F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
That WickedPedia sure has a humour of sense: The Story of O
List of U.S. Air Force acronyms and expressions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of U.S. Air Force acronyms and expressions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OFO is good!
OEW is defined at Operating empty weight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia if that helps.
OEW is defined at Operating empty weight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia if that helps.
Exactly. OEW is a common term, and just like Spaz's demand for citations on numbers that he quoted himself a few months ago, it's simply a way of acting like a dumb
to derail the discussion, like another Australian around these parts did until the Mods threw him in the loony bin.
We - "Capable of growth" is squishy marketing-speak, and ten per cent of VLBB is at best around 800 lbst, which is 2 per cent of thrust and unexciting. And thrust loss with life is a common factor in engines, so no brownie points for providing margin there. It's essential to ensure that the aircraft will meet KPPs by the time its engine is reaching its overhaul point.
Korea doesn't know anything that they did not know when their (new formula with Reduced Politics!) procurement process picked the F-15SE, but they do know that they can't afford to annoy the USA, and this program has to be kept looking good through November 2016.
For some reason the current administration may not wish to be linked to a giant technical/management flop.
to derail the discussion, like another Australian around these parts did until the Mods threw him in the loony bin. We - "Capable of growth" is squishy marketing-speak, and ten per cent of VLBB is at best around 800 lbst, which is 2 per cent of thrust and unexciting. And thrust loss with life is a common factor in engines, so no brownie points for providing margin there. It's essential to ensure that the aircraft will meet KPPs by the time its engine is reaching its overhaul point.
Korea doesn't know anything that they did not know when their (new formula with Reduced Politics!) procurement process picked the F-15SE, but they do know that they can't afford to annoy the USA, and this program has to be kept looking good through November 2016.
For some reason the current administration may not wish to be linked to a giant technical/management flop.
Last edited by LowObservable; 19th Nov 2013 at 11:53.
Any talk about "growth margin" is a bit premature, given that the baby is struggling to come in under weight at the moment. Even if it is delivered at the nominated mass, further growth isn't simply mitigated by adding more thrust. Any additional mass will affect all sorts of areas - including its already reduced operating g limits, for example.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
'LO' you can imagine all you wish about me. It is clear who I am and I have said so at least once on this forum. Who are you? Still no quantification of your mythical growth margin eh.
As for 'CM' I have cited people who know testifying to the Australian Parliament still you insist on saying what you are saying. Any proof?
As for 'CM' I have cited people who know testifying to the Australian Parliament still you insist on saying what you are saying. Any proof?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, Courtney and others,
Perhaps I can help here on the subject of F-35B VLBB and margins.
First, it's important to say clearly that any powered lift aircraft (i.e. a zero kts flying speed machine) will have a weight challenge (problem, issue, crisis, the term used depends on your viewpoint). It's just physics and maths. Helicopters have the same problem. Harrier had it, as does V-22. In looking at F-35B, it's sometimes useful to keep that fact in mind. It's not a failure because it has to deal with weight.
Actually, most modern combat aircraft have had severe weight problems during development. However, they've not been reported in anything like the detail offered by the F-35 programme. F-22 had a seriously bad weight crisis, which was resolved by removing many pounds of metal that had been put in to support air to ground requirements. That's why you don't hear much about the Raptor's ground attack capabilities.Typhoon had a thoroughgoing nightmare with weight, went unreported, and again was solved by a major airframe weight reduction programme. Of course, a conventional aircraft can solve lots of max weight issues by just using more runway. Lots of runway, sometimes, but that can give problems when the aircraft wants to deploy to a hot and high airfield.
I've posted before on the causes of the F-35's weight problems, and won't repeat them here. LM did a poor job of controlling weight early on and had to undertake a major programme of work to get the design back in the box. That's on the record, too. It's important to remember that all three variants had the problem - but the STOVL aircraft was the worst affected due to those pesky physics.
Margins. The F-35's VLBB calculations are based on many hundreds of assumptions, and I certainly don't have all the detail - even if I did, it wouldn't be public forum stuff. However, I can tell you that the VLBB assumptions include not only weight growth, but a 'fully degraded' engine at the end of its service life. They also include a 'reserve weight margin' (somewhere over 500 pounds) that the US DoD applied to make LM work harder at weight reduction. They also include a higher weight for the propulsion system (which is Government Furnished Equipment), again to get some margins in place.
What has improved quite a bit over the past year is that the weight of the design has stabilised - there have been changes required as a result of flight test, but the risk of more airframe changes is decreasing as the test programme moves forward. However, the risk hasn't gone away.
These facts don't 'make it all better'. As I said at the start of this post, managing weight on a powered lift aircraft is a very, very hard thing. LM, the DoD and the UK MoD know and understand that and are working the issues.
And guys - let's play nicely, shall we? Differing opinions are good, strong opinions are good. We should all respect that. It's what we post that should matter, not who we are. (And if anyone wants to know who I am, just PM).
Best Regards as ever to all those working hard to make the F-35 a success.
Engines
Perhaps I can help here on the subject of F-35B VLBB and margins.
First, it's important to say clearly that any powered lift aircraft (i.e. a zero kts flying speed machine) will have a weight challenge (problem, issue, crisis, the term used depends on your viewpoint). It's just physics and maths. Helicopters have the same problem. Harrier had it, as does V-22. In looking at F-35B, it's sometimes useful to keep that fact in mind. It's not a failure because it has to deal with weight.
Actually, most modern combat aircraft have had severe weight problems during development. However, they've not been reported in anything like the detail offered by the F-35 programme. F-22 had a seriously bad weight crisis, which was resolved by removing many pounds of metal that had been put in to support air to ground requirements. That's why you don't hear much about the Raptor's ground attack capabilities.Typhoon had a thoroughgoing nightmare with weight, went unreported, and again was solved by a major airframe weight reduction programme. Of course, a conventional aircraft can solve lots of max weight issues by just using more runway. Lots of runway, sometimes, but that can give problems when the aircraft wants to deploy to a hot and high airfield.
I've posted before on the causes of the F-35's weight problems, and won't repeat them here. LM did a poor job of controlling weight early on and had to undertake a major programme of work to get the design back in the box. That's on the record, too. It's important to remember that all three variants had the problem - but the STOVL aircraft was the worst affected due to those pesky physics.
Margins. The F-35's VLBB calculations are based on many hundreds of assumptions, and I certainly don't have all the detail - even if I did, it wouldn't be public forum stuff. However, I can tell you that the VLBB assumptions include not only weight growth, but a 'fully degraded' engine at the end of its service life. They also include a 'reserve weight margin' (somewhere over 500 pounds) that the US DoD applied to make LM work harder at weight reduction. They also include a higher weight for the propulsion system (which is Government Furnished Equipment), again to get some margins in place.
What has improved quite a bit over the past year is that the weight of the design has stabilised - there have been changes required as a result of flight test, but the risk of more airframe changes is decreasing as the test programme moves forward. However, the risk hasn't gone away.
These facts don't 'make it all better'. As I said at the start of this post, managing weight on a powered lift aircraft is a very, very hard thing. LM, the DoD and the UK MoD know and understand that and are working the issues.
And guys - let's play nicely, shall we? Differing opinions are good, strong opinions are good. We should all respect that. It's what we post that should matter, not who we are. (And if anyone wants to know who I am, just PM).
Best Regards as ever to all those working hard to make the F-35 a success.
Engines
Originally Posted by LO
We - "Capable of growth" is squishy marketing-speak, and ten per cent of VLBB is at best around 800 lbst, which is 2 per cent of thrust and unexciting.
The F-15SE IS marketing speak by your definition, it doesn't exist, but thats ok as its from Boeing, right?
Korea doesn't know anything that they did not know when their (new formula with Reduced Politics!) procurement process picked the F-15SE, but they do know that they can't afford to annoy the USA, and this program has to be kept looking good through November 2016.
You said "However the lift fan and engine are capable of another 10% growth in VLBB." That seems eminently clear, but I accept that it's not what you were trying to say. However, it contradicts what P&W said when they were trying to scupper the GE engine, which is that the lift system would require major redesign to deliver more VL thrust.
I don't understand your point about the F-15SE. There is clearly some risk involved in any innovation but it is a quite small step beyond the fully funded F-15SA.
As for other countries: They bought into the JSF on cost, schedule and industrial participation projections that are rather different from what they see today. They are under enormous pressure externally to remain loyal (see Wikileaks) and, internally, deal with AFs that have long relationships with the USAF and are very reluctant to switch suppliers. It's thus very easy to do nothing and hope it will all turn out right in the end, since at least the partners have not been stuck with the development overruns.
Engines - Would not disagree with any of that. However, the long life of most modern fighters in production and service has been achieved through adaptability to new technology and new missions, and this has been accompanied by increases in empty weight, useful load and thrust. An F-16 Block 60's empty weight is a lot greater than that of a Block 10.
I don't understand your point about the F-15SE. There is clearly some risk involved in any innovation but it is a quite small step beyond the fully funded F-15SA.
As for other countries: They bought into the JSF on cost, schedule and industrial participation projections that are rather different from what they see today. They are under enormous pressure externally to remain loyal (see Wikileaks) and, internally, deal with AFs that have long relationships with the USAF and are very reluctant to switch suppliers. It's thus very easy to do nothing and hope it will all turn out right in the end, since at least the partners have not been stuck with the development overruns.
Engines - Would not disagree with any of that. However, the long life of most modern fighters in production and service has been achieved through adaptability to new technology and new missions, and this has been accompanied by increases in empty weight, useful load and thrust. An F-16 Block 60's empty weight is a lot greater than that of a Block 10.
Originally Posted by Spaz
As for 'CM' I have cited people who know testifying to the Australian Parliament still you insist on saying what you are saying. Any proof?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Thanks for the posted reply.
Wouldn't disagree at all on factors that aid long life. However, for a powered lift aircraft those changes through life will have to be accomplished with much more control over weight. It's a price you pay for that STOVL capability. If you're on land and blessed with lots of long runways you can always get to, then it's probably not worth paying.
But if you need to go to sea without cats and traps, or need to go to hot and high runways, it might be. F-16 is a good example as it happens - a very capable aircraft, but can't operate out of some expeditionary runways. As ever, it's all down to requirements and operating concepts. Just because they're not always what one Air Force might do doesn't make them wrong.
There is certainly some growth in the F-35B's lift system, but it will be constrained by the need to get the extra air and heat through the aircraft and out of the exits in a controlled and sustainable manner. Again, that's not limited to STOVL aircraft - look at the issues the Jaguar had with its supposedly simple Adour upgrade. And the F-16 had to have a new intake to handle the more powerful engines, plus LOTS of internal strengthening.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that when designing and building very high performance combat aircraft, there are always severe challenges, and nothing is ever straightforward.
Hope this helps,
Best regards as ever
Engines
Thanks for the posted reply.
Wouldn't disagree at all on factors that aid long life. However, for a powered lift aircraft those changes through life will have to be accomplished with much more control over weight. It's a price you pay for that STOVL capability. If you're on land and blessed with lots of long runways you can always get to, then it's probably not worth paying.
But if you need to go to sea without cats and traps, or need to go to hot and high runways, it might be. F-16 is a good example as it happens - a very capable aircraft, but can't operate out of some expeditionary runways. As ever, it's all down to requirements and operating concepts. Just because they're not always what one Air Force might do doesn't make them wrong.
There is certainly some growth in the F-35B's lift system, but it will be constrained by the need to get the extra air and heat through the aircraft and out of the exits in a controlled and sustainable manner. Again, that's not limited to STOVL aircraft - look at the issues the Jaguar had with its supposedly simple Adour upgrade. And the F-16 had to have a new intake to handle the more powerful engines, plus LOTS of internal strengthening.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that when designing and building very high performance combat aircraft, there are always severe challenges, and nothing is ever straightforward.
Hope this helps,
Best regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
F-35C Hook Behind It Claim
Thanks Engines. Some news on the F-35C Hook which is behind it. 
I if not we await test results. News report below has the main thrust at the end with the context of the news otherwise and as always for those wanting to cast aspersions it is always best to read the entire original news at the URL provided.
US Navy committed to F-35 despite talks about more F/A-18 buys 19 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
UPDATE 1-AIRSHOW-US Navy committed to F-35 despite talks about more F/A-18 buys | Reuters
I if not we await test results. News report below has the main thrust at the end with the context of the news otherwise and as always for those wanting to cast aspersions it is always best to read the entire original news at the URL provided. US Navy committed to F-35 despite talks about more F/A-18 buys 19 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"Nov 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy remains committed to the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, but is also looking at options to buy additional Boeing Co F/A-18 fighter jets, a senior U.S. Navy official said on Tuesday.
Richard Gilpin, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for air programs, told Reuters at the Dubai Airshow that the Navy's current plans still called for purchases of the Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18G electronic attack planes to end in fiscal 2014....
..."Let me be clear. The Navy is very committed to moving to JSF. I wouldn't want you to get the impression that the Navy is not committed to JSF, because we are," Gilpin said in an interview at the air show....
...CONFIDENT ABOUT NEW TAILHOOK ON F-35 C-MODEL
Gilpin said a budget-driven pause in procurement of the Navy's F-35 C-model would not derail the program, although it could potentially increase the cost of each airplane.
He said the Navy continued to work with Lockheed on driving down the cost of the airplanes, and was "on a good path there."
He also said he was "very confident" about the reworked tailhook on the F-35C, which will be tested at a Navy facility in December. "The tailhook thing is behind us, literally and figuratively," he said...."
Richard Gilpin, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for air programs, told Reuters at the Dubai Airshow that the Navy's current plans still called for purchases of the Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18G electronic attack planes to end in fiscal 2014....
..."Let me be clear. The Navy is very committed to moving to JSF. I wouldn't want you to get the impression that the Navy is not committed to JSF, because we are," Gilpin said in an interview at the air show....
...CONFIDENT ABOUT NEW TAILHOOK ON F-35 C-MODEL
Gilpin said a budget-driven pause in procurement of the Navy's F-35 C-model would not derail the program, although it could potentially increase the cost of each airplane.
He said the Navy continued to work with Lockheed on driving down the cost of the airplanes, and was "on a good path there."
He also said he was "very confident" about the reworked tailhook on the F-35C, which will be tested at a Navy facility in December. "The tailhook thing is behind us, literally and figuratively," he said...."
I'm glad that Mr Gilpin is so comfortable about declaring success in tests that have not happened yet. And that the Navy is committed to the F-35...
Of course, given the fact that the Navy got caught soliciting an FY15 bid for more Super Hornets (the programmatic equivalent of one's S.O. discovering a stray fire-engine-red press-on nail adhering to one's boxers) there was not much else Mr Gilpin could have said without incurring a stand-up, no-tea-and-biscuits meeting on his return to DC.
And refer to the QLR report of Nov 2011 for why catching the wire is not necessarily the end of the story.
Of course, given the fact that the Navy got caught soliciting an FY15 bid for more Super Hornets (the programmatic equivalent of one's S.O. discovering a stray fire-engine-red press-on nail adhering to one's boxers) there was not much else Mr Gilpin could have said without incurring a stand-up, no-tea-and-biscuits meeting on his return to DC.
And refer to the QLR report of Nov 2011 for why catching the wire is not necessarily the end of the story.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Some Hook Changes Already in Manufacture Pipeline
UP to date info in November about the F-35C and the HOOK + and the other JunkOnBoard: (one hour audio presentation + PDF download)
F-35C+superHornetHooksDownVFA-101forum | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Event Lobby (EVENT: 694934)
"F-35C: Delivering Stealth Technology to the Carrier Strike Group
Event Date: On Demand
Over the past year, the team behind the F-35C carrier variant has made tremendous progress delivering the first jets to the U.S. Navy, standing up the first training squadron and accomplishing test points.
Join us as an F-35 expert and an F-35 test pilot discuss the largest F-35 variant, the capability it will bring to strengthen the carrier strike group and upcoming milestones. We’ll take a deeper look into what the future holds for this 5th Generation fighter, including:
• CV ship trials [Hook Changes Explanation - Some changes already being manufactured on current F-35Cs in production]
• Deliveries to the first Naval Air Station
• Preparation for the Navy’s Initial Operating Capability"
CLICK ON 'LAUNCH PRESENTATION' Button
3.2Mb PDF: http://wcc.on24.com/event/69/49/34/r...es_defnews.pdf
F-35C+superHornetHooksDownVFA-101forum | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Event Lobby (EVENT: 694934)
"F-35C: Delivering Stealth Technology to the Carrier Strike Group
Event Date: On Demand
Over the past year, the team behind the F-35C carrier variant has made tremendous progress delivering the first jets to the U.S. Navy, standing up the first training squadron and accomplishing test points.
Join us as an F-35 expert and an F-35 test pilot discuss the largest F-35 variant, the capability it will bring to strengthen the carrier strike group and upcoming milestones. We’ll take a deeper look into what the future holds for this 5th Generation fighter, including:
• CV ship trials [Hook Changes Explanation - Some changes already being manufactured on current F-35Cs in production]
• Deliveries to the first Naval Air Station
• Preparation for the Navy’s Initial Operating Capability"
CLICK ON 'LAUNCH PRESENTATION' Button
3.2Mb PDF: http://wcc.on24.com/event/69/49/34/r...es_defnews.pdf
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 20th Nov 2013 at 22:34. Reason: Add JPG
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
F-35C LM Nov 2013 Seminar Arresting Hook Test Progress
From the 19 Nov 2013 seminar (audio) on the F-35C is the short segment on HOOK testing, LM Test PIlot Bill Gigliotti is the speaker:
F-35C LM Nov 2013 Seminar Arresting Hook Test Progress 21 Nov 2013
F-35C LM Nov 2013 Seminar Arresting Hook Test Progress - YouTube
F-35C LM Nov 2013 Seminar Arresting Hook Test Progress 21 Nov 2013
F-35C LM Nov 2013 Seminar Arresting Hook Test Progress - YouTube
Well, it's lovely to hear a LM employee being so enthusiastic about the new hook and to feel his faith in the shiny, untested, unproven version. Exactly the sort of thing that would fuel the sceptics' imagination. Maybe not a great answer to any lingering doubts here.
In my view, I am certain that it is not beyond man's capability to build a functioning hook. I am certain they will get it right and that the C model will be a good jet. I am not certain that we need to cling on to Lockheed's propaganda just because we want it all to OK today. As I said before, it's bit early yet, but they will get there.
In my view, I am certain that it is not beyond man's capability to build a functioning hook. I am certain they will get it right and that the C model will be a good jet. I am not certain that we need to cling on to Lockheed's propaganda just because we want it all to OK today. As I said before, it's bit early yet, but they will get there.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Korea to obtain 40 F-35As
Apparently, Korea is a done deal.
If squeezed within original budget, it's about $192m per plane, in 2018 (the year when FRP is supposed to begin?).
Apparently, Korea is a done deal.
If squeezed within original budget, it's about $192m per plane, in 2018 (the year when FRP is supposed to begin?).
It is, aside from sending a rather glaring signal that the real-world price is much higher than F-15 or Typhoon and that the JSF is noncompetitive absent political strong-arming.