F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Dog Tired
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
The Designer Of The F-16 Explains Just How Stupid The F-35 Is - Digg
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
NO SHOW for the NO SHOWs
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
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24469136...show-pentagon/
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."
...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."
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It's Official: F-35 Not Flying To 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......
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......
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
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
F-35 Lightning II Will Not Strike At Farnborough | AWIN ONLY content from Aviation Week
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."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 16th Jul 2014 at 02:14. Reason: foamat + AUDIO Link
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35 at Farnborough: Everything Except The Jet 16 Jul 2014 Chris Pocock
F-35 at Farnborough: Everything Except The Jet | Aviation International News
"...“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...."
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.
Hope LM isn't planing on something similar!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are conflicting opinions on the 'systemic' question.
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.
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
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
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.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Equally, what price restarting F136 development.
S41
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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 !
This may have been posted before:
The Designer Of The F-16 Explains Just How Stupid The F-35 Is - Digg
What a load of rubbish this 'thing' is. He makes a good point re F15 v F16.
The Designer Of The F-16 Explains Just How Stupid The F-35 Is - Digg
What a load of rubbish this 'thing' is. He makes a good point re F15 v F16.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Senate Panel to Pentagon: 'Reassess' Value of Alternate F-35 Engine | Defense News | defensenews.com
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.”........
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.”........
IMO, getting the extra Growlers is not a bad idea.
When things heat up, the EW aircraft seem to be in very high demand.
When things heat up, the EW aircraft seem to be in very high demand.