F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
TBM
I agree to a certain extent, although for operations you can take more risk than in peacetime. The UK has the Tutor and Tucano grounded at present and that has put a stop on pilot training - but it's peacetime. If we needed to fly them operationally (which we obviously don't), I am sure we would if the risk was outweighed by the operational need.
LJ
I agree to a certain extent, although for operations you can take more risk than in peacetime. The UK has the Tutor and Tucano grounded at present and that has put a stop on pilot training - but it's peacetime. If we needed to fly them operationally (which we obviously don't), I am sure we would if the risk was outweighed by the operational need.
LJ
Originally Posted by JFSfan
you might need to wait for a week before you crack the champers
Remember the original post was asking what would we do IF F-35 were cancelled, an invitation to discuss the relative merits of the possible alternatives, not just Dave itself.
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
ORAC
I disagree.
My take on the event is well done the team.
I say this because another potentially serious fault has been uncovered safely by a well managed modern approach to development. As such it represents another step in ensuring the product will be as refined as possible before entry into operational service.
I do not say the above as a fan but as a simple statement of fact that applies to the development and testing any new aircraft.
I disagree.
My take on the event is well done the team.
I say this because another potentially serious fault has been uncovered safely by a well managed modern approach to development. As such it represents another step in ensuring the product will be as refined as possible before entry into operational service.
I do not say the above as a fan but as a simple statement of fact that applies to the development and testing any new aircraft.
Last edited by John Farley; 23rd Feb 2013 at 10:47.
@ TBM legend: When was the last time the RAAF had that luxury? Go back the the F-86 - one type. Mirage IIIO again single type, F/A-18 single type. Had the Muusorians/Kamerians decided to send air assets against us if any of these types were grounded we would have been stuffed. I suppose the FAA A4's may have been used in the past and the Hawks could be pressed into service as second line day fighters now - but hey we have always been this vulnerable, its always been managed in the past and it will be in the future.
The program leaders get a pat on the back for acting promptly and with safety in mind.
My guess is that the test fleet should be back up (probably with special inspections) relatively quickly, with Eglin and Yuma following later because, frankly, they are not on the critical path to IOC. Whenever that might be.
Note that a blade in this stage failed before, in 08 (delaying first flight of BF-1). It's also an unusual design because the LPT has the job of driving the lift fan as well as the engine fan and is consequently providing about two-thirds of the T/O and landing thrust.
My guess is that the test fleet should be back up (probably with special inspections) relatively quickly, with Eglin and Yuma following later because, frankly, they are not on the critical path to IOC. Whenever that might be.
Note that a blade in this stage failed before, in 08 (delaying first flight of BF-1). It's also an unusual design because the LPT has the job of driving the lift fan as well as the engine fan and is consequently providing about two-thirds of the T/O and landing thrust.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Technically you are correct John - but I'm talking politics and the sequester coming up in March could force choices.
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
would you care to give a estimate of when you think this may be................
My take on the event is well done the team.
I say this because another potentially serious fault has been uncovered safely by a well managed modern approach to development. As such it represents another step in ensuring the product will be as refined as possible before entry into operational service.
I do not say the above as a fan but as a simple statement of fact that applies to the development and testing any new aircraft.
I say this because another potentially serious fault has been uncovered safely by a well managed modern approach to development. As such it represents another step in ensuring the product will be as refined as possible before entry into operational service.
I do not say the above as a fan but as a simple statement of fact that applies to the development and testing any new aircraft.
Well said JF. The only thing I'd say is that this wasn't down to a "modern" approach, but good old fashioned implementation of mandated regs. The "modern" approach (here) is to wait until **** happens, then deal with it. In aviation that often means people die, but our politicians and MoD seem happy with that.
“Anomalies in testing should bring your organisation to a standstill. They are a violation of requirements. They are a clue something worse may happen.”
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
2012 Performance Chart F-35 comparo 4th Gen
2012 Performance Chart F-35 comparo 4th Gen Aircraft with A/G loadout for 'peter we': http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7700570
F-35 Lightning II Range Requirements 03 Oct 2012
Brad “Bones” McCoy F-22 and F-35 Strategy and Assessment
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012targets/WMcCoy.pdf (3.8Mb)
Click thumbnails:
F-35 Lightning II Range Requirements 03 Oct 2012
Brad “Bones” McCoy F-22 and F-35 Strategy and Assessment
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012targets/WMcCoy.pdf (3.8Mb)
Click thumbnails:
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 25th Feb 2013 at 23:16. Reason: date + extra graphic
Typical JSF brochuremanship to be recycled by the fans. Obviously if you select the right air-to-surface load and corners of the flight envelope, an internal-weapon design will look good. And what is "Advanced 4th Gen"? We don't know so those comps have been pulled out of marketing's ear. Inaccurate and outdated assessment of the competition - Gripen NG does not have PS-05 radar, Typhoon AESA has not been Caesar for years.
JSFan..
yes - currently any of them that are allowed to fly.
when a British - or Australian - PM can pick up the phone to his CAS and say 'i have a problem, and i want it to dissapear in a ball of smoke and flame', and that CAS has the ability to use an F-35 that will make the PM's wish come to fruition quicker, from further away, with greater accuracy and efficacy, and in a way that poses less risk to the crew than is currently the case than with a Typhoon, GR4 or Super Hornet, then the F-35 will be 'better' than any of those aircraft.
however, until it does so - and the current money is on about 2020 at the very earliest - it will be ****, because it delivers fcuk all capability.
yes - currently any of them that are allowed to fly.
when a British - or Australian - PM can pick up the phone to his CAS and say 'i have a problem, and i want it to dissapear in a ball of smoke and flame', and that CAS has the ability to use an F-35 that will make the PM's wish come to fruition quicker, from further away, with greater accuracy and efficacy, and in a way that poses less risk to the crew than is currently the case than with a Typhoon, GR4 or Super Hornet, then the F-35 will be 'better' than any of those aircraft.
however, until it does so - and the current money is on about 2020 at the very earliest - it will be ****, because it delivers fcuk all capability.
Last edited by cokecan; 26th Feb 2013 at 07:21.
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
About the engine issue the JSF is currently experiencing, could this be the
same issues as they had a couple of years ago with the STOVL engine which was also a blade issue?
JSF Nieuws.nl
same issues as they had a couple of years ago with the STOVL engine which was also a blade issue?
JSF Nieuws.nl
Long history of engine problems since 2006
It can not be excluded that the root cause of the current problem is more structural than a simple manufacturing error or an isolated incident. Since 2006 there had been a series of engine problems with the F-135 engine.
Already in May 2006, Aviation Week reporter David A. Fulghum wrote 0a detailed article “Joint Strike Fighter F135 Engine Burns Hotter Than Desired” and described the risk of a shorter engine life or engine damage caused by higher than expected temperatures on the F-135 engine.
In August 2007 and February 2008 there were serious problems. Turbine blades broke off suddenly by a form of metal fatigue. The cause was sought in a combination of factors.
On 30 August 2007 in test engine FX634, after 122 hours of testing, a turbine blade in the 3rd LPT stage broke off completely. On 4-February-2008 something similar happened to engine FTE06, also in the 3rd LPT stage, after 19 hours.
These problems with the engine contributed significantly to the delays in the JSF test program for the period 2007-2008.
Redesign of the engine in 2008
In early 2008, an engine, the FX640 ground test engine, was equipped with numerous sensors and instruments. On April 21, 2008 a test process was started to find the cause of the problem. Through a detailed test plan the forces and tensions that arise in the engine were mapped by different power ranges. At that moment it seemed to be primarily an issue of the F-35B STOVL (vertical landing) version. The cracks in the turbine blades were created in exactly the same place, and seemed to occur when switching from forward to vertical drive. Later in 2008, the results became available. The blade crackes seemed to have been caused by certain vibrations that triggered a material failure.
This led to a redesign of a number of elements in the engine. One of the upgrades was a change of the distance between the turbine blades. After the redesign the engine was retested and recertified. At the end of 2008 Pratt & Whitney issued a press statement, that they were convinced that the problems were solved.
In 2009, problems with redesigned engine
In July 2009, the then head of the JSF Program Office, General Heinz was still not happy with the F-135 problems, he said against the press: “The problems include too many individual blades that fail to meet specifications, as well as combined “stack-ups” of blades that fail early. I’m not satisfied with the rates that I’m getting.”
A few days later he was commissioned by the Pentagon not to comment publicly on problems with the F-135 engine.
In September 2009, again serious engine problems revealed during testing of the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine. At a crucial moment in the debate in the U.S. Congress on the choice of two competing engine types (the Pentagon want to delete the second engine choice (GE / Rolls Royce F-136) a Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine broke. Again the cause seemed to lie in broken turbine blades. However, now the problem occurred in the new engine type with the redesigned turbine blades.
Engine problems continuing until now
After problems in 2009 officials no longer publicly commented about the engine problem. Also there were no indications that there actually were problems with the engine or that there were any reliability issues.
In April 2011, however, Admiral Venlet, the then Head of JSF Program Office, told reporters that some engine problems were impacting on the delivery schedule.
The grounding of last week put the engine back in the spotlight of publicity. However, at this moment it is not the complex F-35B STOVL version, but an engine in an F-35A, the Air Force version.
For Pratt & Whitney, hopefully it is an one-off, and not a structural problem.
It can not be excluded that the root cause of the current problem is more structural than a simple manufacturing error or an isolated incident. Since 2006 there had been a series of engine problems with the F-135 engine.
Already in May 2006, Aviation Week reporter David A. Fulghum wrote 0a detailed article “Joint Strike Fighter F135 Engine Burns Hotter Than Desired” and described the risk of a shorter engine life or engine damage caused by higher than expected temperatures on the F-135 engine.
In August 2007 and February 2008 there were serious problems. Turbine blades broke off suddenly by a form of metal fatigue. The cause was sought in a combination of factors.
On 30 August 2007 in test engine FX634, after 122 hours of testing, a turbine blade in the 3rd LPT stage broke off completely. On 4-February-2008 something similar happened to engine FTE06, also in the 3rd LPT stage, after 19 hours.
These problems with the engine contributed significantly to the delays in the JSF test program for the period 2007-2008.
Redesign of the engine in 2008
In early 2008, an engine, the FX640 ground test engine, was equipped with numerous sensors and instruments. On April 21, 2008 a test process was started to find the cause of the problem. Through a detailed test plan the forces and tensions that arise in the engine were mapped by different power ranges. At that moment it seemed to be primarily an issue of the F-35B STOVL (vertical landing) version. The cracks in the turbine blades were created in exactly the same place, and seemed to occur when switching from forward to vertical drive. Later in 2008, the results became available. The blade crackes seemed to have been caused by certain vibrations that triggered a material failure.
This led to a redesign of a number of elements in the engine. One of the upgrades was a change of the distance between the turbine blades. After the redesign the engine was retested and recertified. At the end of 2008 Pratt & Whitney issued a press statement, that they were convinced that the problems were solved.
In 2009, problems with redesigned engine
In July 2009, the then head of the JSF Program Office, General Heinz was still not happy with the F-135 problems, he said against the press: “The problems include too many individual blades that fail to meet specifications, as well as combined “stack-ups” of blades that fail early. I’m not satisfied with the rates that I’m getting.”
A few days later he was commissioned by the Pentagon not to comment publicly on problems with the F-135 engine.
In September 2009, again serious engine problems revealed during testing of the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine. At a crucial moment in the debate in the U.S. Congress on the choice of two competing engine types (the Pentagon want to delete the second engine choice (GE / Rolls Royce F-136) a Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine broke. Again the cause seemed to lie in broken turbine blades. However, now the problem occurred in the new engine type with the redesigned turbine blades.
Engine problems continuing until now
After problems in 2009 officials no longer publicly commented about the engine problem. Also there were no indications that there actually were problems with the engine or that there were any reliability issues.
In April 2011, however, Admiral Venlet, the then Head of JSF Program Office, told reporters that some engine problems were impacting on the delivery schedule.
The grounding of last week put the engine back in the spotlight of publicity. However, at this moment it is not the complex F-35B STOVL version, but an engine in an F-35A, the Air Force version.
For Pratt & Whitney, hopefully it is an one-off, and not a structural problem.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
5% Onward
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't that due in block 5/6 and prior engines will be modded on overhaul, what has been said is that they aren't interested in more wet thrust because there are reasons that ~40k is set at max but want the better efficiency and I guess more dry thrust
Last edited by JSFfan; 28th Feb 2013 at 18:25.
Spaz - Not necessarily better or worse. However, it will make UTC shareholders richer, particularly since they now have a monopoly on the JSF engine, and that's what matters, surely?
And IIRC, back during the Engine War that ended last year, P&W's stated position was that the GE engine's potentially greater power (due to its design being frozen after the 2003-04 weight increases) was of no value.
And IIRC, back during the Engine War that ended last year, P&W's stated position was that the GE engine's potentially greater power (due to its design being frozen after the 2003-04 weight increases) was of no value.
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
More Super Hornets for the RAAF, almost certainly will lead to less F35's I think or at best much later than originally planned.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36...alia_13-05.pdf
Canada soon to follow ?
Maybe also a split fleet like most air forces had in the past.
Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 ? at half the price - Politics - CBC News
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36...alia_13-05.pdf
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of up to 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft, 54 F414-GE-402 engines(48 installed and 6 spares) 2 engine inlet devices, 35 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 70 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT) or RT-1957(C)/USQ-190(V) Joint Tactical Radio Systems, 40 AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems, 24 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets, 72 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers, 15 M61A2 Vulcan Cannons, 32 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles or Night Vision Cueing Device System, 40 AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponders, 80 AN/ARC-210/RT-1990A(C)Communication Systems, 100 Digital Management Devices with KG-60’s, 36 Accurate Navigation Systems, 30 AN/AYK-29(V) Distributed Targeting Systems(DTS), 4 AN/PYQ-21 DTS Mission Planning Transit Cases, 24 AN/ASQ-228 Advance Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods, 40 AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders (SKL), 80 KIV-78 Mode 4/5 Module, 48COMSEC Management Workstations (CMWS), 24 AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 80 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), and 400 AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys. Also included are system integration and testing, tools and test equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documents, personnel training and training equipment, aircraft ferry and refueling support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $3.7 billion.
Canada soon to follow ?
Maybe also a split fleet like most air forces had in the past.
Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 ? at half the price - Politics - CBC News
With Ottawa now reviewing its previous commitment to buy the F-35, Boeing is making an aggressive pitch to Canadian taxpayers, offering to save them billions of dollars if they buy Boeing's Super Hornets instead.
Boeing isn't pulling its punches. The Super Hornet, it says, is a proven fighter while the F-35 is just a concept — and an expensive one at that.
Ricardo Traven is a former Canadian air force pilot and now chief test pilot for the Super Hornet, Boeing's rival fighter jet to Lockheed Martin's F-35.Ricardo Traven is a former Canadian air force pilot and now chief test pilot for the Super Hornet, Boeing's rival fighter jet to Lockheed Martin's F-35. (Terry Milewski/CBC News)
"We call it competing with a paper airplane," says Ricardo Traven, Boeing's chief test pilot for the Super Hornet. A Canadian who flew fighters for 15 years in the Canadian air force, Traven dismisses the F-35 as a "shiny brochure of promises," and contrasts it with "the real thing," which looms behind him in a top-secret hangar at Boeing's vast production line in St. Louis, Missouri.
Boeing isn't pulling its punches. The Super Hornet, it says, is a proven fighter while the F-35 is just a concept — and an expensive one at that.
Ricardo Traven is a former Canadian air force pilot and now chief test pilot for the Super Hornet, Boeing's rival fighter jet to Lockheed Martin's F-35.Ricardo Traven is a former Canadian air force pilot and now chief test pilot for the Super Hornet, Boeing's rival fighter jet to Lockheed Martin's F-35. (Terry Milewski/CBC News)
"We call it competing with a paper airplane," says Ricardo Traven, Boeing's chief test pilot for the Super Hornet. A Canadian who flew fighters for 15 years in the Canadian air force, Traven dismisses the F-35 as a "shiny brochure of promises," and contrasts it with "the real thing," which looms behind him in a top-secret hangar at Boeing's vast production line in St. Louis, Missouri.
Last edited by kbrockman; 1st Mar 2013 at 03:11.