F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And going back to the actual F-35:
http://http://www.reuters.com/articl...90R0PE20130128
http://http://www.reuters.com/articl...90R0PE20130128
Manufacturing problem likely caused F-35B engine failure: sources
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON | Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:06am EST
(Reuters) - Pentagon and industry investigators have pinpointed a manufacturing quality problem as the most likely cause of an engine failure that led to the grounding of the Marine Corps version of the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet, sources familiar with the investigation told Reuters.
Pentagon officials are expected to finalize the finding and the proposed fix at a meeting on Monday, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly. They said the F-35B should be able to resume flights as soon as the "nonconforming" parts supplied by a unit of Parker Hannifin Corp are replaced.
The grounding did not affect the Air Force or Navy versions of the radar-evading new fighter since they do not use the same part.
The Pentagon grounded all 25 F-35B jets on January 18 after a propulsion line associated with the B-model's exhaust system failed just before takeoff during a training flight at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The part in question enables actuator movement for the exhaust system associated with the B-model's engine. Instead of traditional hydraulic fluid, it uses fuel as the operating fluid to reduce weight.
An initial inspection discovered a detached propulsion line in the rear part of the engine compartment, and subsequent tests showed the line was not built to specifications by Stratoflex, a unit of Parker Hannifin. "It wasn't built to specification as it should have been," said one of the sources. "But there's a very small population of the tubes, and the problem should be fixed soon."
Stratoflex is a subcontractor to engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, which builds the engines for the single-engine, single-seat fighter jet along with Britain's Rolls-Royce Plc. No comment was immediately available from Stratoflex.
The speedy conclusion of the investigation is good news for the F-35 program, which is racing to complete an aggressive schedule of flight tests this year.
The F-35 program has completed about 34 percent of its planned test flight program, but Lockheed is already building production models of the new warplane.
Lockheed is building three different models of the F-35 fighter jet for the U.S. military and eight countries that helped pay for its development: Britain, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia and Norway.
The Pentagon plans to buy 2,443 of the warplanes in coming decades, although many analysts believe U.S. budget constraints and deficits will eventually reduce that overall number.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON | Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:06am EST
(Reuters) - Pentagon and industry investigators have pinpointed a manufacturing quality problem as the most likely cause of an engine failure that led to the grounding of the Marine Corps version of the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet, sources familiar with the investigation told Reuters.
Pentagon officials are expected to finalize the finding and the proposed fix at a meeting on Monday, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly. They said the F-35B should be able to resume flights as soon as the "nonconforming" parts supplied by a unit of Parker Hannifin Corp are replaced.
The grounding did not affect the Air Force or Navy versions of the radar-evading new fighter since they do not use the same part.
The Pentagon grounded all 25 F-35B jets on January 18 after a propulsion line associated with the B-model's exhaust system failed just before takeoff during a training flight at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The part in question enables actuator movement for the exhaust system associated with the B-model's engine. Instead of traditional hydraulic fluid, it uses fuel as the operating fluid to reduce weight.
An initial inspection discovered a detached propulsion line in the rear part of the engine compartment, and subsequent tests showed the line was not built to specifications by Stratoflex, a unit of Parker Hannifin. "It wasn't built to specification as it should have been," said one of the sources. "But there's a very small population of the tubes, and the problem should be fixed soon."
Stratoflex is a subcontractor to engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, which builds the engines for the single-engine, single-seat fighter jet along with Britain's Rolls-Royce Plc. No comment was immediately available from Stratoflex.
The speedy conclusion of the investigation is good news for the F-35 program, which is racing to complete an aggressive schedule of flight tests this year.
The F-35 program has completed about 34 percent of its planned test flight program, but Lockheed is already building production models of the new warplane.
Lockheed is building three different models of the F-35 fighter jet for the U.S. military and eight countries that helped pay for its development: Britain, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia and Norway.
The Pentagon plans to buy 2,443 of the warplanes in coming decades, although many analysts believe U.S. budget constraints and deficits will eventually reduce that overall number.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 29th Jan 2013 at 01:05.
Hang on. Check of understanding. Stratoflex Products Division is part of Parker Hannifin and is a subcontractor to Pratt & Whitney who is part of United Technologies Corp who build the F-35B engine with Rolls-Royce Plc. (Parker Hannifin would be the company that built the faulty 737 rudder actuators some time back.)
Anyway, I've found out what the engine runs on.
Anyway, I've found out what the engine runs on.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, shouldn't the cash be going in at the top and nowt but hot air coming out of the bottom? That one looks she is making dollar bills from fresh air, which is pretty awesome alchemy!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
.....and is a subcontractor to Pratt & Whitney who is part of United Technologies Corp who build the F-35B engine with Rolls-Royce Plc......
My understanding is that Rolls Royce build the 'vertical lift module' (shaft-driven fan bit at the front) and were involved in the development of the alternative F136 engine.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hang on, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the fault on the F135 engine? If so, what part of that do Rolls Royce build?
LiftFan
Engine to fan driveshaft
Three-bearing swivel module (3BSM)
Roll posts (two)
The configuration of the propulsion system is somewhat like a vertical ducted turboprop embedded into the center of the aircraft's fuselage. The three-bearing swivel module (3BSM) is a thrust vectoring nozzle at the tail of the aircraft which allows the main turbofan cruise engine exhaust to pass either straight through with reheat capability for forward propulsion in conventional flight, or to be deflected downward to provide aft vertical lift.
Detached Fueldraulic Line Grounds F-35B
....Officials at Pratt & Whitney, which manages the propulsion system, say the fueldraulic line in the aft portion of the engine compartment had become detached near the bearing swivel module. Rolls Royce provides these modules.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Thank you 'ORAC' for clarifying that for me.
It is interesting how this is phrased though,
It is interesting how this is phrased though,
....Officials at Pratt & Whitney, which manages the propulsion system, say the fueldraulic line in the aft portion of the engine compartment had become detached near the bearing swivel module. Rolls Royce provides these modules.
Last edited by The Helpful Stacker; 29th Jan 2013 at 09:55.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
JSF-Centric Warfare
.........Another piece this week makes an F-35B-centered pitch for the JSF, from retired Adm. James A. Lyons, now a defense consultant. What’s interesting is that both are placed on the political right. Lyons’ story is in the Washington Times, and AEI is not trying to sway any San Francisco or Boston Democrats.
This is aimed at cheap hawks of the Teapartyish and other persuasions – people who may be ready to believe that government shilly-shallying is to blame for overruns and that Air Sea Battle is an Obama-administration way of getting out of paying for real armed forces. So you wonder: are people getting worried about a bipartisan attack on the JSF?
.........Another piece this week makes an F-35B-centered pitch for the JSF, from retired Adm. James A. Lyons, now a defense consultant. What’s interesting is that both are placed on the political right. Lyons’ story is in the Washington Times, and AEI is not trying to sway any San Francisco or Boston Democrats.
This is aimed at cheap hawks of the Teapartyish and other persuasions – people who may be ready to believe that government shilly-shallying is to blame for overruns and that Air Sea Battle is an Obama-administration way of getting out of paying for real armed forces. So you wonder: are people getting worried about a bipartisan attack on the JSF?
So what's the chances of this F35B caper collapsing? And how much of the ill-advised pursuit of it has been caused by Air Staff Paranoia about all FJs winding up on Carriers?
Although it is advanced with unbridled enthusiasm by the likes of Sharkey and Lewis Page, would it not be for the best to simply replace the GR4 and provide for the carriers with a slightly bigger number of F18Fs? With a view to F35As/Cs further down the line?
Sorry for the heretical language!
FB
Although it is advanced with unbridled enthusiasm by the likes of Sharkey and Lewis Page, would it not be for the best to simply replace the GR4 and provide for the carriers with a slightly bigger number of F18Fs? With a view to F35As/Cs further down the line?
Sorry for the heretical language!
FB
FB - Exactly, and if you go a year back in this thread you will find some of us making what I believe is still an important point:
With the UK carriers now (increasingly) irreversibly STOVL, the F-35B is now vital to the UK's force-projection capability and to its Navy fleet planning. But despite the arguments of the Marines and their supporters, the F-35B is not so vital to US strategy or fleet planning; the AV-8B can deliver CAS to the Marine group, if needed, out to 2025, and the LHA/LHD primary mission (carrying Marines and vehicles, helicopters and landing craft) does not change.
Result: If the F-35B is bacon and eggs, the US is the hen and the RN is the pig. As they say, the hen is involved and the pig is committed.
With the UK carriers now (increasingly) irreversibly STOVL, the F-35B is now vital to the UK's force-projection capability and to its Navy fleet planning. But despite the arguments of the Marines and their supporters, the F-35B is not so vital to US strategy or fleet planning; the AV-8B can deliver CAS to the Marine group, if needed, out to 2025, and the LHA/LHD primary mission (carrying Marines and vehicles, helicopters and landing craft) does not change.
Result: If the F-35B is bacon and eggs, the US is the hen and the RN is the pig. As they say, the hen is involved and the pig is committed.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Nice to get back to the topic.
Since the UK is making the back end of every F-35 then UKplc would lose a stack of work/jobs.
Since Rolls are providing every lift system for any B variants then work/jobs (not all in UK) would again take a hit.
As to our armed services position following cancellation they will in the end have to have something else.
What that something else should or will be is going to depend on several factors namely our economic situation, our party political pushing and shoving, our disgraceful inter service rivalry and last (and very much least - sad to say) what jobs our armed services might have to do in the next 25 years.
All the above is bloody obvious but still seems to be ignored by some. If one does accept the above then it is quite impossible at this stage to predict what will happen in the short term because until the F-35 IS cancelled it is all hypothetical and the true position of the various parties will never become clear.
However that does not stop US here having a ball discussing the operational needs of the UK in isolation.
Assuming our Typhoon force can look after our air defence needs at home, my view is that the support of any deployed troops does not need stealth or supersonics but significant numbers of high subsonic and ultra reliable jets that normally only need replenishment not maintenance for say 10-15 sorties. Plus they should have good operating site flexibility.
I do realise such aircaft would be seen as so old fashioned and un-sexy that they will never happen. But that does not mean the notion is wrong.
Hey ho.
Nice to get back to the topic.
Since the UK is making the back end of every F-35 then UKplc would lose a stack of work/jobs.
Since Rolls are providing every lift system for any B variants then work/jobs (not all in UK) would again take a hit.
As to our armed services position following cancellation they will in the end have to have something else.
What that something else should or will be is going to depend on several factors namely our economic situation, our party political pushing and shoving, our disgraceful inter service rivalry and last (and very much least - sad to say) what jobs our armed services might have to do in the next 25 years.
All the above is bloody obvious but still seems to be ignored by some. If one does accept the above then it is quite impossible at this stage to predict what will happen in the short term because until the F-35 IS cancelled it is all hypothetical and the true position of the various parties will never become clear.
However that does not stop US here having a ball discussing the operational needs of the UK in isolation.
Assuming our Typhoon force can look after our air defence needs at home, my view is that the support of any deployed troops does not need stealth or supersonics but significant numbers of high subsonic and ultra reliable jets that normally only need replenishment not maintenance for say 10-15 sorties. Plus they should have good operating site flexibility.
I do realise such aircaft would be seen as so old fashioned and un-sexy that they will never happen. But that does not mean the notion is wrong.
Hey ho.
Originally Posted by John Farley
Typhoon force can look after our air defence needs at home
Originally Posted by John Farley
significant numbers of high subsonic and ultra reliable jets that normally only need replenishment not maintenance for say 10-15 sorties
Other than that, I agree with you completely.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 29th Jan 2013 at 17:39.
Plus they should have good operating site flexibility.
It is a long long time ago, but IIRC it was the RN themselves who agreed to ditch the requirement for operating site flex, assuming you're talking about SHAR operating from temporary sites ashore. About 1993 I reckon. They had a landing aid for just such ops and decided to scrap it to save money.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JF makes a persuasive case for something that could look like a modernised Hunter FGA9. Not a bad idea at all - what would the collective wisdom of Pprune do to a a fresh Hunter airframe as a modern FGA airframe? First step, replace Avon 200 with unreheated RB199 or EJ200.
S41
S41
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil
I do not say that Tornado and Typhoon cannot be used in the way you describe - just that they should not be used thus. Too expensive too big a support trail and so on.
I am trying to raise the debate above crew room banter.
I do not say that Tornado and Typhoon cannot be used in the way you describe - just that they should not be used thus. Too expensive too big a support trail and so on.
I am trying to raise the debate above crew room banter.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't you guys just describing basically a new A10 or something like the A7CorsairII or A4Skyhawk, simple to operate, fairly economical and with all the weapons in sufficient numbers anyone can dream of?
Last edited by kbrockman; 29th Jan 2013 at 19:20.