Post #8:
Post #120:
'attaboy'

Hoodie with a woodie,

You're right. Good for Britain. Here's some info. about UK's workshare in the F-35. I suppose QinetiQ is a BAE subcontractor.


DESIGN

In order to minimise the structural weight and complexity of assembly, the wingbox section integrates the wing and fuselage section into one piece. To minimise radar signature, sweep angles are identical for the leading and trailing edges of the wing and tail (planform alignment). The fuselage and canopy have sloping sides. The seam of the canopy and the weapon bay doors are sawtoothed and the vertical tails are canted at an angle.

The Marine variant of JSF is very similar to the Air Force variant, but with a slightly shorter range because some of the space used for fuel is used for the lift fan of the STOVL propulsion system. The main differences between the naval variant and the other versions of JSF are associated with the carrier operations. The internal structure of the naval version is very strong to withstand the high loading of catapult assisted launches and tailhook arrested landings. The aircraft has larger wing and tail control surfaces for low speed approaches for carrier landing. Larger leading edge flaps and foldable wingtip sections provide a larger wing area, which provides an increased range and payload capacity.

The canopy (supplied by GKN Aerospace), radar and most of the avionics are common to the three variants.

COCKPIT

L-3 Display Systems is developing the Panoramic Cockpit Display System, which will include 20in x 8in active matrix liquid crystal displays and display management computer. The following will also supply F-35 avionics systems: BAE Systems Avionics - side stick and throttle controls; Vision Systems International (a partnership between Kaiser Electronics and Elbit of Israel) - advanced helmet-mounted display; BAE Systems Platform Solutions - alternative design helmet-mounted display, based on the binocular helmet being developed for the Eurofighter Typhoon; Ball Aerospace - Communications, Navigation and Integration (CNI) integrated body antenna suite (one S-band, two UHF, two radar altimeter, three L-band antennas per aircraft); Harris Corporation - advanced avionics systems, infrastructure, image processing, digital map software, fibre optics, high speed communications links and part of the Communications, Navigation and Information (CNI) system; Honeywell - radar altimeter, inertial navigation / global positioning system (INS/GPS) and air data transducers; Raytheon - 24-channel GPS with digital anti-jam receiver (DAR).

WEAPONS

Weapons are carried in two parallel bays located in front of the landing gear. Each weapons bay is fitted with two hardpoints for carrying a range of bombs and missiles. Weapons to be cleared for internal carriage include: JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), CBU-105 WCMD (Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser) for the Sensor-Fuzed Weapon, JSOW (Joint StandOff Weapon), Paveway II guided bombs, AIM-120C AMRAAM air-to-air missile; for external carriage: JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), AIM-9X Sidewinder and Storm Shadow cruise missile.

In September 2002, General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products was selected as the gun system integrator. The air force variant has an internally mounted gun. The Carrier and Marine variants can have an external gun pod fitted.

TARGETING

Lockheed Martin Missile & Fire Control and Northrop Grumman Electronic Sensors and Systems are jointly responsible for the JSF electro-optical system. A Lockheed Martin electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) will provide long-range detection and precision targeting, along with the Northrop Grumman DAS (Distributed Aperture System) thermal imaging system. EOTS will be based on the Sniper XL pod developed for the F-16, which incorporates a mid-wave third generation FLIR, dual mode laser, CCD TV, laser tracker and laser marker. BAE Systems Avionics in Edinburgh, Scotland will provide the laser systems. DAS consists of multiple infrared cameras (supplied by Indigo Systems of Goleta, California) providing 360º coverage using advanced signal conditioning algorithms. As well as situational awareness, DAS provides navigation, missile warning and infrared search and track (IRST). EOTS is embedded under the aircraft’s nose, and DAS sensors are fitted at multiple locations on the aircraft.

RADAR

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems is developing the advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) AN/APG-81 multi-function radar. The AN/APG-81AESA will combine an integrated radio frequency subsystem with a multifunction array. The radar system will also incorporate the agile beam steering capabilities developed for the APG-77. Northrop Grumman delivered the first radar to Lockheed Martin in March 2005 for flight testing.

COUNTERMEASURES

BAE Systems Information & Electronic Warfare Systems (IEWS) will be responsible for the JSF integrated electronic warfare suite, which will be installed internally and have some subsystems from Northrop Grumman. BAE is developing a new digital radar warning receiver for the F-35.

SYSTEMS

The following will supply the F-35 avionics systems: BAE Systems Avionics - side stick and throttle controls; Vision Systems International (a partnership between Kaiser Electronics and Elbit of Israel) - advanced helmet-mounted display; BAE Systems Platform Solutions - alternate design helmet-mounted display, based on the binocular helmet being developed for the Eurofighter Typhoon; Ball Aerospace - Communications, Navigation and Information (CNI) integrated body antenna suite (one S-band, two UHF, two radar altimeter, three L-band antennas per aircraft); Harris Corporation - advanced avionics systems, infrastructure, image processing, digital map software, fibre optics, high-speed communications links and part of the Communications, Navigation and Information (CNI) system; Honeywell - radar altimeter, inertial navigation / global positioning system (INS/GPS) and air data transducers; Raytheon - 24-channel GPS (Global Positioning System) with digital anti-jam receiver (DAR).

Other suppliers will include: ATK Composites - upper wing skins; Vought Aircraft Industries - lower wing skins; Smiths Aerospace - electronic control systems, electrical power system (with Hamilton Sundstrand), integrated canopy frame; Honeywell - landing system wheels and brakes, Onboard Oxygen-Generating System (OBOGS), engine components, power and thermal management system driven by integrated Auxiliary Power Unit (APU); Parker Aerospace - fuel system, hydraulics for lift fan, engine controls and accessories; Moog Inc - primary flight control Electrohydrostatic Actuation System (EHAS), leading edge flap drive system and wing-fold system; EDO Corporation - pneumatic weapon delivery system; Goodrich - lift-fan anti-icing system; Stork Aerospace - electrical wiring.

PROPULSION

Early production lots of all three variants will be powered by the Pratt and Whitney afterburning turbofan F-135 engine, a derivative of the F119 fitted on the F-22. Following production aircraft will be powered by either the F135 or the F-136 turbofan being developed by General Electric and Rolls-Royce. The F136 engine began ground testing in July 2004. Delivery of the first production engine is scheduled for 2011. Each engine will be fitted with two BAE Systems Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) systems. Hamilton Sundstrand is providing the gearbox.

...

Military Power Review - F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - english version

And here's a clipping to give non-techie PPruners an idea of the conplexity of the aircraft's digital systems. Not what you'd call hot and sexy at the airshow stuff:

IEEE 1394b Playing Pivotal Role in F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter
Business Wire, Sept 4, 2007

Tags: IEEE, Pivotal Corp.

..

- More than 70 1394b Devices Serve Flight Control, Communications, Propulsion Systems; Predictable Latency Key in Real Time Control -

DALLAS & FORT WORTH, Texas -- The successful deployment of the IEEE 1394 networking standard in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development program demonstrates the standard's reliability and flexibility, the 1394 Trade Association said today.

1394b is playing a pivotal role in the F-35 Lightning II program, providing guaranteed quality of service with predictable latencies in real-time control applications. More than 70 1394 devices are delivering information about mission details, communication systems, weapon systems, engine controls, and flight controls. Lockheed Martin Corporation and its partner contractors selected the 1394b network standard after a trade study of other networking options including USB, Fibre Channel, and military standard 1553. ( 1553 data "bus" -- pre-Internet 16 bit data protocol. )

..

... The AA-1's (CTOL) first flight was last December, and the first three STOVLs are scheduled to fly in 2008. According to Lockheed Martin, the 1394b-equipped AA-1 has completed 19 successful flight tests to date.

1394b in Vehicle Systems Network

1394b has been implemented in the plane's Vehicle Systems Network based on its speed, bandwidth and long distance capabilities, and also because 1394b enables operational software downloads to network components without the need to remove any component after installation.

Main F-35 flight control and subsystem processing are completed in a trio of the Vehicle Management Computers (VMCs), which act as the master for each bus. There are triplex VMCs that are cross-channeled and data-linked together. Most of the 1394b buses are looped to provide additional redundancy, so if one cable fails, there is an alternate path for communication.

1394b delivers the high bandwidth and predictable latencies that allow the VMC to house all flight control algorithms and all utilities in a highly centralized structure. While there are still some distributed processing functions handled by legacy buses such as 1553, it is 1394b that's carrying the bulk of the processing load. The architecture also makes use of independent controllers for applications that require dedicated, high-bandwidth control loops. according to Lockheed Martin engineer Mike Wroble.

The VMC incorporates Flight Control Systems (FCS) and Utilities and Subsystems (U&S) processing that has been performed separately on legacy aircraft, according to Wroble. Components residing on the 1394b network serve the following systems:

* Vehicle Systems Processing, VMC and RIO (10 remote input/output units);

* Flight Control Systems with all flight control surfaces, including rudders, flaperons, horizontal tails, ailerons, air data probes, inertial electronics, inceptor control, crash-survivable memory units;

* Utilities and Subsystems such as weapons bay door drives, power system controllers, brake controllers, power thermal management system controllers;

* Propulsion Systems such as main engine FADEC (full authority digital engine controller), and prognostics health area managers;

* Mission Systems including standby flight display, display management computer, helmet display management computer, integrated core processor, lighting controller, communications/navigation/identification, and GPS;

* Flight Test Instrumentation, in the form of a high-speed data acquisition unit on each bus for capturing flight test data.

...

IEEE 1394b Playing Pivotal Role in F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter | Business Wire | Find Articles at BNET

That is more or less why the RN will end up with a single conventional carrier, carrying Rafale M as it primary aircraft, and an exact sister ship to the proposed French carrier. The JSF, or a marinated Typhoon, might have potential military advantages, but they have huge budgetary incertitudes. Rafale M is proven, excellent, and available now at a guaranteed cost.

Is that the french carrier that has been postponed indefinitely due to perfidious albion going ahead and signing the contract?

Has it been cancelled? I don't follow these matters in detail but only a couple of weeks ago the French Defence Minister was on the radio here justifying the future carrier as forming the nucleus of a European naval strike force with "his" british "brother" (ships and yachts are all considered to be blokes in French).

Cirrus, the decision on whether to buy has been postponed until 2011 or 2012:

DCNS Chief Blames UK for Carrier Postponement - Defense News

Forgive the pedantry, but I think you mean 'marinised' Typhoon, not marinated - dipping the Typhoon in a nice seasoning liquid before putting to sea might not quite be enough to make it carrier capable... ;)

Thanks for the link - but that has not been reported widely here in France.

I do know the difference between "marinised" and "marinated". The latter seems more appropriate for the Typhoon though. You'd have to be pretty marinated to argue that a marinised Typhoon could possibly be more cost-effective let-alone military-effective in likely future naval roles than an off-the-shelf Rafale M. Why spend billions of tax payers money trying to convert without guarantees of success an A2A-orientated multi-role land-based fighter to A2G-oriented multi-role naval fighter which is already proven in the Rafale? Just shows why French were right to pull out of Eurofighter.

Nice to see offcentre that you have the good sense to read all of the previous posts before adding your own. Pity that you were unable to understand the consistency between the two post of mine that you chose to repeat. Could I perhaps suggest that if you must waste people's time by making pointless attempts to score points (presumably in the absence of any reasoned argument) then at least provide yourself with some plausible excuse first;)

Cirrus, "Marinated Typhoon" sounds tasty, although it seems to be a little too rich for some people's tastes... Seriously though, I'd forget about the whole Rafale notion - it just ain't gonna happen.

I am generally a Typhoon supporter and have seen the Rafale in action on exercise (ok imho, but no great quantum leap) and I would rather the RAF operated Typhoon. But if I was asked to choose between them to be selected to operate off UK carriers then I would choose Rafale every day of the week - not because it is better in the air than Typhoon, but because it is designed to operate off carriers. This is important when planning to operate off carriers.

BAE systems state then it wouldn't be that difficult to convert Typhoon. Well that's alright then. When have they ever exaggerated/lied to get a contract? Sorry Tim, but get a clue.

Don't see either option ever happening, even in the current climate. JSF may not be the cheap all rounder that many hoped for, but it is currently the only realistic/sensible option for our carriers from military, commercial and political perspectives (in reverse order of importance).

Marinated Typhoon?

Isn't the real question which flavour of JSF? :confused:

BAE systems state then it wouldn't be that difficult to convert Typhoon. Well that's alright then. When have they ever exaggerated/lied to get a contract? Sorry Tim, but get a clue.


Er... indeed, get a clue. If you bother to read the previous posts, I did say at least twice that I think we mostly accept that we've progressed beyond that stage now. The days of making rash promises in the hope that the Treasury will pick-up the bill have ended.

Tim.

"I think we mostly accept that we've progressed beyond that stage now. The days of making rash promises in the hope that the Treasury will pick-up the bill have ended. "

When you say "we", to whom are you refering?
I doubt you will find a single person on this forum who will agree with your optimism re BAE's honesty.

Come on Tim, let's hear why you think that.

Let's not :rolleyes:

GK121 - that source is old. You can't find anyone who will pin down the split numbers today.

This argument is showing signs of flying in more tightening circles than the Oozelum Bird, and we all know what happened to it.

Fact: The production JSF hasn't demonstrated STOVL yet, has encountered all sorts of problems along the way (major weight issues, engine failures in test - and late tests, too, when you really don't expect catastophic airplane-crashing things to happen - and thermal issues), and has no margin for missing targets.

Fact: The carrier program still has a Plan B - extending GR9s and a switch to cat-arrest.

Fact: There are two carrier-based fighters in production. Nobody likes Rafale, and with the greatest possible respect to the Rhino it is (a) not the world's hottest jet and (b) due to exit US Navy service in 2030. The F-35C is under development.

Fact: There has been a study of a SeaPhoon.

The question is how much and how long BAE Systems/Eurofighter would predict it would take to do it, and how much it would really take. Nobody really knows the answer to that question, although it certainly entails cost and risk that the Rafale or Rhino wouldn't.

Personally I would think it would be both risky and expensive. But then what are the alternatives? Of course, if we just demanded 2000 pounds of bombs, two missiles, and no internal gun, I suggest that we could do the job with an updated A-4...

The A-4 had 2 Colt Mk12 20mm cannon (100 rpg except A-4M 200 rpg) in the wing roots.

And the A-4H/N new-builds for Israel had 2 DEFA 30mm cannon (150 rpg) in the wing roots.


LO... do you have one where an authoritive source (not some journo quoting "anonymous sources/unnamed official/employee") says the split has changed?

What I don't have is an authoritative source that defines the split. As noted, the FAS thing is old. Current briefs always talk about "Department of the Navy" orders.

So basically, no one has made a formal statement that the previous plan has actually been changed.

That was the last official number set, and while there have been discussions about what changes might be made to the split, there has been no statement of a change actually being made?

In the absence of a change, the last numbers still hold. They don't "expire" and become irrelevant just because no one has re-confirmed them in a while.

GK,
No, I don't pull this stuff out of my ear. See:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf

Page 28... the GAO (which may sometimes be out of date, often skeptical, but seldom actually wrong) says the split is undecided.

The GAO reports that the Navy is undecided on the split, but wants the Marines to buy some Dave-Cs... the USMC has established a formal requirement for 420 aircraft and continue to insist on all of them being Dave-Bs.



Thanks... you finally supplied an authoritative source that says there IS doubt as to the final split... which is what I had asked for, and you hadn't provided until now.

Many of us lack your detailed knowledge :hmm: of where such documents are to be found, or even if they exist. That's why we ask for sources... so we can learn facts, and not rumors.

Point to you... finally.

Skimming through that GAO report, I come across a sentences such as this:

"... We found that the JSF cost model is highly complex and the level of documentation is not sufficient for someone unfamiliar with the program to easily recreate it. Specifically, we found that the program office does not have formal documentation for the development, production, and operation and support cost models and could not provide detailed documentation such as quantitative analysis to support its assumptions...."

"Not enough formal documentation ... could not provide detailed documentation..." One possible translation of same: those bookkeeper gadfly busybody a-holes just want more and more paperwork. More and more paperwork requires a nontrivial increase in time and money spent on the program.

I've seen it myself, goofing off and strolling around the different floors of an eleven story building of a former employer. I counted more heads in Contracts Support Administration than actual engineers on the engineering floors.

The JSF Cost Estimate Is Not Well Documented

Cost estimates are well documented when they can be easily repeated or updated and can be traced to original sources through auditing. Rigorous documentation increases the credibility of an estimate and helps support an organization’s decision-making process. The documentation should explicitly identify the primary methods, calculations, results, rationales, assumptions, and sources of the data used to generate each cost element. All the steps involved in developing the estimate should be documented so that a cost analyst unfamiliar with the program can recreate the estimate with the same result.

We found that the JSF cost model is highly complex and the level of documentation is not sufficient for someone unfamiliar with the program to easily recreate it. Specifically, we found that the program office does not have formal documentation for the development, production, and operation and support cost models and could not provide detailed documentation such as quantitative analysis to support its assumptions. For the development cost estimate, the JSF program officials said they did not have a cost model that was continually updated with actual costs.

10 Earned value management is a method of tracking and measuring the value of work accomplished in a given period and comparing it with the planned value of work scheduled and the actual cost of work accomplished. Its use is required by federal regulations.
Page 22 GAO-08-388 Joint Strike Fighter

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf

ME - What's interesting about that part of the report is that it concerns the aspect of the enterprise that the GAO's spreadsheet jockeys know most about. How much are we spending, and how much are we accomplishing for what we spend?

GK - Thanks, sometimes it is busy and rooting around the JSF directory for the source takes time. By the way, if the Marines get 420 jets the Navy gets 260... which is not a huge return on the Navy-specific development costs (including a vastly bigger wing).

Moreover, if you go back to history you'll see that LockMart's original preference (in CALF) was for a canard delta and that they switched to the quad-tail when the Navy came on board, because that was the only configuration that accommodated two widely different wing sizes (one big enough for the CV, the other small/light enough for a no-fold STOVL). And all that for less than 10 per cent of the planned build...

... The two X-32 prototypes featured a delta wing design, which was chosen to minimize production manufacturing costs. However, eight months into construction of the prototypes, the JSF's maneuverability and payload requirements were refined at the request of the Navy and Boeing's delta wing design fell short of the new targets. Engineers put together a new design with a conventional tail (narrowly beating out a Pelikan tail) with reduced weight and improved agility, but it was too late to change the prototypes. It was judged that they would be sufficient to demonstrate Boeing's technology.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

LO and Modern Elmo,

I was able to go to some very informative briefs given by the JSF's chief designer at Fort Worth, where he set out the whole design evolution process.

There was a major change when the design went from a canard to a more conventional design, but we were told that the change was driven by predicted performance and structural efficiency across the required three variants. Yes, the wing was part of it, but only a part.

The canard was a better layout for the STOVL, but always had challenges with the control power required for carrier landings. (This was, incidentally, the reason for the late change to the X-32 design - the aircraft ran out of pitch control during carrier landings).

My own view was that Lockheed always really wanted to build an aircraft that looked like a single engined F-22 , to stay inside their design 'comfort zone'. And that's what they ended up with.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

It's also true that the canard (CALF, early JAST) came out of Palmdale but that JSF came out of Fort Worth, where the view was that "the optimum location for a canard is on someone else's airplane". But I was told that it was the different wing/pitch control surface size which was the kicker. It gets very awkward with a high taper ratio if you want to keep the body design common.

So is the A400 delayed?

Not at all. Slippages are on schedule. :cool:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/pho...96-43418-3.jpg

(1) Pro's and cons of "pure" delta wing versus non-delta?

(2) Pro's and cons of canards on either pure delta or non delta?

"So is the A400 delayed?"

If the latest rumours are to be believed then it will depend which type you are currently on as to whether this delay is likely to affect you :ok:

ME...
Depends what you're trying to do.

Canard/deltas are rather nice for agility and STOL (factors in Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale) while buying you the benefits of a delta wing (light, low drag, space to hang stuff that goes bang without too much interference drag).

Classic, cranked or double deltas are nice for low drag and high volume. What you tend to run out of is control authority because all you've got is the trailing edge... the leading edge is good for increasing lift to some extent (although the sweep tends to be too high - if you look at the XL it's got LE flaps outboard), but hard to use differentially for control. So the trailing edge... which doesn't have a lot of moment arm... has to provide for pitch and roll, and it gets a bit overloaded.

For instance, Boeing's delta JSF design, in its Navy version, was going to use vortex flaps above the leading edge to boost lift. But the more they looked at the Navy's bring-back requirement, the bigger control surfaces they needed, in order to rotate the wing to get high lift... and the actuator weights got out of hand.

So is it true that the MDD submission was canned because (a) it had a lot of foreign (i.e. BAE) design and (b) it was more likely to provide serious competition to Lockheed?

The X-32 being the more 'risky' option and the -35 the 'safe' version.

If the MoD cancels the F-35B buy I wonder if it can do a deal with the French? The UK can sell the French enough surplus Typhoons to equip several dedicated air defence squadrons and we can buy some French Rafales for our carriers.

Alice. Wonderland.
 

Hmmm.

All this from a country that once tried to navalise a naval aircraft.

F-4K anyone ?

And how should one pronounce '-4K' ?

Exactly.

Nowt wrong wit' FG1...as long as the nose wheel extension didn't stick down...

As the country that invented the angled deck, steam catapult, ski ramp and built the Buccaneer - an aircraft of beauty and strength, and the USMC seem somewhat enamoured of the Harrier the last 30-40 years....

Steel decks also came in handy in the pacific...

XV277,
Macs' big mistake was that they didn't think the customer was serious about not wanting a separate lift engine. It wasn't altogether logical given the fact that the overall complexity and number of flight-critical bits and pieces was certainly comparable to the LockMart solution, but the customer meant it.

Also, the Boeing design was different and risky, and offered a cheaper and simpler aircraft if it worked. LMT seemed low risk, in part because of its cousin relationship to the F-22.

Caspian,
Rafale is a very attractive jet for a small carrier, but my assessment is that you'd either have to buy into the French program (and help to fund an F4 program with some UK content) or start spending lots of money to Anglicize it. Your best bet would be to learn to love its quirks (like a Citroen 2CV or DS) including its magic jamming system and the What The Butler Saw machine in front of the pilot's nose.

<Nowt wrong wit' FG1...as long as the nose wheel extension didn't stick down...>

Certe loqueris . . . saepe vere !

No argument from this end about the Bucc. Wonderful machine.

There was a major change when the design went from a canard to a more conventional design, but we were told that the change was driven by predicted performance and structural efficiency across the required three variants. Yes, the wing was part of it, but only a part.

That's interesting. Could you tell us more? How did the canard affect performance?


So is it true that the MDD submission was canned because (a) it had a lot of foreign (i.e. BAE) design and (b) it was more likely to provide serious competition to Lockheed?

The X-35 was better than the X-32. No need for a conspiratorial view.


Macs' big mistake was that they didn't think the customer was serious about not wanting a separate lift engine.

Separate lift engine?