The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

Navy jet switch to save £10bn

The Fighters would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget, with costs already put at £13.8 billion and rising
Michael Smith
Published: 1 August 2010

The Joint Strike Fighters, costing £100m each (HO/AFP/Getty Images) The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers.

It is expected to swap an order for 138 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) for a version of a cheaper aircraft currently flown off US carriers, the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The cost-saving move was considered at a meeting last weekend between Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and services chiefs to discuss cuts.

“JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,” said a senior defence source. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate, and even if we continued with it we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.”

The JSF, built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing’s main American rival, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget, with costs already put at £13.8 billion and rising. The aircraft were set to replace Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Navy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Colonial-Marine said:
Abraham I understand the concept of SFC but I simply doubt that the F-15 has any significant advantage or disadvantage in terms of drag. In my opinion Lockheed proved with the F-22 that they could make a stealth aircraft without it being too "draggy". While the F-35 is much more of a strike aircraft, some of that experience carried over. And the F-35 is supposed to have a better acceleration rate than the F-16 with a similar T/W ratio.
Click to expand...
If only X plane did proper transonic effects simulation you could put the two planes in there and compare. The dev team is always open to suggestions....
 
sublight said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Abraham I understand the concept of SFC but I simply doubt that the F-15 has any significant advantage or disadvantage in terms of drag. In my opinion Lockheed proved with the F-22 that they could make a stealth aircraft without it being too "draggy". While the F-35 is much more of a strike aircraft, some of that experience carried over. And the F-35 is supposed to have a better acceleration rate than the F-16 with a similar T/W ratio.
Click to expand...
If only X plane did proper transonic effects simulation you could put the two planes in there and compare. The dev team is always open to suggestions....
Click to expand...

Umm, how would it work in X-plane if you didn't put the lookup table or formula for the plane's drag in there? It's not magic.
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
apparently, Norway's gonna buy F-35's with majority votes
Click to expand...

...and Britain appears to want to get out of it!

Edit: Also, about a year & a half ago, I remember seeing a PDF released by LockMart for a few hours before being pulled about details on the Lightning's Stealth, including that it was optimized for the X-Band radar. Did anyone here manage to save it?
 

Attachments

  • 002-2.jpg
    002-2.jpg
    183 KB · Views: 48
Many options were discussed, such as going for F/A-18s.

The most likely option seems to be getting shot of the Tornado early:


plus a reduced JSF buy.

Procurement and operating costs for F/A-18s across all the UK Defence Lines of Development would be high, especially training for 'cat and trap' - STOVL F-35B's are 'dual use' as you don't need constant training at sea so the RAF can also use them on land, as with the Harrier fleet.
 
Does anybody have an idea on the latest estimated empty weight figures for the production F-35 variants? Finding any fixed specifications is proving difficult. I've seen F-35A weights ranging from 26,500 lb to 30,000 and F-35C weights ranging from 29,900 to 34,000. I've even seen one source claiming 22,500 lb, 23,500 lb, and 24,000 lb for the A, B, and C variants respectively, which had to be wrong from the start of the program.
 
The greatest weights are probably the most reliable. I believe the current quotes are: F-35A 29300 lb, F-35B 32,100-32,300 lb, and F-35C (oink) 34,800 lb.
 
LowObservable said:
The greatest weights are probably the most reliable. I believe the current quotes are: F-35A 29300 lb, F-35B 32,100-32,300 lb, and F-35C (oink) 34,800 lb.
Click to expand...

Well, your not very optimistic about the whole program I see. I fear that may be the case (higher is more accurate) but what about that weight reduction program?
 
Those are post-SWAT weights. The primary SWAT issue was with the B model, which was ballooning towards 34-35,000 pounds. The C had not completed CDR at that point and has a bigger wing than expected at that time.
 
No offense to anybody but at this point I can't bring myself to believe anything until the aircraft is entering service. It seems even Lockheed doesn't have their figures straight. I know one guy who is swearing by 27,000 for the F-35A and 30,000 for the F-35B and F-35C.
 
Competition can be a good thing, maybe ;) From Aviation Week

Alternate JSF Engine Thrust Beats Target
Aug 16, 2010
By Guy Norris
Los Angeles

The intense battle over powering the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could be heading to new levels following test results that show the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine has more than 15% thrust margin against specification, significantly exceeding the power of the baseline Pratt & Whitney F135.

The tests at the U.S. Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) in Tullahoma, Tenn., are the first to officially calibrate the combat-rated thrust of a production-representative F136 at sea level conditions. Although the test program is only a matter of days old, it already appears to be showing greater performance margin in afterburner than expected, says the General Electric Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team.

News of the tests reaches Congress as it heads toward a showdown with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has made killing the second engine a centerpiece of his crusade to cut unnecessary defense spending. With the Obama administration promising to veto any defense bill that prolongs the F136, the House has defied Gates and passed provisions that fund the engine. The Senate has not weighed in, but key committee chairmen have voiced support for competitive engines. Details of the F136’s test performance could strengthen support and more broadly undermine Gates’s efforts to reform the Pentagon (see p. 20).

“Initial results show we have more than 15% margin at sea level combat-rated thrust than the specification. That’s significantly beyond the thrust requirement right out of the chute,” says GE-Rolls. In March this year, following the first maximum afterburner test of a system development and demonstration engine, the team quietly expressed confidence the F136 would exceed the thrust of the baseline F135 by 5%. Actual thrust achieved in the test remains undisclosed, but it is in excess of 40,000 lb.

Pratt & Whitney, which derived its F135 from the F-22 Raptor’s F119 engine, remains confident its own growth plans will stave off the challenge from the F136 without getting ahead of the need or increasing development costs. The company, which begins final qualification tests of the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) engine in Florida this month, plans to start tests of a higher-thrust F135 in January 2011 and begin rig tests of a growth fan later next year.

Although the F135’s thrust meets specification for the Lockheed Martin F-35 as currently configured, future growth potential is becoming an important part of the ongoing alternate engine debate. Thrust growth, and the engine life and maintenance cost benefits if traded for lower operating temperatures, are recognized as key factors by both sides. Thrust growth is considered particularly important for the performance of the F-35B Stovl variant, while the ability to use additional temperature margin to cut long-term support costs is applicable to all models, including the conventional-takeoff variants.

Given the added margin, GE-Rolls says its baseline F136 will be able to achieve a 5% thrust growth through a simple digital engine control “throttle push,” without eating into what it says could be a 25% maintenance-cost advantage over the F135. Russ Sparks, GE Aviation vice president for military strategy, says the reduced costs are directly related to the lower turbine operating temperatures in the engine, which was resized with a larger core and higher-flow fan in 2005, when Lockheed Martin increased the airflow capacity of the F-35 inlets to 400 lb./sec. The F136 fan was enlarged to pump up to 380 lb./sec., and the AEDC tests are being conducted within the airflow limits of the JSF inlets.

Pratt & Whitney Military Engines President Warren Boley says growth testing is part of a medium- to long-term strategy to increase F135 thrust by as much as 20%. “There is no doubt Pratt & Whitney has the suite of technology, and we are dedicated to do that,” he says. Although initial growth is aimed at satisfying F-35 thrust requirements, Boley says more power will also accommodate future applications on other platforms—including unmanned aircraft.

The first growth step, starting with tests in January, is based on digital engine control and turbine airfoil changes. These will provide 5-10% thrust growth and could be applicable for F-35s in production Lots 6, 7 and 8, “if needed,” Boley says. The changes could also form the basis of an engine upgrade that would be retrofitable at a depot level, he adds.

Beyond this, Pratt & Whitney’s advanced program team is studying more fundamental changes to the basic cycle of the F135 that could enhance performance and provide more growth potential. The initiative would introduce adaptive technology for the core and fan similar to that being developed by Rolls and GE under the U.S. Air Force-led Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (Advent) research program. Although Pratt & Whitney was not selected to work major elements of Advent, it has continued to refine the technology it originally proposed for the competition.

“We are looking at a third fan stream that would take advantage of a gear,” says Boley, adding that this would “bring geared turbofan technology to the front end of the F135.” Studies for the growth engine, dubbed F135 plus, include looking at a “classic bigger fan.” The current focus is on whether it would be better to combine a larger fan with an adaptive core, or make both the core and fan adaptive.

GE’s Sparks contends that “maintaining the engine flow path is the key to affordable growth. We don’t need to make it bigger, or make the fan flow more air, to give our engine more thrust. A 5% growth will be achieved with the current F136 hardware, and we’re far enough into performance testing to verify that component efficiency is equal to or better than predicted. That’s the basis for retaining the margin in terms of fan speed and temperature.”

To boost thrust by 10%, the team plans to import technology being developed under the Air Force’s Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine program. “We’re talking things like better cooling and more [ceramic matrix composites], and we’ll do it all without making any airflow changes through the engine,” he says. Ceramic matrix composites are used in the first stage of the F136 low-pressure turbine and would be used for other stages in the higher-thrust version, says the engine team.
 
I made some discussion with the GE-Rolls Royce representatives and they see the main advantage of their product in the fact, that it is specially developed for the JSF (compared to F135, which is only a derivate of the other engine). Meaning size, overall shape and the configuration with a significantly bigger development potential than the F135.

What I wanted to know the most is if the F136 is at least in some way dual-core design. It is not.
 
So if I read the story correctly the F136 peak thrust will approach 50,000 lbs? I read somewhere the the Air Force had a idea for a nominal Long Range Strike Aircraft that was to be powered by two "50,000 lbs" thrust class engines and be capable of Mach 2.5+ dash speeds.
 
bobbymike said:
So if I read the story correctly the F136 peak thrust will approach 50,000 lbs? I read somewhere the the Air Force had a idea for a nominal Long Range Strike Aircraft that was to be powered by two "50,000 lbs" thrust class engines and be capable of Mach 2.5+ dash speeds.
Click to expand...

That second part might be Vulcan. They mentioned 50,000lb thrust engines powering a future "SR-71-ish or F-22-ish" aircraft. As for the F136 approaching 50,000lbs that doesn't seem impossible. The version of the F135 in the X-32 produced 34,000lbs dry and 51,000lbs in max afterburner.
 
sferrin said:
That second part might be Vulcan. They mentioned 50,000lb thrust engines powering a future "SR-71-ish or F-22-ish" aircraft. As for the F136 approaching 50,000lbs that doesn't seem impossible. The version of the F135 in the X-32 produced 34,000lbs dry and 51,000lbs in max afterburner.
Click to expand...

You can make a F119/F135 engine produce more thurst but you need to add more turbine segments, bigger fans, etc to do so. But this adds weight. The F120/F136 was always a more efficent engine because it used a more advanced design. Just that it would cost more is why USAF chose the F119 and the JSF bidders chose the F135. So whilst you may have a F119 derivative engine producing as much as a F136 it is going to be a bigger and heavier engine for it - but probably costing a lot less (certainly in gross cost from only having a single engine program).
 
I don't know whether either the F136 or F136 currently make use of this technology, but I believe PW & GE are aiming for combustors that do away with dilution & cooling holes. So the future combustor would probably make use of ceramics (in greater quantity than is currently used) and probably support significantly higher temperatures.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
sferrin said:
That second part might be Vulcan. They mentioned 50,000lb thrust engines powering a future "SR-71-ish or F-22-ish" aircraft. As for the F136 approaching 50,000lbs that doesn't seem impossible. The version of the F135 in the X-32 produced 34,000lbs dry and 51,000lbs in max afterburner.
Click to expand...

You can make a F119/F135 engine produce more thurst but you need to add more turbine segments, bigger fans, etc to do so. But this adds weight. The F120/F136 was always a more efficent engine because it used a more advanced design. Just that it would cost more is why USAF chose the F119 and the JSF bidders chose the F135. So whilst you may have a F119 derivative engine producing as much as a F136 it is going to be a bigger and heavier engine for it - but probably costing a lot less (certainly in gross cost from only having a single engine program).
Click to expand...

The F136 is not based on the F120 IIRC. Also, the version of the F135 in the X-32 was huge (more airflow which turned into big thrust in afterburner).
 
sferrin said:
The F136 is not based on the F120 IIRC.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes it was. But of course there is no such thing as the F120. There was a YF120 however... So its not the same thing as the YF119-F119-F135 relationship. But the same design and the same tech.


sferrin said:
Also, the version of the F135 in the X-32 was huge (more airflow which turned into big thrust in afterburner).
Click to expand...

Like I said you can add bigger fans but there is a weight penalty to reach that thrust compared to the F136 with its more advanced YF120 core design.
 
With P&W supplying the engine for both the F-22 and all the JSF
prime contractor contenders, not to mention all F-15s and a good
number of F-16s, concerns grew about the need to provide greater
competition and continue support for GE, the country’s sole second
source for high-performance fighter engines. In the summer of 1995,
Congress directed the JSF Joint Program Office to pursue a second
engine source to maintain engine competition during production in
the JSF program, as had existed in the 1980s with the F-16 “Great
Engine War.” In late November 1995, initial development contracts
were awarded to P&W for an F119 derivative and to a GE/Allison
team for design studies for the YF120 and F110 variants for the JSF.

In early 1997, P&W received an EMD contract which, when added to
earlier JSF engine contract money, amounted to a nearly $1 billion
development effort. By that time, GE, Boeing, and Lockheed had settled
on the YF120 as the baseline for development of a second engine
for the JSF in what had now become the Alternate Engine Program
(AEP).14 Rolls-Royce also now teamed with GE, mainly because of
the British firm’s acquisition of Allison. Rolls-Royce’s share of the
YF120 Advanced Technology Engine core development effort stands
at 25 percent.15
The GE alternative engine is not expected to be available for competition
with the P&W engine until the production of JSF Lot 7 commences
in 2013. However, Congress has increased funding for the
AEP in several annual budgets, and it is possible the GE engine could
be available for procurement competition by 2010, or very early in
the planned JSF production effort.
The P&W and GE engine variants for JSF are expected to benefit from
the ongoing research efforts taking place in the IHPTET program.
Initiated in 1988, IHPTET is another ambitious government/industry
technology development and demonstration program, which includes
the continuation of some earlier efforts mentioned earlier in
this appendix. For example, in the interim between the YF120’s loss
in the ATF competition and its entrance into the AEP for the JSF, the
Air Force continued to work with GE through the IHPTET program to
mature the YF120’s advanced technologies. IHPTET’s flagship goal is
to double the thrust-to-weight ratio of military turbofans while reducing
production and maintenance costs by 35 percent by 2003.16
IHPTET, which is half funded by industry and half funded by government,
is expected to eventually make possible the development of
more-reliable next-generation engines with dramatically higher
thrust. This development continues the tradition of U.S. leadership
in development of gas turbine combat aircraft engines, established
definitively in the 1950s with the J57 and continuing on to this day.
Click to expand...
www.rand.org

Monograph Reports

www.rand.org www.rand.org

:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Even when loaded internally with two 2,000lb GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 AMRAAMs, Griffith says the sheer power of the Pratt & Whitney F135 is evident. “The engine has a lot of thrust. It’s been fun to outrun the F-16 (chase aircraft). They can’t keep up. If we go to full military power the F-16 has to go to afterburner to keep up.” "

 
Think of this application if married to other aircraft carrying NCADEs or other air launched missile interceptors. I think when all is said and done the F-35 will be an amazing aircraft.......if we get to that point.

It detected a missile launch over 800 miles away, now draw an 800 miles radius distance around an aircraft and you have 2 million square miles of coverage if my math is correct A = Pir2. You would need very few aircraft to cover a country like Iran (and the stealth of the F-35 helps) but of course you would need far more aircraft to strike a raising ballistic missile with another missile. I did post under the Air Launched Anti Missile thread work being done to be able to hit a raising ballistic missile from 500 km away with an aircraft launched missile. Although there is a debate about what size missile is needed plus the requirement for speeds of 5 km per second.

MISSILE DEFENSE
F-35's DAS Demonstrates Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities

Distant rocket launch as seen by Northrop Grumman's AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System. Source: Northrop Grumman
by Staff Writers
Baltimore MD (SPX) Sep 10, 2010

Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter successfully detected and tracked a two-stage rocket launch at a distance exceeding 800 miles during a routine flight test conducted aboard the company's BAC 1-11 test bed aircraft.

"The DAS could fill critical capability gaps in the area of ballistic missile defense (BMD)," said Dave Bouchard, program director for F-35 sensors at Northrop Grumman.

"We have only scratched the surface on the number of functions the F-35's DAS is capable of providing. With DAS, we've combined instantaneous 360-degree spherical coverage, high frame refresh rates, high resolution, high sensitivity powerful processors and advanced algorithms into a single system. The number of possibilities is endless."

An operational DAS system is comprised of multiple DAS sensors whose images are fused together to create one seamless picture. DAS successfully detected and tracked the rocket during a nine minute, two-stage, flight period from horizon break until final burnout through multiple sensor fields of regard.

Unlike other sensors, DAS picks up targets without assistance from an external cue. Because DAS is passive, an operator does not have to point the sensor in the direction of a target to gain a track.

"The DAS software architecture already includes missile detection and tracking algorithms that can be applied to the BMD mission," Bouchard added. "The results of the flight test were extraordinary. We found that the data gathered during this flight validated our performance predictions. In fact, we knew we could have seen the rocket at a longer distance."

The AN/AAQ-37 DAS is a high resolution omni-directional infrared sensor system that provides advanced spherical situational awareness capability, including missile and aircraft detection, track and warning capabilities for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. DAS also gives a pilot 360 degree spherical day/night vision, with the capability of seeing through the floor of the aircraft.

Northrop Grumman is now exploring how the existing DAS technology could assist in several additional mission areas, including Ballistic Missile Defense and irregular warfare operations.

Northrop Grumman's Electronic Systems sector designed and produces the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter AN/AAQ-37 DAS. The DAS F-35 software that includes algorithms for all JSF functions was delivered to Lockheed Martin Corporation earlier this year. Northrop Grumman also designed and produced the AN/APG-81 AESA radar system, and designed and produces the F-35's Communications, Navigation and Identification (CNI) system.
 
pix of f-35c with finished coating and painting
CF01_F10_77936_1269967624_3467.jpg

2010_CF01_Paint_70175_1269967624_7293.jpg
 
Hi,
Do you think the F-35s will get conformal tanks fitted to booster the range? I'm not sure how much they weigh or that an upgraded engine will need to be used to compensate.
 
McColm said:
Hi,
Do you think the F-35s will get conformal tanks fitted to booster the range? I'm not sure how much they weigh or that an upgraded engine will need to be used to compensate.
Click to expand...

No. It was designed to carry a lot of fuel from the outset, so it doesn't really have a need for them. The F-35 carries about the same amount of fuel as the larger twin engined F-22. It's fuel fraction is much higher than other single engined fighters. Most typical fighters carrying out a similar mission to the F-35 have to carry drop tanks to meet the mission specs. However, drop tanks aren't a great idea on an aircraft that needs to be stealthy, so the F-35 was designed to carry all of that fuel internally from the outset. The conformal fuel tanks basically just open up the hard points that carried drop tanks for weapons on legacy aircraft.

BTW, thanks for posting the F-35C pics Donnage99. I was wondering when we were going to get to see her decked out.
 
CF-01 arrived at NAS Patuxent River on 06 November 2010. Lockheed Martin test pilot David “Doc” Nelson flew CF-01 on the 3.1 hour ferry flight.
 

Attachments

  • 10P00296_098.jpg
    10P00296_098.jpg
    301.8 KB · Views: 92
  • 10P00294_09.jpg
    10P00294_09.jpg
    292.7 KB · Views: 93
  • 10P00297_044.jpg
    10P00297_044.jpg
    272.2 KB · Views: 85
  • 10P00297_138.jpg
    10P00297_138.jpg
    289.3 KB · Views: 77
Saw the trailer for the new Green Lantern movie yesterday. The F-35 has about a 35 second long showing on the silver screen
 

Attachments

  • F-35-GreenLantern.jpg
    F-35-GreenLantern.jpg
    37.7 KB · Views: 68
Gates have given them 2 years for the F-35B problems to be fixed or it will be earmarked for cancellation. It drops to the back of the queue for the flight test program and 41 additional F-18E/F are to be ordered as an interim solution along with 150 F/A-18's to be refurbished to cover delays in the JSF for the USN/USMC. !

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/06/351600/us-military-unveils-possible-f-35b-redesign-in-sweeping-budget.html

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab8a1e69a-f078-4436-bd44-51b1167f9db4&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Some interesting stuff about unreported problems with the B that may require airframe and engine redesign and its 2 year stay of execution.

That explains why the UK switched to CATOBAR CVF with F-35C as no gaurantee the F-35B would still exist when the STOVL CVF was scheduled to enter service !
 
The latest F-35 program fact sheet. -SP
 

Attachments

  • F-35_FactSheet_010611.pdf
    277.3 KB · Views: 43
If the program does swell up to about 388 billion for 2450 planes, that means for the same price I could have roughly 19,400 F-16's at today's prices. So the F35 thread "theoretical question of the day" is, would you rather go into war with the 2450 DAS wielding wunderkind fighters or 19,400 old school F-16's?

Before you whip out the calculator, that's a 7.9:1 ratio....

(I don't think the 388 billion figure includes CAF/JAST/ETC...)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom