21 Nov - Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter

[Lyneham Lad]

Not sure if this has been covered in other threads...

Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-lockheed-rolls-out-uks-first-joint-strike-fighter-365167/)

Lockheed Martin has rolled out the UK's first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), with the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to be delivered in 2012.

As the first F-35 to have been manufactured for an international partner, aircraft BK-1 will now enter a period of functional fuel system checks at Lockheed's Fort Worth site in Texas. It will then undergo "ground and flight tests in the coming months", the US-based airframer said.

The UK ordered three STOVL F-35Bs to participate in the US-led programme's initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) phase, but subsequently switched its interest to acquiring the larger F-35C carrier variant to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. Its third IOT&E aircraft is likely to be in the preferred production configuration, with this change to be enabled under an agreement with the US Navy.

Once delivered, the UK's aircraft will participate in joint test activities to be performed in the USA.

"This is a major milestone in the JSF programme for the UK, and we look forward to starting to operate the first British F-35s next year," said Grp Capt Harv Smyth, the UK's Joint Strike Fighter national deputy.

[Ali Barber]

Did I understand that correctly, we've brought 3 aircraft from the USA that we're not going to buy any more of, and we're using those for testing in the USA for the benefit of the US company that built them. That's a bargain if ever I saw one!

[Courtney Mil]

When you hastily step into a programme with a partner and agree to join in the T&E, it's hard to pull out. Act in haste... ...then get defence cuts.

[jamesdevice]

I thought we'd done a swap with these so the Marines got our -B models, which were ahead of theirs giving them a leg up in their development plans, while we were getting reassigned USN -C model trials variants? I'm sure it was announced 6/8 weeks ago

[RAFEngO74to09]

The proposed exchange of UK F-35B for F-35C is only for one of the three test aircraft ordered and has not been agreed yet - it requires the approval of Congress.

Vagaries Continue To Cloud U.K. F-35 Agenda | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/08/08/AW_08_08_2011_p47-352385.xml)

[cazatou]

SNAFU:ugh:

[TheWestCoast]

By gawd, it's an ugly airplane. From every angle, those F-35s look like they've been broken somewhere behind the cockpit. Speaking of which, what happened to the concept of all round visibility? Seems to have been sacrificed for stealth/aerodynamics/something.

[Pontius Navigator]

Saw a full scale model at RIAT a few years ago. I think this one actually looks a little better.

Buccaneer nose suits it :)

[Finningley Boy]

So when's Hammond going to announce an order for Super Bugs?:confused::E

FB:)

[Mach Two]

Yes, not pretty, but better. IMHO it's just too complicated. Remember the marvelous engineering for moving the original Harrier's nozzles? Just a bicycle chain really. Now look at how many moving parts and potential failure points there are on this.

F35 JSF take off. - YouTube

And imagine the scope for inflating project costs, delays, etc. Brilliant design, but at what cost, I wonder.

[grandfer]

Perhaps we should hang on to our grounded Harrier force a bit longer .:uhoh::hmm:

[Mach Two]

Too late, Grandfer. They're on their way to the car boot sale! UK's got to pay for all those benefits somehow!

[ex-fast-jets]

Where do they put the petrol??

[Willard Whyte]

B-H, if that part of the design had any British input then Dave-B is up sh1t creek.

[adminblunty]

Engines,
It's good to see you are as succinct and direct as you ever were at Air 06 to 07.

Regards

Adminblunty=PV

[glad rag]

So, how much has the T & E aircraft actually cost us?:E

[Rallyepilot]

You are spot-on, Mach Two. The B model is definitely over designed, over engineered and over priced. Any battle damage to the doors, hinges, cranks and gears will prevent it landing back on deck.

Thinks! Perhaps I should invest in some more Martin Baker shares!

[Engines]

Some of the posts here deserve a reply, if only for balance.

Courtney mil: apparently we joined the programme 'hastily'. Not so. We worked with the US on advanced STOVL for 30 years plus, and negotiated our role in the JSF programme via an MoU that took years to agree. We are in the T&E in a lead role for STOVL. The only 'hasty' thing we did was to bail out of STOVL after a rushed SDSR.

Willard - You say that if any part of the design had any British input we are up the creek - what exactly is wrong with British engineering? The reflex 'we are cr@p' comments on these forums are just not right. British engineers have led key parts of the STOVL design, and have performed magnificently. Many cut their teeth on the Harrier, and their work on the F-35B has earned the respect of all their American colleagues.

Mach Two - according to you, the B is over designed, over engineered and can't take battle damage. How exactly do you think you get a stealthy, supersonic aircraft with large weapons bays and a massive avionics suite to hover? How do you get it to be able to do a STO? How do you build it so that it can be flown by the average pilot on a dark and stormy night? Here's the answer - world class engineering, and lots of it. Sheer hard work. Inspiration. Brilliance. Have they got everything right first time? Crikey, no. But take a dispassionate look at the programme, look at what the USMC want to do with it, think how navies that can't afford cat and trap are going to operate this aircraft at sea, and then think again about STOVL.

And on battle damage - yes, it's more vulnerable in the STOVL areas. But so is any powered lift design. Want to try getting an F-35C back on deck with damaged flaps or tails? Good luck with that.

I know there are many that fundamentally think STOVL is a no-go and not needed. That's absolutely their right, and I respect that. But trashing the performance of people who have put their professional lives into the programme is, in my view, lazy and unwarranted.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[Modern Elmo]

By gawd, it's an ugly airplane. From every angle, those F-35s look like they've been broken somewhere behind the cockpit.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Speaking of which, what happened to the concept of all round visibility? Seems to have been sacrificed for stealth/aerodynamics/something.

True, it's not like an F-16, which allows airplane driver a good view of the vertical stabilizer without leaving his seat.

F-35's have rear and side looking video cameras. The pilot can view the rear on one of his multifunction displays. Many cars nowadays, such as the top of the line Honda minivan, have rear facing video cams.

You're right, canopies protrude rather high above the fuselage and allow radar reflections from object inside the cockpit. Such objects include the pilot.

[Willard Whyte]

Willard - You say that if any part of the design had any British input we are up the creek - what exactly is wrong with British engineering? The reflex 'we are cr@p' comments on these forums are just not right. British engineers have led key parts of the STOVL design, and have performed magnificently. Many cut their teeth on the Harrier, and their work on the F-35B has earned the respect of all their American colleagues.

No, I said:

B-H, if that part of the design had any British input then Dave-B is up sh1t creek.

in reference to..

Where do they put the petrol??

...given our [tongue in cheek] historical inability to build anything with sufficient fuel capacity.[/tongue in cheek]

So quit being so precious and chill out, FFS.

[GreenKnight121]

Actually, the F-35 has normal-light and IR cameras facing left, right, rear, up, down, and front... to provide a continuous "full-globe" view.

And the pilot won't have to look at a display, the helmet-mounted display will (once a couple more bugs are worked out) show him/her/it whatever is in the direction he/she/it looks... if he looks down towards the cockpit floor he will see what's under the aircraft, etc.

He can see what's behind the aircraft by switching the display in the helmet or by looking at the display on the panel, it's his choice.

It will he as if the aircraft is fully transparent (depending on the display settings).

[jamesdevice]

sounds like thats heading toward sensory overload for the pilot......where is the cutoff point at which he/she is unable to handle the visual inputs?

[Mach Two]

Engines,

Thank you for putting us straight, you make some very valid points. However, I did not say that the B is over designed, over engineered and can't take battle damage. I said it's just too complicated. The more complex a system is and the more moving parts that have to work precisely and in sequence and with numerous micro-switches (or other sensors) the greater the likelihood of a failure. Simples.

But we must also acknowledge that Rallyepilot's observation appears valid. It would seem logical that damage to a part of all those doors, jacks and swivels could cause a malfunction. Simplicity has an elegance all of its own.

You appear well-informed on the subject and I do take your points. I hope you have more pearls to offer us!

Mach Two.

[TBM-Legend]

The helmet has a 360 degree type function meaning wherever you look you see including straight down utilising sensors....an airborne computer game...

Way ahead of anything todate. It comes from Elbit in Israel.

I flew an F-16 sim there a year ago with something similar. It was interesting to effectively have the airframe disappear no matter where you looked...

[LowObservable]

GK121

(once a couple more bugs are worked out):}

We're gonna need a bigger can of Raid...

Engines...

The vulnerability issue that worries me is the long decelerating approach where the hottest part of the jet is flight-critical. Fine on a boat but that's a big area to make sure is SA-18-free.

[Courtney Mil]

Engines, I can sense your pain. I think you may have taken some people's comments more seriously than intended.


Anyway, fair cop, but my real point was about projects like this one having the rug pulled out from under their feet by more defence cuts.

Courtney

[TEEEJ]

Article on Royal Navy website

UK (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2011/November/23/111123-HW-F35-Carrier)

[Engines]

Guys,

Thanks for coming back and apologies if I came on strong....just sensitive when good hard working Brit colleagues get trashed for no other reason than not being American...

Willard - OK, got me. The answer you want is just over 12,500 internal fuel on the STOVL.

LO - long decelerating approach? Many ways to land the jet, on land can do an RVL with a very steep glide path and short run - as per the USMC requirement. Deceleration is very fast once the aircraft goes to powered lift mode and the slow speed allows a tight circuit. Flying qualities in the powered lift mode are far better than Harrier so less worries about manoeuvring on the jets.

M2 - sorry I plot slipped on the comments. Yes, the B is more complicated than the A. The simple arrangement of the Harrier was inspired but just could not be scaled up to meet the needs of the JSF - and we (and the USA) spent quite a bit of money trying to do just that in the 70s and 80s. If you want a very capable, stealthy, high end combat jet to to STOVL that's the price you pay. I freely admit that I preferred the Boeing X-32 design (simpler) until it got beat by raw physics - you have to use cold air to hover, not just hot air. X-32 was practically unable to hover at all. The F-35B uses the cold front fan to take power out of the hot end. Also helps stop Hot gas Ingestion (HGI). And if you want stealth then you have to cover up the holes when they're not wanted. That means doors.

Actually, the ability of most modern combat jets to take much battle damage is limited, although computer flight controls can help to reschedule controls if some get damaged - and F-35 can do that, as the AA-1 incident showed. But yes, if the fans or doors get damaged, it's a conventional landing on land or bang out next to the ship.

Hope this helps, best regards as ever

Engines

[NoHoverstop]

Engines, thanks for sticking up for some of my colleagues. STOVL is something that will always be surrounded by misconceptions, woolly thinking and blatant lies. Obviously it is not unique in that regard, but I know something about STOVL so it's good to see that not everyone accepts the myths.

One minor point while I'm here re: I freely admit that I preferred the Boeing X-32 design (simpler) The X-32B was a pretty complicated beast in the end (did you ever count all the nozzles for lift, propulsion and control? Did you go back and count them again because between design reviews that I attended, sometimes the number changed? The F-35B has only four in total, rather fewer than the Harrier). The final Boeing PWSC submission, which I had a small part in assessing, was even worse. My view, and it is only my view, is that Boeing had to add more and more stuff to an over-simple original idea to try to make it work. LM started with a simple idea and stuck with it because basically it works. I'm not the world's greatest engineer and would not say I was better then those people at Boeing who tried so hard, but I do think there is some merit in the view that really good designs are marked by what can be designed out as they progress, not what has to be added in.

[glad rag]

Well, it seems that the only truly pertinent question is unanswerable.

[APG63]

Yes, really good points all round. Let's face it, the more we ask a design to do, the more difficult it's going to be to acheive. STOVL, low RCS, agility, weapons load, sensors, oomph, comms and (as was raised light-heartedly) fuel load. It all adds up as we've seen in previous projects.

One thing I would say is that there really is nothing wrong with British engineering. In fact I would also apply this to previous projects too. IMHO a lot of the so called 'design difficulties' weren't down to the engineers, they were caused (at least in part) by constantly changing requirements, project management, funding constraints and politics - particularly where there were more than one nation involved.

[Engines]

NoHoverstop,

You are quite right - the Boeing design ran away out of control as they struggled with the basic lack of thrust and having the main engine in the wrong place (ie not at the rear of the aircraft). The number of jets and orifices increased, and they had to add a tail towards the end of the 'X' phase - although that, interestingly, was driven by the demands of the 'cat and trap' variant.

The LM design's ability to use the lift jets for control purposes, leaving them with just the two additional roll jets (which also generate lift) is extremely smart and minimises the additional complications associated with STOVL.

PPruners might like to note that UK engineers have led the joint industry teams on two of the main challenges with F-35, namely STOVL flight testing and propulsion integration.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

[Mach Two]

Well put, Engines.