing the show due to a Pratt engine problem. The May 29 failure of a commercial PW1500G Geared Turbofan is preventing Bombardier’s CSeries jet from making its air show debut at Farnborough. The aircraft remains grounded pending tests of an unspecified fix for the issue that is related to the low-pressure turbine—coincidentally, the same section at the center of the F-35 problem. More than a month after Pratt said it had made a preliminary determination of the root cause of the CSeries failure, it has yet to provide details publicly.......

[glad rag]

Are the fuel tanks not supposed to N2 purged as well?

Seem to remember that electrical cct protection was deleted to save weight as well...

[Courtney Mil]

Very comforting, glad rag. As someone said recently in another thread here recently about the old F4... "...if fire confirmed: EJECT"

:sad:

[CoffmanStarter]

Old F4 ...

Worth having a look at the pics on the "60 Years" Herc thread #775, #780 and #784 ... F4 v Herc AAR :ok:

[SpazSinbad]

TA-4 wing fuel tank fire - both crew eject OK after rear seat camera man stows equipment out of the way for the well rehearsed emergency eject sequence. See video notes.

NEW VIDEO WITHOUT MUSIC NOW HERE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ7ornHW7YY

[Courtney Mil]

Wow, Spaz. I'll bet that was an "interesting" ride for 90 seconds.

Thanks, Coff. I'll go and take a shuftie.

[glad rag]

Vid blocked. Was that the chase plane that got skelped by a stores trial drop?

[Courtney Mil]

That was the one, Glad.

[glad rag]

Seen it before, pretty dramatic is an understatement.

[SpazSinbad]

UPDATE 3-U.S. Navy maintains grounding order for F-35 fighter jets 12 Jul 2014 Andrea Shalal
"... there was "no discernible event that represents a root cause."

In the incident on June 23, the Pratt & Whitney engine on an Air Force F-35 A-model jet broke apart and caught fire while a pilot was preparing to take off from a Florida air base....

...It remains unclear what caused the third stage of the Pratt engine to break apart and burst through the top of the airplane. The incident severed a fuel line, which then caused a fire...."
UPDATE 3-U.S. Navy maintains grounding order for F-35 fighter jets | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/12/lockheed-martin-fighter-idUSL2N0PN03B20140712)

[SpazSinbad]

Probably 'objectionable music' caused the previous wing fire TA-4 video to be seen ONLY in some countries so a new NON music video is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ7ornHW7YY

[LowObservable]

To quote Cicero, FURCAM INSERTUS QUOD FACTUS EST. or, stick a fork in it, it's done. You're about as likely to see a squadron of TSR.2s over Farnborough as an F-35.

Navair totally put the boot in. They may feel that the only thing worse than a single-engine carrier fighter is a carrier fighter with a single dodgy engine, and if that is the case one can only sympathize.

[david parry]

F-35 fighters can resume flight, travel to UK air show: officials - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/r-f-35-fighters-can-resume-flight-travel-to-uk-air-show-officials-2014-11) ;)

[gzornenplatz]

Let's not get over-excited here. 15 years, one fire-warning, no fires


Gz

[Maus92]

DP: Reuters pulled that story.

[SpazSinbad]

As F-35 Remains Grounded, Hope Turns to Farnborough 12 Jul 2014 AARON MEHTA
"...A source with knowledge of the situation said the travel plan calls for the four F-35Bs to be refueled around 20 times each. The reason: for the first trip across the Atlantic, the service wants to make sure the plane is able to get to land in case of any emergency. The idea is to keep tanks above three-quarters full at all times.

The source added that this is fairly typical of new designs making their first flight across an ocean....

..."This is a deployment," [LM VP] Martin said. "This is the US Marine corps deploying their aircraft overseas, testing spare parts, testing ALIS [the plane's logistics system] remotely, testing their flying profiles and how to do a long duration flight. This has value in it which far outreaches the air show… they're going to learn a lot.""
As F-35 Remains Grounded, Hope Turns to Farnborough | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140712/DEFREG01/307120021/As-F-35-Remains-Grounded-Hope-Turns-Farnborough)

[LowObservable]

?? Story still live on Reuters

[glad rag]

I hope they make it over in time for a public display [or two] as there's a lot of folk wanting to see it.

I also hope they won't be underwhelmed either. Don't forget the ear plugs.:cool:

[Maus92]

LO: If you search the story title on the Reuters site (as accessed from the US,) you get a dead link, and subsequent stories on the Reuters site note the continued grounding....

"F-35 fighters can resume flight, travel to UK air show -officials"
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N0PM1MC20140712

Other syndicates are still carrying the story.

Those pesky "officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity" can sometime be premature.

[Robert Cooper]

Latest info I have, as of 3 hours ago, is that they are still grounded. But, who knows what may happen!

Bob C

[LowObservable]

Grounded until further notice, and no updates until Wednesday. Probably a good time to admit as graciously as possible that it ain't gonna happen.

[Heathrow Harry]

hey - they still have tickets to sell.......................

[John Farley]

LO

Does it seem from your sources that a fairly major bit of the engine let go?

JF

[ORAC]

U.S. Navy maintains grounding order for F-35 fighter jets (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/12/us-lockheed-martin-fighter-idUSKBN0FH02O20140712)

(Reuters) - The U.S. Navy maintained a grounding order for F-35 B-model and C-model fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N), saying it was still not clear what caused a massive engine failure on an Air Force F-35 jet last month. The fleetwide grounding order kept three Marine Corps F-35 B-model jets and one British F-35B from traveling to Britain for widely publicized appearances at two air shows.

"At this time, I do not have sufficient information to return the F-35B and F-35C fleet to flight," Vice Admiral David Dunaway, who heads the Navy's Air Systems Command, said in an update to a grounding order issued by U.S. officials on July 3. A copy of the document was obtained by Reuters. In the document, Dunaway said he was committed to returning the F-35 fleet to flight as soon as possible, but there was still "no discernible event that represents a root cause."

The memo emerged after a lengthy meeting on Friday of the officials responsible for determining the "airworthiness" of the F-35, according to sources familiar with the matter........

Marine Lieutenant General Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told Reuters late on Friday that the jets might not appear at the Farnborough air show, which begins next week......."Until the grounding is lifted, the U.S. Marine Corps and Britain will not be able to ferry the F-35B aircraft to Britain for the jet's planned international debut at two air shows there this month - the Royal International Air Tattoo, the world's largest military air show that began on Friday, and the Farnborough air show, which starts on Monday and runs until July 20".....

Dunaway said the Navy and other services are continuing to investigate the incident, and planned to update the flight directive no later than July 16 - two days after the start of the Farnborough air show outside London.......

Dunaway's memorandum did not rule out the possibility that the most advanced U.S. fighter jet could still appear toward the end of the Farnborough air show, but the prospects of that occurring appeared to be dimming fast. "There are specific additional evaluation conditions required to support the Farnborough air show in the UK, including the ferry flight across the Atlantic and performance in the air show itself. Additional work is required in order to understand and mitigate air show unique risks," it said......

Dunaway said the current analysis would have to be refocused to allow the F-35's participation in the Farnborough air show. The jets need a full day in Britain to allow for any maintenance or repairs before they participate in flying demonstrations. Dunaway said officials were looking at possible operational restrictions for the jets while the issue was being investigated, and would also likely implement repeated engine inspections to monitor for any indication of a future problem. But those measures would take several more days to complete.

It remains unclear what caused the third stage of the Pratt engine to break apart. The incident severed a fuel line, which then caused a fire.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, told U.S. lawmakers on Thursday there was "growing evidence" that the incident was an individual event and had not been caused by a systemic issue. He said all existing engines had been inspected and that no similar issues had been found, but he said safety was the Defense Department's top priority.

[John Farley]

ORAC

It remains unclear what caused the third stage of the Pratt engine to break apart.

That would appear to answer my question to LO. Thanks.

However it is a typical quote/report from somebody who does not really understand things otherwise they would not just say third stage. They would appreciate the engineering significance of whether it was a third stage at the front or at the back.

[LowObservable]

Apparently P&W is objecting to the description of a third-stage LPT failure, but will not be more specific.

[Bevo]

Investigators have narrowed their focus to the third stage turbine of the F135 engine as the likely source of a fire that erupted June 23 as an F-35A fighter was preparing for takeoff at Eglin AFB, Florida, last month.
The third stage turbine is the second stage in the low-pressure turbine section. It is common to all F135 variants – the A, B and C F-35 aircraft.

In addition to the flight grounding, "We cannot run any engines," including those in testing at the contractor’s facility, as a result of the fire, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told Aviation Week during a July 3 interview.
http://aviationweek.com (http://aviationweek.com/defense/investigators-eye-third-stage-turbine-f-35-remains-grounded)

Unfortunately there was a possibly related issue in 2013.


21-February-2013, the Pentagon ordered a grounding for all F-35 aircraft, after a routine check at the Edwards Air Force Base revealed a crack in a low pressure turbine blade in an engines of a F-35A.

It was a F-135 engine with 700 hours, of which 409 flight hours. The aircraft was the F-35A test aircraft AF-2. The half-inch long crack was found in a turbine blade of the low pressure turbine section. This makes it unlikely that it is caused by so-called FOD (Foreign Object Damage), such as a bird strike, because such an object has to pass the Fan Section (3 stages) Compressor Section (6 stages), combustor and high pressure turbine section before reaching the low pressure turbine section.
JSF Nieuws.nl » F-35 fleet grounded after new F-135 engine problems (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=949)

[Turbine D]

Apparently P&W is objecting to the description of a third-stage LPT failure, but will not be more specific.
I would suspect if this is true, the fire could have started and been caused external to the gas path of the engine. For instance, there are fuel lines in the rear area of the engine to feed the afterburner system. If one of those fuel line were to have ruptured during the early takeoff phase, a fire could start, engulfing the structure around the engine. All it would take is a fuel line that had a welding defect or one that had been improperly installed, rubbing against another surface and vibrational effects over time would lead to rupture. In other words, it doesn't have to be a turbine blade failure that would start a fire.

TD

[Maus92]

The turbine failure seems to have been a fairly kinetic event. Some reports have parts of the engine departing the jet through the top of the fuselage. If true, it's not hard to imagine either punctured or ruptured fuel tanks / lines sourcing the subsequent fire. What will be interesting is whether or not fire suppression systems removed earlier to save weight would have mitigated the fire.

[LowObservable]

FARNBOROUGH: No F-35 appearance for opening day - 7/13/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-no-f-35-appearance-for-opening-day-401366/)

The comms aspect of this situation just continues to deteriorate. The bloody jets are on the ground in bloody Pax and the Navair boss has announced that there will be no decision before Wednesday, so announcing that there will be no F-35s flying at Farnborough tomorrow is not exactly hold-the-effin-front-page news.

[Courtney Mil]

...and what a difficult moment for the signing of the contract to buy more of the grounded jets for the Secretary. Janes have an interesting take on it.

Pentagon suspends F-35 contract negotiations until latest failure resolved - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/40551/pentagon-suspends-f-35-contract-negotiations-until-latest-failure-resolved)

[SpazSinbad]

'Excessive' rubbing of engine blades caused F-35 failure: Pentagon
13 Jul 2014 Andrea Shalal
"(Reuters) - The engine failure that has grounded the entire fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets was caused by "excessive" rubbing of fan blades in the plane's Pratt & Whitney engine, but does not appear to be a fundamental design flaw, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer said on Sunday.

Defense Undersecretary Frank Kendall told reporters on Sunday there was still a chance that the grounding order could be lifted in time for the F-35 to make its international debut at the Farnborough air show....

...He said detailed inspections of engines on the fleet of 97 F-35s already built had not shown signs of the kind of excessive rubbing founded on the engine that broke apart, although there were signs of milder rubbing in several other engines.

Kendall said the evidence being compiled did not point to a systemic issue, but the analysis was still going on. In this case, engineers found evidence of significant rubbing by the fan blades against a cowl.

"We’re not noticing it throughout the fleet," he said. "The design allows for a limited degree of rubbing, but it was enough in this case to cause a structural reaction that ultimately led to failure."..."
'Excessive' rubbing of engine blades caused F-35 failure: Pentagon | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/13/us-airshow-britain-f-idUSKBN0FI0XD20140713)

[Rhino power]

Interesting link, Spaz, thanks.

I seem to remember (reading somewhere) that the fan blades of the EJ200 were designed with an abradable tip, would this kind of blade tip be found further back in the turbine section of the engine as well? And would the P&W engine employ similar blades, possibly?

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

Given the tolerances involved in building modern engines, it makes no sense that some can rub and others don't. The problem is that you can't just file a couple of mils off all the blades. My concern now is that this could be a far more fundamental snag than we thought. I'm a big fan of P&W engines, they served me well, I trust they will rise to this challenge.

[busdriver02]

Odd, at least in the T700 engine there's an ablative (probably not the correct term) seal on the gas generator turbine that allows the turbine blades to creep. I figured that was some type of universal modern turbine design. Guess i was wrong.

[ORAC]

Recurring problem due to the engine running 190F hotter than planned? There is history...

Joint Strike Fighter F135 Engine Burns Hotter Than Desired (http://www.stopwapenhandel.org/projecten/jsf/JSFpers/JSFengine)

F-35 Report: overview of problems with F-135 engine (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=1224)

..........Conclusion

The repeated problems with the same part of the engine may be indications of a serious design and structural problem with the F-135 engine.

A future F-35 fleetwide grounding will paralyze the Western Airpower. Also, the lack of reliability will contribute to low service ability and to high operating and support costs of the F-35 fleets in several countries putting more pressure on the low defence budgets.

Since the F-35 will be the cornerstone of the NATO airpower and US homeland defence the next decades, the problems with the F135 engine need attention of the highest political decision makers.

[glad rag]

Recurring problem due to the engine running 190F hotter than planned? There is history...

Joint Strike Fighter F135 Engine Burns Hotter Than Desired (http://www.stopwapenhandel.org/projecten/jsf/JSFpers/JSFengine)

F-35 Report: overview of problems with F-135 engine (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=1224)

..........Conclusion

The repeated problems with the same part of the engine may be indications of a serious design and structural problem with the F-135 engine.

A future F-35 fleetwide grounding will paralyze the Western Airpower. Also, the lack of reliability will contribute to low service ability and to high operating and support costs of the F-35 fleets in several countries putting more pressure on the low defence budgets.

Since the F-35 will be the cornerstone of the NATO airpower and US homeland defence the next decades, the problems with the F135 engine need attention of the highest political decision makers.

From above link

"Some aerospace officials contend the F135's over-heating problems will cause it to have trouble meeting Stovl requirements and they say Pratt & Whitney has been working on the problem for some time without solving it. Others think it's a predictable issue that comes with high-performance, stealth aircraft designs that have been made somewhat tougher by high-temperature Stovl ground ops.
BUT FOR THE STOVL ENGINE, ground operations (including hovering because it is done only for short periods) are not the most stressing part of the envelope, Gostic says. Where durability is most threatened is during "low-altitude, high Mach-number" operations, he contends."

Handy that...

[John Farley]

Glad rag

Where durability is most threatened is during "low-altitude, high Mach-number" operations, he contends."

When one goes flying in any fast jet with the benefit of a fuel flowmeter it is clear that the highest fuel flows are to be seen when flying flat out at low level on a cold day.

Just common sense really. The air mass flow is greatest then which gives you more oxygen to use for burning fuel. Throw in some pitch rate (think gyroscopic loads) and high g (obvious) and you have a good old stressing corner point on any engine

In the case of the Harrier these high speed low altitude fuel flows are greater than those in the hover when the poor old donk has to suck in its air as opposed to having it rammed in. But nobody believes that do they? Why? -'cos back in 1960 something a reporter said that the problem with a VTO or hovering is the high fuel consumption. Watching or flying a hover for a whole minute is so boring. Flying flat out (when needed) is something that tends to go on for rather more than a minute to put it mildly. But did TD ever say that flying flat out was not really on 'cos of the fuel consumption. Not that I recall.

Hey ho.

[Turbine D]

The engine failure that has grounded the entire fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets was caused by "excessive" rubbing of fan blades in the plane's Pratt & Whitney engine, but does not appear to be a fundamental design flaw, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer said on Sunday.
This all seems quite confusing to me. Supposedly, the fan of the F135 engine is a single piece machined out of a forged block of material and is known as a "blisk", not single inserted fan blades into a disk/disc. It is hard to imagine how rubbing at the tips could occur unless there is unexpected annd excessive creep of the material being used. Sometimes writers get fan blades, compressor blades and turbine blades mixed up in their stories.
I seem to remember (reading somewhere) that the fan blades of the EJ200 were designed with an abradable tip, would this kind of blade tip be found further back in the turbine section of the engine as well?
There are tip treatments used on turbine blades in the turbine sections of the engine, depending on design. If a turbine blade is shrouded, abrasive material is added to the tip rails so the blades cut into the shroud ring and tip clearances are maintained to prevent gas flow leakage. If the turbine blade has no tip shroud, the entire blade tip is coated with an abrasive material so it cuts into the shroud ring and tip of the blade is not worn away.

TD

[Rhino power]

Turbine D, thanks for the reply re: the abradable tips, everyday's a school day!

-RP :)

[Turbine D]

Re: F135 engine fire incident story, version B.

Here is the story from the WSJ:
LONDON—The engine fire on a Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT +0.79% F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that has grounded the fleet might have been a somewhat isolated incident, the Pentagon's top arms buyer said Sunday.

"We don't see at this point what I call a systemic problem," said Frank Kendall, U.S. undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

The grounding occurred after an F-35A jet suffered a fire on June 23 on the ground at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

The operational hiatus has kept F-35s from making a planned trans-Atlantic flight to the U.K. for participation at the Royal International Air Tattoo in England during recent days and means the plane will be a no-show when the Farnborough air show opens outside London on Monday.

Safety investigators have reviewed the fire, saying that excessive friction occurred among blades and other internal parts of an engine built by the Pratt & Whitney arm of United Technologies Corp. UTX +0.83%

When one of the blades failed, Mr. Kendall said, it sparked the fire.

Safety authorities are now discussing whether to allow the plane to return to flight. Mr. Kendall said he was "hopeful" the F-35 could still make an appearance at the air show in the coming days.

Some friction among components is acceptable.

For reasons that aren't fully known, the level of interaction exceeded design margins in the plane that caught fire.

Mr. Kendall said evidence so far suggests it was a unique incident, although it is too early to draw that as a final conclusion.

The grounding comes as the government and Lockheed Martin also are trying to ramp up efforts to reduce costs.

Lockheed Martin said on Thursday that it, along with partners, would spend $170 million to find ways to lower long-term costs.

Mr. Kendall said the initiative "is a positive step."
Note the absence of the words "fan blades", or any descriptive terms leaving one to wonder where the problem actually is…

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 Latest: Engine Fire Cause Emerges 14 Jul 2014 Amy Butler and Guy Norris
""FARNBOROUGH - The blade rubbing that prompted a fire in an F-35A – leading to a fleetwide grounding July 3 – took place in the third-stage fan of the integrally bladed rotor (IBR) in the low pressure section of the F135 engine, according to Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer for the U.S.–led F-35 program.

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.”...

...Meanwhile, “there is a growing body of evidence that this is not a systemic, major design problem,” Kendall said.

“This is not related to any incident in the past,” said Pratt & Whitney President Paul Adams.

Pratt engineers were already in the midst of a redesign to the first stage fan in the IBR, embracing a solid bladed design over the hollow design. A ground-based test engine “blew” late last year, Bogban said, owing to cracking in the hollow blades. The second and third stage fans –- the area in question for the June 23 fire -– are both constructed of solid blades. Pratt has submitted plans to Bogdan’s office for approval of plan to produce solid blades in the first stage and they are under review. This work is unrelated to the June fire incident, Adams said.""
F-35 Latest: Engine Fire Cause Emerges | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-latest-engine-fire-cause-emerges)

[PhilipG]

SPAZ so this is good news? Hollow, lighter, blades get replaced in all future production engines with heavier solid blades.
I was under the impression that there was a weight problem with the F35..... So when/if this change in specification is approved, all engine testing goes back to zero hours for the system.
When will there be enough engines with the new blades to continue/start engine testing?
Just a thought...

[SpazSinbad]

Just a thought? I read recently I think that the turn back to solid blades (there in original engine I believe) would add 6 pounds weight. I'm not an employee of anyone to know anything other than public information available on the internet etc. So you would know what I know - except perhaps flying in the RAN FAA some forty years ago now.

[WhiteOvies]

http://cnic.navy.mil/content/dam/cnic/ndw/images/------------------/Pax%20Welcome%20Page/Carousel/F35-2.jpg

Waiting at Pax River for the green light to go....

Spotters please note that none of the aircraft are the UK assets.

[t43562]

I don't know but I presume hollow blades are apparently hard to make and that there was a reason for trying to do it. The extra expense was somehow considered worthwhile.

It might only be 6 pounds but it's 6 pounds in something that spins very fast so there must be a lot of momentum stored. Presumably this makes the engine respond more slowly to throttle changes, for example. I don't know for sure because I'm far from an expert.

If the blades were hollow for the sake of cooling then that might mean that some other measure will have to be taken to prevent them from melting - with other undesirable trade-offs.

[glad rag]

Some friction among components is acceptable.

Yep, especially if it ain't your arse in the bang seat mid Atlantic :mad:

[glad rag]

Just a thought? I read recently I think that the turn back to solid blades (there in original engine I believe) would add 6 pounds weight. I'm not an employee of anyone to know anything other than public information available on the internet etc.

6 lbs static I take it...

[SpazSinbad]

pounds weight/heaviness - not thrust of engine:

Perhaps not the exact same situation but analogous perhaps anyway: [March 2014]
"...
The company had already begun a redesign for the IBR as part of a movement to reduce overall engine costs, according to both Bogdan and Pratt spokesman Matthew Bates. The new design replaces the current hollow blade design with solid blades, which allow the company to use simpler, and hence cheaper, manufacturing techniques.

That redesign will add roughly six pounds to the engine; although the engine in question was a STOVL F-35B model, the IBR redesign will impact the engines for all three JSF variants. While weight is closely monitored on the F-35, Bogdan did not seem concerned about the extra weight....
F-35 Engine Part to be Redesigned | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140307/DEFREG02/303070023/F-35-Engine-Part-Redesigned)

[glad rag]

Yes, yes most have already read about the slight weight increase from the links you have previously shown us the WHOLE POINT is where do they shave the resulting 6 lb,s off the airframe OR do they notch the 190F up to 195?:ugh:

[Turbine D]

So now we know, the cause was excessive rubbing of the 3rd stage fan blisk at the front end of the engine. This is certainly an unusual problem in that the diameter of a blisk can be carefully controlled during the machining operation. It will be interesting to learn of the corrective action, it might not be that the blisk is the problem, but the casing surrounding it.

Relative to the actual fan :
If the blades were hollow for the sake of cooling then that might mean that some other measure will have to be taken to prevent them from melting - with other undesirable trade-offs.
Fan blades are made hollow to save weight not for cooling purposes. Hollow fan blades are more expensive to produce, but weight savings is a huge driver. Think of the fan of the engine, the shaft which connects it to the low pressure turbine and the low pressure turbine, as a bar bell. The higher the weight of the fan rotor and the LPT rotor, the higher the pressure is on shaft to bend. The shaft bearings and the bearing structural supports keep shaft bending from happening. So increased weight of rotating components can result in additional weight being added to structural support components, a mushrooming situation.

[PhilipG]

What is the status of the redesigned engine with solid blades? Rather a major change in the thermal balance of the engine I would have thought, so does all reliability and thermal stress have to be restarted? Interested to know what time delay this will put into the program? IOC delayed for the USMC?

[SpazSinbad]

Some more tidbits for youse to speculate upon: [Earlier we got off on the wrong foot about 'hollow back to solid blades' - impression corrected above I hope?]

More F-35 Engines Show Signs of Blade Rubbing 14 Jul 2014 Brendan McGarry
"...The incident is the second in less than a year to affect a part of the engine known as the integrally bladed rotor, or IBR. The component contains three sets of fans to help compress air into the engine. A first-stage fan made of hollow titanium blew apart during ground testing in December and is undergoing redesign, while a third-stage fan made of solid titanium disintegrated during the June takeoff.

Officials said the two cases aren't related.

A review of almost 100 engines in the fleet didn't find evidence of the same problem affecting the third-stage fan, though several showed signs of mild rubbing, Bogdan said. The extent of the problem appears to be isolated to that particular aircraft,..."
More F-35 Engines Show Signs of Blade Rubbing | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/07/14/more-f35-engines-show-signs-of-blade-rubbing.html)

[SpazSinbad]

A different tangent:

Farnborough 2014: Block 2B software testing for F-35 nears completion - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/40733/farnborough-2014-block-2b-software-testing-for-f-35-nears-completion)

[kbrockman]

F35 might still make it to the UK now that it is flying again,
U.S. lifts grounding order for Lockheed F-35 fighters: sources By Reuters (http://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/u.s.-lifts-grounding-order-for-lockheed-f-35-fighters:-sources-294874)
FARNBOROUGH England (Reuters) - U.S. military officials have lifted a fleetwide grounding order for Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets, but will maintain some operating restrictions on the jets given an ongoing investigation into a massive engine failure last month, sources familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.

Discussions are still under way about whether the decision will clear the way for the newest U.S. warplane to travel to Britain to make its international debut at the Farnborough air show

[Hempy]

God 'elp em if one blows somewhere abeam Reykjavic...Gutsy move if they try it.

[Courtney Mil]

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-return-to-flight-statement-pentagon-press-secretary-rear-admiral-john

One could wonder just what flight restrictions might help the engine. No more than 90% rpm? No flying all the way across the Atlantic? If they still thought (at the time of that statement that they still don't have the full answer, I wonder if they're feeling to get the thing in the air again.

Safety remains the overriding priority. that's OK then!

[NutLoose]

Two US fighter jets were due to make their international debuts this week at the year's most important aerospace event, the Farnborough Airshow. At the moment, only one of them is here.
The F-35 may be the world's most expensive, most advanced military jet programme, but it was a cheap and cheerful budget aircraft that managed the trans-Atlantic crossing to Farnborough.
The Scorpion costs about $20m (£12m) a throw, is built from off-the-shelf components, and went from drawing board to first flight in 23 months.
The F-35, costing three times as much and conceived in the early 1990s, is still in the US (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28291924) while engineers figure out what caused a fire that has grounded the entire fleet.
OK, making comparisons is unfair; the Scorpion and F-35 are lightyears apart in specification and functionality. But it is still slightly ironic

:E




BBC News - Farnborough Airshow: The Scorpion in search of a customer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28260781)

[Turbine D]

NutLoose,
LOL, as if our DoD isn't embarrassed enough….;)

[Brian Abraham]

Should you be interested

Farnborough Airshow 2014: F-35 Test Pilot Interview - YouTube

[fantom]

My apology if this is here already; I'm not going through 246 pages...

The Designer Of The F-16 Explains Just How Stupid The F-35 Is - Digg (http://digg.com/video/the-designer-of-the-f-15-explains-just-how-inanely-stupid-the-f-35-is?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email)

[NITRO104]

Billie, Billie, be careful or your eyes may pop out some day, if you continue making grimaces like this. :}

[SpazSinbad]

Great video with Wizzer explaining incepts, VLs, STO differences and Ski Jumps above. AND...

US F-35 fighter will not fly at UK air show: Pentagon 16 Jul 2014
"Washington (AFP) - The US military will not send F-35 fighter jets to take part in the Farnborough air show in Britain as planned, the Pentagon said Tuesday, citing safety precautions....

...But aviation commanders imposed several restrictions on the plane's operation, including mandatory engine inspections after every three hours in the air, making a flight across the Atlantic problematic, Kirby said.

Given the timing of the show, which started on Monday, and the flight restrictions, "this was the most prudent and safe decision," he said.

The required engine inspections are "a pretty significant limitation in terms of being able to fly them across the Atlantic," he added."
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24469136/us-f-35-fighter-will-not-fly-at-uk-air-show-pentagon/

[ORAC]

It's Official: F-35 Not Flying To Farnborough (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140715/SHOWSCOUT15/307150028/It-s-Official-F-35-Not-Flying-Farnborough)

LONDON AND WASHINGTON — The F-35 joint strike fighter will not be flying at the Farnborough International Airshow, to the disappointment of attendees, program supporters and partnered militaries.

It was a whirlwind day of emotion for the program on Tuesday, talk of which has dominated both Farnborough and last week’s Royal International Air Tattoo despite the jets having missed their planned international debut.

Early Tuesday morning, word surfaced that the Pentagon had ended a July 3 grounding order for the fleet, the result of an ongoing investigation into the cause of a June 23 fire on an Air Force F-35A model. However, the aircraft are limited to a speed of .9 Mach, 18 degrees of angle of attack, -1 to +3 G-forces and a “half-a-stick-deflection for rolls,” Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters on Tuesday. After three hours of flight time, the front fan section of each engine must undergo an inspection with a borescope, Kirby said.

“When we operate aircraft, we look at many factors, to include operational risk, the weather, ground time, maintenance issues,” Kirby said. “All these factors were weighed appropriately in making this difficult decision.”

For a few hours, it looked as though the plane would make it to Farnborough around the end of the week. But later on Tuesday, US Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Jim Amos made the decision not to send the US F-35B aircraft to Europe, Kirby said. “While we’re disappointed we’re not going to participate in the air show, we remain fully committed to the program itself and look forward to future opportunities to showcase its capabilities to allies and partners,” Kirby said.

Safety has been the key concern for US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel throughout the process, a point he emphasized when visiting the F-35 schoolhouse at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida last week. “Nobody in senior leadership wanted to rush to do this for the sake of the air show,” Kirby said......

Matthew Bates, spokesman for engine-maker Pratt & Whitney, said the company respects the decision to keep the plane from flying at Farnborough. “We have worked closely with the DoD and the services to return the fleet to flight,” he wrote in a statement.

A statement from prime contractor Lockheed Martin echoed the sentiment. “While we were looking forward to the F-35 demonstration at Farnborough, we understand and support the DoD and UK MoD’s decision,” Lockheed spokeswoman Laura Siebert wrote in a statement......

[Courtney Mil]

It's OK, this will probably do a better display.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GZRKm6PG918

[Courtney Mil]

Brian Abraham, nice interview and well rehearsed, but if that's not a company man spinning the company line, then I'm et, um, I'm a... Bugger, didn't think that through. Still, you know what I mean.

[Davef68]

It's OK, this will probably do a better display.



As long as IT doesn't go on fire!

[Courtney Mil]

Very true. Point well made. But at least it's there and it will be a great display.

[SpazSinbad]

Hmmm, I thought WIZZER gave an excellent explanation about STOVL mode incepts/control laws and VLs and STOs in that interview. Probably the CANuk should be put on some mogadon efelant tranquil meds (but I jest - HoK?). Anyhoo thot this might interest some in your neck of the woods. NON or is it NYET to Paris? Anyhoo a link to a 5.3Mb .WMA audio file of Wizzer tellin' it like it is from above video:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19215 (5.3Mb .WMA Audio File)

F-35 Lightning II Will Not Strike At Farnborough 15 Jul 2014 Amy Butler & Tony Osborne | AWIN First
"...It is not clear when the next such opportunity will occur given the F-35’s testing schedule, or whether deployment plans will allow for another attempt at an international debut soon. A demonstration is unlikely to happen at the Paris air show next year unless the aircraft is based elsewhere, as U.S. officials are skittish about basing stealthy aircraft in France."
F-35 Lightning II Will Not Strike At Farnborough | AWIN ONLY content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/f-35-lightning-ii-will-not-strike-farnborough)

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 at Farnborough: Everything Except The Jet 16 Jul 2014 Chris Pocock
"...“We understand what happened, now we’re trying to figure out why,” said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, head of the F-35 program office here on Tuesday. He said that borescope inspections of all 98 Pratt & Whitney F135 engines already delivered to the F-35 program has revealed nothing that would indicate a recurrence of the excessive rubbing of the inner cowl by the integral bladed rotor (IBR) in the third stage of the fan, that caused the failure in the F-35A. “Some blades are designed to rub, but this was more severe, leading to excessive temperatures, microcracking, and high-cycle fatigue, causing that part of the engine to come apart,” he explained...."
F-35 at Farnborough: Everything Except The Jet | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/farnborough-air-show/2014-07-16/f-35-farnborough-everything-except-jet)

[RetiredF4]

The U.S. has completed borescope inspections on all 98 Pratt & Whitney F135 engines associated with the F-35 program, and found no evidence there would be a recurrence of the problem that grounded the fleet.

Sounds a bit familiar to a battery fire happening on the dream jet, where the solution was a metal box around the possible fire source.

Hope LM isn't planing on something similar!:8

[Courtney Mil]

...or the shrouding around the cabin conditioning turbine in the F4, RetiredF4.

[Hempy]

There are conflicting opinions on the 'systemic' question.

But there's real reason to worry. The June incident might reflect serious design flaws that could render the F-35 unsuitable for combat.

For starters, the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 - which can avoid sensor detection thanks to its special shape and coating - simply doesn't work very well. The Pentagon has had to temporarily ground F-35s no fewer than 13 times since 2007, mostly due to problems with the plane's Pratt & Whitney-made F135 engine, in particular, with the engines' turbine blades. The stand-downs lasted at most a few weeks.

"The repeated problems with the same part of the engine may be indications of a serious design and structural problem with the F135 engine," said Johan Boeder, a Dutch aerospace expert and editor of the online publication JSF News.

Pratt & Whitney has already totally redesigned the F135 in an attempt to end its history of frequent failures. But there's only so much engineers can do. In a controversial move during the early stages of the F-35's development, the Pentagon decided to fit the plane with one engine instead of two. Sticking with one motor can help keep down the price of a new plane. But in the F-35's case, the decision proved self-defeating.

That's because the F-35 is complex - the result of the Air Force, Marines and Navy all adding features to the basic design. In airplane design, such complexity equals weight. The F-35 is extraordinarily heavy for a single-engine plane, weighing as much as 35 tons with a full load of fuel.

By comparison, the older F-15 fighter weighs 40 tons. But it has two engines. To remain reasonably fast and maneuverable, the F-35's sole F135 engine must generate no less than 20 tons of thrust - making it history's most powerful fighter motor.

All that thrust results in extreme levels of stress on engine components. It's no surprise, then, that the F-35 frequently suffers engine malfunctions

http://www.reuters.com/article/article/idUSL2N0PQ1I920140715?irpc=932

So we have an aircraft with half the wing area of similar sized fighters, a single engine doing two jobs on a aircraft that weighs as much as a twin. I still cant see how it can ever be anything other than a bvr munitions delivery system.

I had an open mind, but this thing is a lemon.

[Squirrel 41]

It's an interesting question if the USMC had been told that a Supersonic Stealthy STOVL jet was not worth the candle, would JSF have been a twin engine aircraft?

Equally, what price restarting F136 development.

S41

[PhilipG]

Whilst the failure of the F35 to make it over the pond is sad, the worrying thing for many people I would have thought was the on the face of it admission by Pratt & Whitney that the Integrally Bladed Rotor needs to be redesigned.

Implicitly to me the fact that they are saying that it needs to be redesigned means to me that they know there is a problem there, as I think was recently demonstrated and has been backed up by the recent time restrictions on flights I think I noticed.

If the engine manufacturers know that there is a problem that has yet as it seems to be engineered out of the system, one could wonder how long it will be before newly engineered engines are being manufactured, go though ground testing and other necessary safety testing and certification.

Which brings one on to timing and money.

With due respect it would seem rather courageous to suggest that all the necessary work could be completed within a year, USMC IOC is meant to be July 2015. I cannot see the USMC declaring IOC on its first 10-16 aircraft squadron with the present engines, "No over water flying, no long flights, we need to swap out the engines some time soon". No doubt the software will need slight tweaks to take account of different engine charicteristics.

Then who is going to pay for the 100 or so engines needed to replace the ones presently in service, United Technologies? Lockheed Martin? Not to mention the necessary redesign work, new tooling and changes to the maintenance documentation and schedules.

This is to say nothing of what knock on effects this will have to the production of new planes at Fort Worth, or will they be manufactured with out the engines and stored till the manufacturing logistics catch up?

No doubt I have read this all wrong but it makes sense to me.:ooh:

[Turbine D]

Then who is going to pay for the 100 or so engines needed to replace the ones presently in service, United Technologies? Lockheed Martin? Not to mention the necessary redesign work, new tooling and changes to the maintenance documentation and schedules.
The American taxpayers of course, one way or another. Less airplanes purchased at a higher unit price, the same number of aircraft purchased at a higher unit price, approved by Congressional action…:eek:

[longer ron]

+ the good old british taxpayers as well - I actually did think that the 'A' model had the best chance of getting into service relatively trouble free - albeit with its whole design/concept compromised by 'commonality' with Dave B LOL...however to be having fundamental design problems with an engine in 2014 is pretty amateur !

[sharpend]

This may have been posted before:


The Designer Of The F-16 Explains Just How Stupid The F-35 Is - Digg (http://digg.com/video/the-designer-of-the-f-15-explains-just-how-inanely-stupid-the-f-35-is?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email)

What a load of rubbish this 'thing' is. He makes a good point re F15 v F16.

[ORAC]

Senate Panel to Pentagon: 'Reassess' Value of Alternate F-35 Engine | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140716/CONGRESSWATCH/307160034/Senate-Panel-Pentagon-Reassess-Value-Alternate-F-35-Engine)

WASHINGTON — In the wake of an engine fire that grounded the F-35 fleet, a US Senate subcommittee wants senior Pentagon officials to consider reviving an effort to develop a second power plant.

In 2011, the Pentagon ordered GE and Rolls-Royce to stop work on a second F-35 fighter engine, with the Obama administration calling it an example of wasteful defense spending. The department, in announcing a stop-work order three years ago, dubbed the F136 power plant program a “waste of taxpayer money that can be used to fund higher departmental priorities.” Proponents of what long was known simply as “the alternate engine program” claimed it would have saved substantial amounts of money over the life of the F-35 fleet, while also providing a safety net should the F-35’s primary power plant, being developed by Pratt & Whitney, suffer a major problem.

One day after the Pentagon lifted the fleet-wide grounding order — but with speed limitations — a Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittee (SAC-D) report on its 2015 Pentagon spending bill surfaced with language showing lawmakers are having second thoughts about approving the F136 termination. The report states that SAC-D members believe “that had the alternate engine program continued, competition would have incentivized the F135 engine manufacturer to find creative methods to drive down prices and ensure timely delivery of a high-quality product, which is consistent with current department preference for competition in acquisitions,” states the report.

The legislation, which the full Senate Appropriations Committee is set to approve Thursday morning, “recommends” senior Pentagon officials “reassess the value of an alternate engine program creating competition to improve price, quality and operational availability,” according to the report..........

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall, also speaking in the UK, expressed confidence in Pratt & Whitney and indicated a reintroduction of a second engine for competitive purposes was not in the cards. “Overall we’re confident in the design. We’re still in development, we still have work to do, [largely] on the margins, but overall we’re confident,” he said. “We’re not interested in this point in going back several years and opening up to another competitor.”

Because of spending caps etched into existing US laws, if Congress decides to bring the F136 program back to life, it would require something else within the Pentagon’s annual budget to be cut.......

Other program decisions:.......

EA-18G. The bill adds $1.2 billion to buy 12 unrequested EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, and provides $100 million “to extend current production to a minimum production rate of two aircraft per month.”........

[Lonewolf_50]

IMO, getting the extra Growlers is not a bad idea.

When things heat up, the EW aircraft seem to be in very high demand.

[Hempy]

The 'Gen 4.5' Supers with AESA have the full F-35 capability minus the stealth but with actual range, speed, agility, redundancy and reliability. You have to question whether the F/A-18 may be the saviour in the short to medium term.

[Turbine D]

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall, also speaking in the UK, expressed confidence in Pratt & Whitney and indicated a reintroduction of a second engine for competitive purposes was not in the cards. “Overall we’re confident in the design. We’re still in development, we still have work to do, [largely] on the margins, but overall we’re confident,” he said. “We’re not interested in this point in going back several years and opening up to another competitor.”

This is exactly what's wrong with our DoD procurement system today. You would think Frank would be the most irate at the situation, but nooooo! "We are still in development, still have work to do", will 20-25 years be enough to get it done?:eek:

TD

[sandiego89]

It's an interesting question if the USMC had been told that a Supersonic Stealthy STOVL jet was not worth the candle, would JSF have been a twin engine aircraft?


Given the convoluted history of several programs being merged into the JSF program, I think the stage was pretty much set for a single engine. Yes, VSTOL mas a major driver for the single engine design, but so did risk, weight and cost. A precursor to JSF was CAST, a common "affordable" platform with a single 119 derivative engine part of the mix from early on.

One requirement that seemed to carry from the CAST to the JSF program was the max weight of 24,000 lbs- the max a single 119 derivative was forcasted to lift.

DARPA / Navy Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) 1993-1994 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/calf.htm)

[PhilipG]

It would be interesting to know what the USMC is thinking of doing next.

Making an offer to Spain and Italy for their AV8s?

How long will it be before the Situational Awareness suite from the F35 is put on an F15 or F/A 18 to test it out properly, which might result it it being retrofitted to parts of the 4.5 gen fleet.

Frank displays an amazing attitude to perceived failure of a major part of the Pentagon's largest ever project.

[kbrockman]

It would be interesting to know what the USMC is thinking of doing next.

What really is interesting and slightly worrying is the rate at which the USMC is getting a lot of their core main acquisition programs so wrong, the F35B, the LHA's which in hindsight seemed a bonkers idea (2 iso the initial 5) , and many others still view the V22 as a big clusterf#&$k that keeps on creating a lot of problems at enormous costs.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/your-periodic-reminder-that-the-v-22-is-a-piece-of-junk-db72a8a23ccf

[melmothtw]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/you...k-db72a8a23ccf

To have any chance in a brown-out, a V-22 crew has to use advanced avionics and an infrared camera. A conventional helicopter can manage brownout with high-tech assistance, making it much safer.

So, a V-22 using 'high-tech' assistance to land in brownout is unsafe, but a helicopter doing the same is safer? Not sure I follow that...

I've spoken to AFSOC operators who love the CV-22 and the capabilities it brings them, and they've got no reason to lie.

[SpazSinbad]

Pentagon Explains F-35 Fire Investigation Findings Published on Jul 15, 2014
"Top officials from the F-35 programme discuss recent fire findings in the popular plane's high-tech engine. Further reading and discussion: Video: Pentagon Explains F-35 Fire Investigation Findings | Force Weekly (http://forceweekly.com/?p=50737)

Pentagon Explains F-35 Fire Investigation Findings - YouTube

[Lonewolf_50]

F-35 still not cancelled.
(PS, this thread is not for whinging about the V-22. There is another thread for that).

Since it is still not cancelled ...

[Rhino power]

Sweden pulls out of competition for Danish F-16 replacement, believing it was biased in favour of the F-35A...

Sweden Drops Out Of Denmark Fighter Competition | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/sweden-drops-out-denmark-fighter-competition)

-RP

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The 'Gen 4.5' Supers with AESA have the full F-35 capability minus the stealth but with actual range, speed, agility, redundancy and reliability. You have to question whether the F/A-18 may be the saviour in the short to medium term.


...minus the sensor data fusion, minus the MADL, minus the DAS, minus the APG-81, minus the EOTS...

[Rhino power]

...minus the sensor data fusion, minus the MADL, minus the DAS, minus the APG-81, minus the EOTS...

So is the F-35 at the moment! :} ;)

-RP

[GreenKnight121]

(PS, this thread is not for whinging about the V-22. There is another thread for that).

Here: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/490255-v22-osprey-discussion-thread-mk-ii-27.html#post8575600

A post on the status of the USMC transition from the CH-46 to the MV-22B:
http://www.pprune.org/8575600-post538.html

[busdriver02]

The 'Gen 4.5' Supers ..... with actual range, speed, agility, redundancy and reliability.

Range is dependent on external tanks, which the F-35 can also carry (I realize this reduces low observability) the Super Hornet is slow and draggy when carrying external ordnance, agility does not equal maneuverability but the weight to wing area is very similar between the two when similarly configured, if you're dead set on two engines well OK, time will tell if the F-35 turns out to be reliable.

[Snafu351]

...minus the sensor data fusion, minus the MADL, minus the DAS, minus the APG-81, minus the EOTS...

On message i see FA18... The systems other platforms have may not have the names you mention but those systems do the exact same thing that these do...well actually they don't because in many cases the other systems are operational and useful today...and at a fraction of the cost...

[GreenKnight121]

You don't know what they do, do you Snafu351?

For example - DAS = distributed aperture sensor.

This is a set of 6 IR cameras placed around the aircraft, and the F-35 is the only US aircraft with a full DAS system.

The DAS provides three basic categories of functions in every direction simultaneously:[/URL]


Missile detection and tracking (including launch point detection and countermeasure cueing) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAQ-37#cite_note-2)
Aircraft detection and tracking (Situational awareness, IRST, & air-to-air weapons cueing)
Imagery for cockpit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRST) displays and pilot vision (imagery displayed onto the helmet mounted display[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_mounted_display"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision))


While the other aircraft have one or two cameras, they don't really do more than let him see better in a narrow field of view in small areas. Most of their visibility of with their own eyes, out of the canopy.

The F-35's DAS allows the pilot to see anywhere he turns his head - ahead, up, down, and backwards. Its as if the plane isn't there - if he looks down he doesn't see the floor of the cockpit like he would on every other US fighter - he sees what is below the aircraft. And yes, DAS is working on the F-35 aircraft that the USAF/USMC/USN are flying.

[ORAC]

This is a set of 6 IR cameras placed around the aircraft, and the F-35 is the only US aircraft with a full DAS system.. But not ship (http://aviationintel.com/f-35s-distributed-aperature-system-go-to-sea-as-silent-watch/) - and it is available for integration on other platforms.

Mind you, not sure that " DAS is working on the F-35 aircraft that the USAF/USMC/USN are flying." adequately explains the current situation. Permit m to quote from the DOT&E FY2013 Annual Report (http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013/pdf/dod/2013f35jsf.pdf) on the F35...

.....October reports for the latest Block 2B mission systems software increment in flight test show a rate of 11.4 hours between anomalies, based on 79.5 hours of flight test. Subsystems, such as the radar, EOTS, DAS, and the navigation solution often require component resets as well, but these are not tracked in the stability metric.

...........Initial results with the new increment of Block 2B software indicate deficiencies still exist in fusion, radar, electronic warfare, navigation, EOTS, Distributed Aperture System (DAS), Helmet‑Mounted Display System (HMDS), and datalink. These deficiencies block the ability of the test team to complete baseline Block 2B test points, including weapons integration.

.............Projections for completing Block 2B fight testing using the historical rate of continued growth ... show that Block 2B developmental testing will complete about 13 months later, in November 2015, and delay the associated fleet release to July of 2016.

- The EOTS fails to meet target recognition ranges, exhibits track instability in portions of its field-of-view, and has large line-of-sight angle and azimuth errors when computing target locations. These deficiencies are being investigated and addressed by the program with software fixes.

......- Latency with the DAS projection has improved from earlier versions of software, but has not yet been tested in operationally representative scenarios.

.....- The DAS has displayed a high false alarm rate for missile detections during ownship and formation flare testing. The inability of the DAS to distinguish between flares and threat missiles makes the warning system ineffective and reduces pilot situational awareness.......

[TBM-Legend]

Rule 1: Never buy the A model of anything...:hmm:

I think the F-35 D/E/F models when they come will be good....

[LowObservable]

When I checked out the shipboard version of EO-DAS it was remarkably good at detecting seagulls and the sun reflecting off clouds, and studiously ignored civvy jets a kilometer or so away. Supposedly the JSF version has better software.

And as we all know, the JSF's wideangle IIR system is unique on any fighter aircraft. Wait, what?

http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/images/ddm-4.jpg

Granted, it can't look through the floor, but it also has two sensors (in one location) instead of six. And it is in service.

The Elbit PAWS-2 is also IIR, with full-spherical coverage, and will be on the JAS 39E/F.

[Lonewolf_50]

Nice piece of kit :ok:. Does the viewing screen have the following warning label on it?
"Objects are larger than they appear." :E

[PhilipG]

Nice piece of kit . Does the viewing screen have the following warning label on it?
"Objects are larger than they appear."
Should the screen not also warn "The item you are looking at might be below or behind you, it is not necessarily in front of you..."

[MarkD]

If the F-35 had as much stealth and teflon as this seemingly unsackable idiot (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/one-engine-or-two/article1212445/), it could survive any mission thrown at it.

[Lyneham Lad]

For those who have not yet seen it, an article on Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australian-f-35s-rolled-out-in-texas-402030/)

Australia’s first pair of F-35 Lightning II combat aircraft have been rolled out, during a ceremony at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth final assembly site in Texas. They are the lead examples of at least 72 aircraft to be produced for the nation, under an acquisition worth a projected A$12.4 billion ($11.6 billion).

Following the 24 July event, training aircraft AU-1 and AU-2 are to undergo functional fuel system checks before being transferred to the flight line for ground and flight tests that are due to occur “in the coming months”, says Lockheed.

The two aircraft will be formally delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force later this year before being transferred to the US Air Force’s Luke AFB in Arizona, the main international training base for the stealthy F-35.

“Initial RAAF pilot training will begin in the United States in 2015, and from 2018 the Australian Defence Force will commence ferry flights of JSF aircraft to Australia,” the service says.

Lead operational unit 3 Sqn will become operational in 2021, according to the RAAF, with this being the first of what is currently planned to be three frontline units equipped with the conventional take-off and landing F-35A at the Tindal and Williamtown bases. A training squadron will also operate the type from the latter location, with a total of 72 aircraft scheduled to be fully operational by 2023.

Being acquired via Project Air 6000, Australia’s F-35As will replace its legacy fleet of Boeing F/A-18A/B Hornets.

“In the future, a fourth operational squadron will be considered for RAAF Base Amberley, for a total of about 100 F-35As,” the air force says.

Canberra says 30 Australian companies have so far secured workshare worth $412 million on the F-35 programme.

“The US-Australian alliance and engagement on collaborative defence programmes is crucial to Australia maintaining the capability edge it needs,” says senator Mathias Cormann, who represented its Department of Defence at the roll-out event.

[LowObservable]

MarkD - Useful link. Quote:

So what happens if the sole engine in the new F-35 Lightning fails?

"It won't," Defence Minister Peter MacKay insisted on Friday. It was a bold prediction and one he will be remembered for making.

I do hope so, I really do.

[Ian Corrigible]

With all the attention on low-intensity conflict (LAS (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/387243-counter-insurgency-coin-aircraft-comeback.html#post5165043), Textron Scorpion (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/543620-f35-cavok.html#post8564474), OV-10X (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-47.html#post7198547), AT-802U (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/261992-usa-use-new-67-iraq-3.html#post4977936), etc.), maybe it's time to revisit the 1960s plans for a souped-up Mustang (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/378816-p51.html).

Ford has already developed a test vehicle:

http://r3.aviationpros.com/files/cygnus/image/CAVC/2014/JUL/640x360/2014-f-35-lightning-ii-edition_11590796.jpg (http://www.at.ford.com/news/cn/Pages/Ford%20F-35%20Lightning%20II%20Edition%20Mustang%20Celebrates%2050%20 Years%20and%20Supports%20Young%20Eagles0725-6555.aspx)

I/C

[Turbine D]

The political side of the Military-Industrial Complex.

From The Washington Post:

How the F-35 boondoggle shows that deficit hawkery is a sham

Yesterday in Fort Worth, officials from the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin, and the Australian government gathered to celebrate the fact that two F-35 fighter jets bound for our ally down under were rolling off the assembly line. The news about this plane over the last few years has largely been buried on the inside pages of newspapers, but if you’d been following it you know that it has been one of the most remarkable boondoggles we’ve ever seen, not only the most expensive weapons system in history, but one that has been plagued by one disastrous problem after another (the latest of which came last month when an F-35 caught fire when taking off and the whole fleet of them were grounded).

The remarkable lack of interest in figuring out how things could have gone so wrong with this plane, especially from people who claim to be so desperately concerned about runaway government spending, tells you something about what a sham deficit hawkery really is.

As many have noted, when Republicans say they want to cut government spending, what they really mean is they want to cut spending on programs they don’t like. You can couch it in abstract principles about the size of government and the debt we bequeath to our children, but when it comes down to brass tacks, they like some things that government does (like military spending), and they don’t like other things that government does (like provide a social safety net), so they want to cut the latter but not the former.

Even so, it’s one thing to say, “Even though I’m deeply concerned about the deficit, this weapons system is so important to our security that I think it’s worthwhile to spend half a trillion dollars on it.” It’s something else to say, “We should spend half a trillion dollars on this weapons system, and not only do I not care how high costs spiral, I don’t really care whether it’s a piece of junk.” But that is, in effect, what most everyone in Congress has said about the F-35.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was supposed to extend American air superiority deep into the 21st century. The F-35 was designed to evade not just enemy fighters, but political accountability as well. Its subcontracts were spread out over 1,300 separate companies in 45 states, ensuring that members of Congress from throughout the land have an interest in keeping the project going. It’s an incredibly poor way to create jobs (depending on how you count, a single job supported by the F-35 costs the taxpayer as much as $8 million). We’ll spend around $400 billion to build the planes — nearly twice what the program was supposed to cost when it began. When this happens, nobody gets punished or held “accountable.” We just keep shoveling taxpayer money into the Lockheed coffers. And that doesn’t count the cost of repairing and maintaining the planes, which could push the cost past $1 trillion over time.

The problem is that the F-35 has been a disaster. Bursting into flames is just the latest mishap — it’s been so unreliable that at various points the planes have been forbidden from flying at night, or in the rain, or too fast, or too steep. There have been problems with hardware and software and everything in between.

Now it’s possible that eventually all that will be worked out, the planes will work reliably, and they’ll be ready for combat on schedule next summer. But given the F-35′s abysmal record and the spectacular amounts of taxpayer money being poured into it, you’d think all those deficit hawks in Congress, particularly on the Republican side, would have been holding investigations, demanding accountability, and threatening hell to pay if things didn’t get back on track.

But I guess not. After all, there weren’t any F-35s at Benghazi.

[SpazSinbad]

22 buttons to push on HOTAS apparently [known as the 'cowpie' (throttle) and stick] according to this 'travel sim' video & have a look at PCD (Panoramic Cockpit) display cropped screengrab for LHA approach. Nice to have Day/NIGHT eh for all youse CVFers out there:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BtravelSimLHAapproachViewForum.png~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BtravelSimLHAapproachViewForum.png.html)

F-35 helmet display sees everything Published on Apr 25, 2014 AOPALive
"Super situational awareness with a helmet mounted display that lets the pilot "see" through the aircraft in all directions."
F-35 helmet display sees everything - YouTube

[Baron 58P]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398
This was published in "War is Boring" on Friday. It makes a mockery of the prices quoted by LM.

[glad rag]

22 buttons to push on HOTAS apparently [known as the 'cowpie' (throttle) and stick] according to this 'travel sim' video & have a look at PCD (Panoramic Cockpit) display cropped screengrab for LHA approach. Nice to have Day/NIGHT eh for all youse CVFers out there:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BtravelSimLHAapproachViewForum.png~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BtravelSimLHAapproachViewForum.png.html)

F-35 helmet display sees everything Published on Apr 25, 2014 AOPALive

F-35 helmet display sees everything - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp8vmoiJU0w)


Again. Your standards are slipping.

[SpazSinbad]

What standards. Meanwhilst youse'll be gladder than a bag of this perhaps?

Engine Problems Still Cloud F-35 Progress 28 Jul 2014 Chris Pocock, AINonline
"...The JPO has not yet completed negotiations with LM for the LRIP 8 batch neither of aircraft, nor with P&W for the LRIP-7+8 engines. “It’s a long process…the Pentagon has raised the standard for FAR Part 15 contracting,” noted Croswell. The lack of agreements has delayed the UK’s commitment to buy 14 F-35Bs for its first squadron. At the recent Farnborough Air Show, former UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond told AIN that negotiations are continuing. “As you would expect, we’re looking to get the best deal we can for the British taxpayer,” he said."
Engine Problems Still Cloud F-35 Progress | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-07-28/engine-problems-still-cloud-f-35-progress)

[SpazSinbad]

U.S. loosens rules for Lockheed F-35, allows faster flight, tighter curves [???] Andrea Shalal 29 July 2014
"...Pilots can now fly at speeds of up to 1.6 Mach, up from 0.9 Mach, and carry out turns with a gravitational load of 3.2 Gs, up from 3 Gs, a U.S. defense official and other sources familiar with the program told Reuters on Tuesday....

...Sylvia Pierson, F-35 spokeswoman at a southern Maryland air base, said the Marine Corps' F-35 B-model jets and the Navy's C-model jets were now carrying out five or six flight tests a day.

Officials have determined that the engine failure occurred when a component in the third stage fan blade rubbed too hard against an adjacent seal during a certain flight maneuver, according to a briefing provided to U.S. lawmakers.

Details about the maneuver were not immediately available. A second defense official said other jets in the F-35 fleet that carried out the same maneuver did not exhibit signs of the "excessive rubbing" seen in the engine that failed."
U.S. loosens rules for Lockheed F-35, allows faster flight, tighter curves | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N0Q42QT20140729)

[SpazSinbad]

F-35B Successfully Completes Wet Runway And Crosswind Testing 31 Jul 2014 noodls
"...F-35B recently completed required wet runway and crosswind testing at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

"This testing is absolutely critical to 2B flight software fleet release and the Marine Corps' IOC," said J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin's vice president for F-35 Test & Verification. "Collectively, the results support clearing the 20 knot crosswind envelope for Conventional Take Off & Landings (CTOL), Short Take Offs (STO) and Short Landings (SL), with ideal handling quality ratings and meaningful improvement over legacy 4th generational fighter aircraft."

The testing, completed in 37 missions during a 41-day period, achieved 114 test points, including 48 of 48 wet runway test points, four of four performance STOs, 12 of 18 unique flight test conditions for STO, 19 of 23 unique flight test conditions for SLs and all directional control and anti-skid wet runway [good for SRVLs on CVFs?] testing. All testing was performed with BF-4, based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland...."
Lockheed Martin Corporation (via noodls) / F-35B Successfully Completes Wet Runway And Crosswind Testing (http://www.noodls.com/view/DF71E8C7D883DB07332A26ED32F3479B4E3120F5)

[Courtney Mil]

It looks a little like scratching around for good news. 3.2g? Wow! I like good news, but the only really impressive thing is all that whilst it's grounded. Well done!
:ok:

[PhilipG]

I am not 100% sure that I read that correctly, an F35B from Pax River went to California for wet weather testing?

No doubt we will hear when the rest of the tests points that have yet to be accomplished are achieved, hopefully not in a one by one drip feed.

How many hours are the F35s allowed to fly these days? Just thinking that a flight from Edwards to Pax may be outside the allowed envelope and how are the Marine F35s that had been planned to "display" at RIAT etc going to get back to the West Coast, a number of little hops skips and jumps across the continent? Interesting logistical support exercise.

[SpazSinbad]

Looks as though the USMC had this intent - whether they did or not as described? Dunno.

Marine Corps welcomes the decision to return F-35Bs to flight 15 Jul 2014
"...On a related note, the Marine Corps will soon conduct a transcontinental redeployment of four F-35Bs from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland to their home base at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona. The six-hour cross-country mission will include aerial refueling similar to what is required while transiting an ocean. Once back at their home station, the pilots and squadron will continue training and progress toward initial operational capability next summer."
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/PressReleaseView/tabid/6730/Article/167500/marine-corps-welcomes-the-decision-to-return-f-35bs-to-flight.aspx
____________________________

A news report said (or maybe a VX-23 report? or NavAir?) said that Patuxent River runway for wet testing could not be organised - or made suitable - so the Bee went to a suitable runway already set up at Edwards that earlier tested the F-35A (AA-1 where it did emergency arrest testing) for wetness liking.
___________________

Bee testing wet concrete began some time ago now:
"...5/15/2014 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- A Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 Lightning II is shown performing Crosswind and Wet Runway testing at Edwards AFB May 6. Pilot Dan Levin and a team from the F-35 Integrated Test Facility at Patuxent River, MD accompanied aircraft BF-4 for the deployment to Edwards April 11. Testing is expected to continue until June 14...."
http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123411117
________________

"19 July 2011 First Wet Runway Landing
F-35A AF-2 became the first F-35 to land on a wet runway at Edwards AFB, California, with Lockheed Martin test pilot Jeff Knowles at the controls. The 0.9-hour mission was Flight 135 for AF-2."
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=83

[chopper2004]

Take it the RAAF F-35 are not the B model are they? There is no B model within the contract are there?

As HMAS Canberra appears to have ski jump ? But its strictly a helicopter carrier unless they will have occasionally USMC AV-8B Harrier II PLus cross decking or detached as Ark Royal did on her last deployment stateside?

NUSHIP Canberra (III) | Royal Australian Navy (http://www.navy.gov.au/nuship-canberra-iii)

Then again one of my former employers, 14 years ago published a report on ADF procurement with talk of having a largish helicopter carrier with ability to even launching the RAAF F/A-18 fleet bringing back the carrier capability they got rid off when selling off HMAS Sydney and the A-4 and MB339 fleet.

Cheers

[sandiego89]

Take it the RAAF F-35 are not the B model are they? There is no B model within the contract are there?

As HMAS Canberra appears to have ski jump ? But its strictly a helicopter carrier unless they will have occasionally USMC AV-8B Harrier II PLus cross decking or detached as Ark Royal did on her last deployment stateside?

Chopper, all of the F-35s on order for Australia are A models- conventional landing. There is much speculation that a future buy could be a squadron or so of B's- the V/STOL model.

Australia could buy F-35B - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/38374/australia-could-buy-f-35b)

I think the ski jump on the Canberra is a major hint of a B purchase.

[Maus92]

"I think the ski jump on the Canberra is a major hint of a B purchase."

The ski jump was too expensive to remove from the design, even though it hinders rotary winged operations somewhat. And having it intact certainly opens the possibility of operating -Bs in the future, whatever their utility in small numbers brings to the party.

[Courtney Mil]

How do all the automatics cope with a ski jump?

[CoffmanStarter]

With a wet runway and a bit of a cross wind ... the F-35 seems to Ground Loop quite well :E

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/6da121fe-138e-471a-93d3-27b20a63eb22_zpsc1740194.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

'chopper2004' said in this weird segue about Oz LHDs (there are other threads with at least one recent [ http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/540865-raaf-caf-slams-his-air-force-3.html#post8529349 ] where some of this stuff is discussed but anyway...).
"... when selling off HMAS Sydney and the A-4 and MB339 fleet..."
Just for the record: HMAS Sydney the axial deck aircraft carrier operating only fixed wing props was sold for scrap in 1975 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Sydney_(R17) ]. HMAS Melbourne with angle deck operating A4Gs and S2E/Gs in last go around was sold for scrap in 1985 : HMAS Melbourne (II) | Royal Australian Navy (http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-melbourne-ii) Macchi MB326Hs were the training jet aircraft of the RANFAA and RAAF.
___________________________

Q:"How do all the automatics cope with a ski jump?"
Lockheed Martin rebuts F-35 critics on cost, progress Chris Pocock 15 Jul 2010
“...When asked how the F-35B compared to the Harrier in terms of ease of takeoff/landing, Tomlinson replied: “It’s chalk and cheese–and so it should be! This is a single-button operation with no special controls–much easier than the Harrier. For short takeoffs you just power up; the system takes care of everything else. On the ski-jump, for instance, the system detects the change in deck angle & doesn’t apply any rotation as it would on a flat deck.”...”
Lockheed Martin rebuts F-35 critics on cost, progress | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/taxonomy/term/506881?q=node/25359)

[Courtney Mil]

Love it, Coff. Fancy a ski?

Edit: Just seen you answer to my question above. Thanks, Spaz.

[PhilipG]

It seems the F35 is so competent that there is no need for HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales as it can walk on water....

[NoHoverstop]

How do all the automatics cope with a ski jump?

No-one knows*. It's not done one yet. However, I can't think of a good reason why it shouldn't be easy and safe**. I spent a lot of time looking at how another digital active-control V/STOL jet would do it. This was done in order to design a monitoring system that would allow us to experiment with experimental control laws trying to cope with finding themselves suddenly in the air without any immediate "right answer" to the question of what to do with the engine, nozzles, flaps and pitch-controls to achieve at least 1g flight. The trick then was to make sure the system knew it was doing a ski-jump, without anyone having to tell it (they might forget to do that). That was not difficult, because there are some big unambiguous clues that are easy to reliability detect. Having detected it, having the FCS do the right thing achieve 1+g flight in a timely manner is pretty easy (it would be basically like having the right take-off trim setting and fading it to "ordinary flying" appropriately after ramp-exit. I do not know exactly what the F-35B does, but that sort of thing worked for us).

I suppose you could worry about steering, which old-school catapulted jets have done for them, but even that's easier on a ski-jump than flat deck because the visual cues are so much better and there's no need to raise the nose during the T/O roll.

So I imagine it will do it very nicely.

*But they must be, rightly in my opinion, pretty confident.

**noting of course that, in the words of the guidance notes for a once-popular DStan: "nothing is safe".

[Engines]

Courtney,

I think I've posted several times that the F-35B has a hard requirement (a KPP, even) to be able to carry out a ski jump.

So, the automatics will cope very well with a ski jump because they have been designed to do so. The aircraft won't be accepted unless it does. It just has to. I don't think I can be any clearer.

Initial design work started some years back, and even then it was clear that, as for the Harrier, a ski jump launch would be the lowest workload way to get into the air, with significant safety benefits and substantial improvements in payload. NoHoverstop's excellent answer provides great detail.

Hope this helps

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

No subscription for him so this is all ye read....

Flight Restrictions Kept In Place For F-35 Operational Aircraft 31 Jul 2014
"Flight restrictions remain for Joint Strike Fighter operational aircraft until an engine investigation wraps up, but limits have been removed for test aircraft, according to the F-35 joint program office...."
Login (http://insidedefense.com/index.php?option=com_user&view=login&return=aHR0cDovL2luc2lkZWRlZmVuc2UuY29tLzIwMTQwNzMwMjQ3ODEyO S9JbnNpZGUtRGVmZW5zZS1EYWlseS1OZXdzL0RlZmVuc2VBbGVydC9mbGlna HQtcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25zLWtlcHQtaW4tcGxhY2UtZm9yLWYtMzUtb3BlcmF0a W9uYWwtYWlyY3JhZnQvbWVudS1pZC02MS5odG1s)

[chopper2004]

Thanks Spaz, for that as I could not remember which one of the carriers was left at the bitter end. IIRC, Sydney was used as the 'Vung Tau Ferry' for transporting troops and vehicles probably the RAAF and 191 Flt Hueys and Sioux and Turbo Porter

Then again didn't our remaining TDCs sorry carriers :sad: :p still had ski jump post getting rid of JFH, so how can said ski jump impair rotary wing ops as some1s stated about the Canberra's design.

Though apart from the Italian Guiseppe Grimaldi and Spanish Principe de Astrias - the USN/USMC did not have ski jumps because the old Iwo Jima LHA were helicopter carriers and built in post WW2 period then the Tarawa class did not have ski jumps and they were built 70s/80s? The WASP class does not have them - magic question how did the Flying Leathernecks cope in the last 4 decades with Harrier launches?

Cheers

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks, Engines. I saw Spaz's answer too. You don't need to make it any clearer, it was just a question.

[SpazSinbad]

'chopper2004' I guess skyramps are in the eye of the beholder. Some beholden more than others beford. But whatever.... Back in the dreamtime a USMC study concluded that a ski jump on the LHAs of that era would not take away a helo spot even if on a slight incline because when well deck flooded helo ops continued on the inclined deck. It seems the USN/USMC did not want ski jumps so that was that. USMC Harrier pilots have usually been enthusiastic about ski jumps but that did not carry weight.

Info post on this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-201.html#post8267840

[SpazSinbad]

Anotherie on the skyyump...

Carrier countdown 30 June 2014 Tim Robinson
"...Not your father's ski-jump
The QE-class's ski-jump, too, has been carefully designed and engineered from the beginning... The QEC's ski-jump is longer (200ft) than the Invincible-class (150ft) and designed so that the aircraft has all three (including the nose) wheels in contact right up until the point where the aircraft leaves the deck — giving positive nosewheel authority throughout. Additionally, the F-35Bs smart flight control system ‘knows’ when it is going up a ramp and will pre-position the control surfaces and effectors to launch at the optimum angle to avoid pitch-up or down...."
Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | Carrier countdown (http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/2300/Carrier-countdown)

[Robert Cooper]

Obama's gonna chop it.

Bob C

[FODPlod]

Obama's gonna chop it.

Bob C

Source of this news please?

[Robert Cooper]

Not news, just a rumour! :E

Bob C

[Courtney Mil]

...and this is a rumour network. So that's OK.

[SpazSinbad]

PhilipG asked here: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-248.html#post8587506
"...Just thinking that a flight from Edwards to Pax may be outside the allowed envelope and how are the Marine F35s that had been planned to "display" at RIAT etc going to get back to the West Coast, a number of little hops skips and jumps across the continent? Interesting logistical support exercise."

Visiting the F-35 Squadron at Yuma Air Station: The Executive Officer of VMF121 Provides an Update
Mid July 2014 Robbin Laird & Ed Timperlake
“...A squadron F-35B seen at Yuma on July 16, 2014. Squadron planes scheduled for Farnbourgh were in flight back from Pax River that afternoon....”
Visiting the F-35 Squadron at Yuma Air Station: The Executive Officer of VMF121 Provides an Update | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/visiting-the-f-35-squadron-at-yuma-air-station-the-executive-officer-of-vmf121-provides-an-update/)

[Wander00]

Cancellation? - anyone offering odds?

[Onceapilot]

So, It was very a good time to eject "smiling knife" Hammond away from this disaster-in-the-making!:suspect:

OAP

[Hempy]

How DODs $1.5 trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101883138)

[PhilipG]

Spaz, thank you for your response to my post. Are you sure about your answer? You quote an article of 16th July, before as I recall the decision not to go to RIAT, 17-19 or Farnborough 19-20. You seem to be stating that the Marines flew the planes back west before the decision no to fly trans Atlantic, could you confirm what you stated was strangely correct?

[glad rag]

With a wet runway and a bit of a cross wind ... the F-35 seems to Ground Loop quite well :E

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/6da121fe-138e-471a-93d3-27b20a63eb22_zpsc1740194.jpg


No it needs a real FIGHTER aircraft to pull [:E] that off...

iAEk9pDudu4

;)

[GeeRam]

Err...... :ok:

http://itdoesnthavetoberight.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/seadartinthewaterfullcolor.jpg

[Wander00]

Hope that is not the Rafale pilot who does aeros over our village every time he passes - could make a big hole in the ground!

[Courtney Mil]

Hey, W00, I want him to do aeros over our village too!

[CoffmanStarter]

Just make sure you're not in the pool at the time Courtney :eek:

[Courtney Mil]

Sound advice, Coff! :ok:

[SpazSinbad]

'PhilipG' said: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-249.html#post8590318
"....Are you sure about your answer? You quote an article of 16th July, before as I recall the decision not to go to RIAT, 17-19 or Farnborough 19-20. You seem to be stating that the Marines flew the planes back west before the decision no to fly trans Atlantic, could you confirm what you stated was strangely correct?"
You can read the article as much as I can. The quote is from a picture caption in it.

[PhilipG]

Who was it who said that the only thing you can believe in a newspaper is the date?

Spaz, the fact that LM & the US DOD wanted the F35 to show its face in the UK, would suggest that the planes were at Pax waiting to go transatlantic, the strapline for the article was 16th, seems the photo has a typo.

[SpazSinbad]

I believe this information is already on this thread. I may or may not find it but anyway here it is again. I would guess that all dates are local US time:

[this post] http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-248.html#post8587568

Marine Corps welcomes the decision to return F-35Bs to flight
July 15, 2014
"...On a related note, the Marine Corps will soon conduct a transcontinental redeployment of four F-35Bs from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland to their home base at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona. The six-hour cross-country mission will include aerial refueling similar to what is required while transiting an ocean. Once back at their home station, the pilots and squadron will continue training and progress toward initial operational capability next summer."
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/PressReleaseView/tabid/6730/Article/167500/marine-corps-welcomes-the-decision-to-return-f-35bs-to-flight.aspx
________________

Another date reference: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/no-f-35s-coming-to-farnborough-safety-first-says-secdef-hagel/

[GreenKnight121]

Note that the visit of the F-35 RIAT had been officially canceled, as well as the first 2 days of Farnborough, by the 12th of July, with the last 2 days being listed as "doubtful".

http://www.pprune.org/8560646-post4866.html

I suggest that the USMC had begun by that time to prepare their "return to Yuma" plan by that time, and when the rubbing problem and full-fleet inspection was announced on the 13th of July they dropped all Farnborough plans (as there was no possibility of completing the inspections in time to make it to even one day) and activated the preparations for "plan fly-home".

Remember that when the engine problem first was announced they said that the F-35Bs would have to depart 4 days before their initial appearance would be made.

[PhilipG]

Sorry if I got my dates confused, I thought that the planes stayed at Pax until the last moment, thinking that at least a fly by would be better than nothing.

As regards the flight back to Yuma, it is some 2,200 miles, according to the post a six hour flight, did the USMC have a special clearance to fly this journey, there is still I believe for not test aircraft a requirement to scope parts of the engine every 3 hours, suggesting that unless there was a special dispensation there would have to have been at least one stop on route, at a suitably equipped air base. Just saying...

[GreenKnight121]

The flight restriction came after the initial "return to flight" if I have not confused myself - thus for a couple of days there was no "3 hour inspection" requirement, and this was when they planned to fly back - if they made the flight.

[chopper2004]

Nice to meet the Green Knights at RIAT - bought a couple of souvenirs :) from them as their little tent booth was inundated with attendees.

Also nice to see and sit inside the mock-up at Farnborough ;):p Though one question popped in my head, when prompted by a friend over the side of the Pond - was if they have come this far with the program, why not load up one working airframe in the back of a C-17 or C-5B or AN-124 and put it on static just do the usual security and safety precautions.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_3975_zps0b70e34e.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_1915_zps3ba11d41.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_3943_zps373c4d84.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_1810_zps249e9254.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_1897_zpsa94a4e3a.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_1811_zps5ff38f03.jpg



http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_1902_zpsa81dd139.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_1903_zps45d43ed7.jpg



Cheers

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks for sharing, Chopper. Nice pics.

The cockpit vis looks awful. And that's just forward. You'd be lost without the magic hat! Yes, I know the canopy's open.

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks 'chopper2004'. Would you happen to have a photo of the magic 'STOVL/Hook' Button please? Thanks. The STOVL MODE/HOOK button is situated slightly down from near the top left corner of the PCD Panoramic Cockpit Display. I think the STOVL button is above the 'emergency' button seen at the top of the 'cowpie' throttle photo.

[glad rag]

All that $$$,$$$,$$$ and rusty screw heads thrown in for free.

ROFL

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz, how desperate are you for a picture of a button? I'd rather see the cloaking device switch.

[CoffmanStarter]

I like the Honda APU :}

[SpazSinbad]

'CM' how desperate are you to trash the forward view of the F-35? Have you sat in the cockpit with seat adjusted? Did you enquire about the conditions under which the commented upon photo was taken - was the seat all the way down for example - but who cares what you think eh.

[Courtney Mil]

Steady, Tiger. Spaz, didn't want to cause an explosion in your head. It was just a comment on a photo. Don't take it personally.

Edit: sorry, I didn't answer your question. No, I haven't been in the F-35 cockpit and I doubt I ever shall - especially as I'm a resident of a country that isn't even in the programme. But I do know how to adjust a seat in a fast jet cockpit. Of course I know no more than you about the conditions under which the photo was taken.

I'm sorry you think no one cares what I think. Again, just a comment on a very good photo. Didn't expect your anger, if I touched a nerve, it was not intentional.

Whatever.

[Rhino power]

Any chance of a close-up pic of the 'BRAKE APPLICATION' twirly knob thing? It looks utterly fascinating, even more so than the knob, Spaz is concerned with...

-RP

[Engines]

Courtney,

Perhaps I can help on F-35 cockpit visibility.

The cockpit design was driven (as ever) by a number of competing factors, which included maximum field of view, bird strike resistance ( a requirement pressed hard by the UK) and not least view over the nose for F-35C carrier approaches.

It also had to address LO requirements, the shaping part of which led to a very wide cockpit aperture. Oh, and as ever, the designers were aiming for minimum drag. (you might be aware that some engineers have observed that the 'maximum visibility' trend of the 80s led to some over large cockpits that caused significant performance degradation - GR7 has been quoted as an example).

There were a number of sessions where the cockpit FOV was examined in minute detail, especially looking at the positioning of the arch (required to meet bird strike targets) and also of the AAR probe, as well as view of wing tips and other parts of the airframe. At no meetings I attended was the 'magic hat' offered as a palliative.

The sessions were attended by highly experienced fighter and strike pilots from a number of countries, and the basic cockpit design has hardly changed from early concepts. Every UK pilot I spoke with thought the view was excellent, and you might like to know that cockpit and crew station design was heavily influenced by UK Typhoon experience.

I apologise for a longish post, but as ever I'd just like to point out that there are one or two (thousand) people on the F-35 programme who know what they are doing, are listening to aircrew and are doing the massively hard stuff involved in fielding a new combat aircraft.

Best regards as ever to all those working the hard yards

Engines