F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[LETHALFORCE]

US announces two-year delay in F-35 fighter program

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_announces_two-year_delay_in_F-35_fighter_program_999.html

US announces two-year delay in F-35 fighter program

The US Air Force announced Tuesday a two-year delay in the production of its new F-35 stealth fighter, touted as the future of the American air fleet.
Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley, the civilian head of the department, told reporters that the Joint Strike Fighter, scheduled for use by 2013, would now not be ready until the end of 2015.

"I do think we're going to have a slip" in the schedule, Donley said, raising fresh questions about the F-35 project, involving nine other countries and portrayed as a model for a more efficient, streamlined weapons program.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates a month ago sacked the general in charge of the F-35 program and said he would withhold 614 million dollars in performance fees from contractor Lockheed Martin over a series of cost overruns and delays.

Donley said the Pentagon was pushing Lockheed to speed up its work and keep its costs under control.

"We want to hold the contractors' feet to the fire," he said. "We want to incentivize them to make good on the promises they made earlier and deliver on schedule."

Much is riding on the stealth aircraft, which Gates has held up as the premier US fighter jet after pushing through an end to the costly F-22 Raptor project despite opposition from some lawmakers.

The Defense Department plans to buy nearly 2,500 of the jets over the next 25 years, at an estimated cost of about 300 billion dollars.

 

[tarunraju]

There goes JSF program on its long path to become another F-22 in terms of program viability. No wonder the Americans placed an order for another ~125 SuperHornets. By the time the west proliferates 5th gen fighters in any worthwhile numbers, the Russians would have caught up.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The Russians have already caught up with PAKFA maybe not in numbers but the price alone ,F-22 costing 400 million apiece will not be proliferated so quickly.

 

[tarunraju]

The Russians have already caught up with PAKFA maybe not in numbers but the price alone ,F-22 costing 400 million apiece will not be proliferated so quickly.

Yeah, what I meant was by the time Americans come up with price-tags that are at least affordable to JSF partner nations, there will be nearly equal numbers of 5th gen fighters on both blocs.

 

[Agantrope]

The Russians have already caught up with PAKFA maybe not in numbers but the price alone ,F-22 costing 400 million apiece will not be proliferated so quickly.

What you mentioned is program unit cost of F-22; F-22 flyaway cost is around $170M.

Now here comes the divine screw for the US; First less found for the JSF and more partners. I find no reasons to scold thats the Tejas is getting delayed .

F-35 slated to replace the F-15 (bot sure); so the number of orders will be in huge from US.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

What you mentioned is program unit cost of F-22; F-22 flyaway cost is around $170M.

Now here comes the divine screw for the US; First less found for the JSF and more partners. I find no reasons to scold thats the Tejas is getting delayed .

F-35 slated to replace the F-15 (bot sure); so the number of orders will be in huge from US.

In April 2006, the cost of the F-22 was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft. This cost reflects the F-22 total program cost, divided by the number of fighters the Air Force is programmed to buy; and which has so far invested $28 billion in the Raptor's research, development and testing.

USA has invested over 30 billion dollars in the Raptor the cost was suppose to come down as the number of units increased but in 2006 the price per plane was estimated at 361 million per plane 4 years later I am guessing it must be atleast 10% higher that is where I got the 400 million per plane and the cost has not gone down as the number of units produced have not increased fast enough.

the Flyaway cost in 2006 was roughly 240 million today it is probably much higher

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,111821,00.html



What Does an F-22 Cost?
by Winslow T. Wheeler, March 28, 2009



On Wednesday, March 25, an F-22 crashed near Edwards Air Force Base, CA. Very sadly, the pilot was killed. The news articles surrounding this event contained some strange assertions about the cost of the F-22. The tragic event was apparently used to disseminate some booster-baloney.

Possibly based on the price asserted in the Air Force’s "fact" sheet on the F-22 that was linked to a Pentagon "news" story on the crash, the cost per aircraft was typically described in many media articles as about $140 million.

What utter hogwash.

The latest "Selected Acquisition Report" from the Defense Department is the most definitive data available on the costs for the F-22. The SAR shows a "Current Estimate" for the F-22 program in "Then-Year" dollars of $64.540 billion, which includes both R&D and procurement. That $64.5 billion has bought a grand total of 184 aircraft.

Do the arithmetic: $64.540/184 = $350.1. Total program unit price for one F-22, what approximates the "sticker price," is $350 million per copy.

So, where does the bogus $143 million per copy come from? Most will recognize that as the "flyaway" cost: the amount we pay today, just for the current production costs of an F-22. (Note, however, the "flyaway" cost does not include the gas, pilot, et cetera needed to fly the aircraft away.)

Advocates of buying more F-22s assert they can be had for this "bargain basement" $143 price in their lobbying – now rather intense – to buy more F-22s above and beyond the 184 currently contracted for. That is, they argue, the "cost to go" for buying new models, which do not require a calculation to amortize the early R&D and other initially high production costs across the fleet. It’s what we’re paying now for F-22s in annual appropriations bills. Right?

Hopefully, it will neither surprise nor offend you to say that assertion is pure bovine scatology.

Congressional appropriations bills and their accompanying reports are not user-friendly documents, but having wadded through them for the past 30 years, I know their hiding holes. The F-22 program has many. Let’s check through the 2009 congressional appropriations for the F-22. Most – but not all – of the required information is contained in HR 2638.

In the "Joint Explanatory Statement" accompanying the bill, the House and Senate appropriators specified that $2.907 billion was to be appropriated for 20 F-22s in 2009. The math comes to just about what the Air Force said, $145 million per copy. So, what’s the problem?

There’s more; plenty more. Flipping down to the section on "modification of aircraft" we find another $327 million for the F-22 program.

Switching over to the Research and Development section, we find another $607 million for the F-22 under the title "Operational System Development."

Some will further know it is typical for DOD to provide "advance procurement" money in previous appropriations bills to support the subsequent year’s purchase of major equipment. In the case of the 2009 buy of 20 F-22’s, the previous 2008 appropriations bill provided "advance procurement" for "long lead" items needed to be purchased in advance to enable the 2009 buy. The amount provided was $427 million.

Here’s the arithmetic: $2.907 + $.327 + $.607 + $.427 = $4.268 billion for 20 aircraft. That’s $213 million each.

Please do not think these data represent an exceptional year. If you check any of the last few annual buys of F-22s, you will find the same pattern: in addition to the annual "procurement" amount, there is additional "modification," "operational system development," and advance procurement.

F-22s are costing these days a little over $200 million each. Period.

Well, actually, there’s more. Last November, Acquisition Czar John Young told the press that the first 100 F-22’s built need an additional $8 billion in R&D and procurement costs to bring them all up to their originally mandated requirements. Ergo, the total program unit cost is not $350 million each, it’s $394 million, assuming Young is correct. The annual purchase, "cost to go" ("flyaway"), price will also go up, but just how much is not calculable right now.

For those sticklers who also want to know how much it will cost to maintain and operate the F-22, you can forget all those promises that it would be cheaper than the aging F-15 it is supposed to replace. Data released by the Pentagon shows that for 2008 each aging F-15 C in the inventory cost, on average, $607,072.92 to maintain and operate. Pricey, but to be expected for such an old airplane.

The F-22’s care and feeding is a little more. In 2008, each cost $3,190,454.72 to maintain and operate: that’s more than five time the cost to run a decrepit F-15.

OK, so the F-22 is really pricey and the Air Force and its boosters are full of baloney on the cost, but it’s a great airplane, a real war winner, right?

http://original.antiwar.com/wheeler/2009/03/27/what-does-an-f-22-cost/

 

[Armand2REP]

Denmark rejects F-35 and Gripen

The Danish military rejects JSF

In its report to the government to the defense, instead pointing to Boeing's F-18 Super Hornet as the safest option, "says DR sources. Denmark to buy new fighter planes when the current F-16 aircraft will be retiring about seven or eight years.

Lockheed Martin's JSF has long been a favorite, but the development of the new super-plane is greatly delayed. Moreover, the price over the last ten years has grown from 250 million to more than 500 million Danish kroner per aircraft.

It is this which, according to DR sources is the reason why the defense would prefer to buy Boeing's F-18 Super Hornet. Defense will therefore not go into the purchase of the Swedish JAS Gripen.

Armed military academic setting, according to DR has been clear for several months, but you still waiting for an auditor examination to ensure the quality of assessments.

The setting is finally handed over to the defense minister, but it is not a given that the politicians will follow the force's professional military advice. Also political considerations in play. Norway has already gone in to buy 48 JSF aircraft. (© NTB)

http://www.rbnett.no/ntb/utenriks/article184139.ece

 

[Rage]

The Viking's have made a smart choice.

With cost-overruns, lengthy delays in the development program and ill-designed goals, the Joint Strike Fighter is looking less viable for near-term completion by the minute; and an interim fighter will probly have to be chosen by most countries banking on its procurement to fill the void between end of service lives of existing fleets and induction of the JSF.

I'm interested in knowing, tho, why the Defense Report pointed to "Boeing's F-18 Super Hornet as the safest option" ? And any speculation on why the Gripen was rejected in favour of the Hornet. Armand, any thoughts?

 

[Yusuf]

Boeing is upto some tricks I guess. All those who have raised issues with the JSF have looked at the F18. My conspiracy theory mind thinks.

 

[Armand2REP]

I'm interested in knowing, tho, why the Defense Report pointed to "Boeing's F-18 Super Hornet as the safest option" ? And any speculation on why the Gripen was rejected in favour of the Hornet. Armand, any thoughts?

Safest because Super Hornet is a proven aircraft, Gripen NG is only certifying their tech demostrator at this very minute. Most favoured candidate because US can offer way more offsets than Sweden can. And finally, a superior aircraft. I imagine BAE dumping Saab might have something to do with it. Sweden is going to have a hard time marketing this fighter without their bribery pot.

 

[Armand2REP]

The defense will have a fighter who is coming out of production

If Denmark postpones future fighter much longer, the course is run for Boeing candidate. And thus becomes extremely expensive Joint Strike Fighter only option assesses several experts

By: Charlotte Aagaard
16. March 2010 | History
Last Updated 17th March 2010 kl. 11:20.

The fighter, as the Danish Defense identifies as successor to current F-16 aircraft is actually coming out of production. It confirms several international experts, and this means that Denmark right now can make a really good deal for the aircraft manufacturer Boeing is willing to do almost anything to keep production of F-18 Super Hornet started.

But it also means that the race is run, if the Danish fighter postponed yet again - as a number of parties behind the defense bill advocates.

"The farther Denmark defers its decision, the greater the risk that Boeing meanwhile shut production down," said Andrew Brookes, a former military scientist at the prestigious British Institute of International and Strategic Studies, ĮÌß, Now head of the Air League.

Jacob Borresen, senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Studies, NORRIS, Agree.

"Boeing's Super Hornet is fully aware of the difficulties," he says, pointing to the empty order books and the generous offer, which Boeing, as late as yesterday, beating Japan: If only the Japanese will buy ten Super Hornet aircraft, they can be allowed to take over a large portion of production, offers aerospace company.

Not the best

The two experts are somewhat divided on Boeing aircraft capacity. Jacob Børresen is certainly not impressed by the Super Hornets abilities.

"It is both an old-fashioned, heavy and sluggish aircraft," he says, pointing to a series of reviews of the aircraft, which he has received from the pilots in the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy, which both use the aircraft.

Andrew Brookes is more positive and emphasizes that the latest version of the Super Hornet is much better than previous versions.

He therefore considers the latest edition is a good aircraft for the price.

"There have been major improvements, both in aircraft stealth characteristics, the design of the hull and wings, and also with regard to the electronics used," he says.

The aircraft, Boeing sells today, according to Andrew Brookes could deliver it, as a country the size of Denmark's needs:

"It is a good alternative to the Joint Strike Fighter, although perhaps only 85 percent of what JSFaircraft can. Hornet can cunningly used to monitor the Danish airspace and the bombing in Afghanistan, if that is what Denmark will. But it probably can not be used to attack Beijing in 2050 - but it's also the question whether it would be appropriate for a small NATO ally like Denmark, "he says.

A good deal

Both researchers describe Boeing's position in the military field as pretty desperate after the U.S. Department of Defense has decided to bet on Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter as the future fighter aircraft.

Andrew Brookes therefore believe that Denmark can make a good deal if you sow now.

"Boeing is obviously keen to keep production of Super Hornet started as long as possible so that Denmark could have given the aircraft with great discount" he says.

And there is after all still a lot of countries, flying Super Hornet many years to come, so spare parts should Denmark could probably get anyway. Both USA, Canada, and Australia's new Super Hornets in their fleet.

Andrew Brookes and Jacob Borresen also assesses both that it will probably be the last time that a country like Denmark should go and buy fighter jets. Next time will their role be taken over by the drone, drones and other ways to fire bombs.

Information would have liked a comment from Project New Combat aircraft, which have been properly prepared recommendations for policies, but the press spokesman Bodil Kofoed notice that neither the group nor the military leadership wants to comment fighter compeition before the recommendation is delivered to the Defense Gitte Lillelund Bech (V).

Both Social Democrats and the Radicals SF have spoken of a postponement of the Danish aircraft purchases with regard to the many uncertainties currently surrounding the Joint Strike Fighter project has been delayed. Moreover, the price of JSFaircraft currently stands at half a billion piece.

Monday, it emerged that the Danish military believes that Boeing's Super Hornet is the best choice, given the uncertainty JSF and the economic situation into consideration. Information sources of defense confirms that the defense points to Boeing aircraft in the so-called military professional assessment of the three candidates. The third candidate, the Swedish Gripen from Saab's factories, according to sources is completely out of the competition.

http://www.information.dk/227431

 

[nandu]

Australia Unruffled By F-35 Delays

SYDNEY - Australia's minister for defense, Sen. John Faulkner, is unruffled by the latest cost and schedule difficulties afflicting the Joint Strike Fighter program. And senior defense officials in Canberra say they believe that Australia's plans to acquire up to 100 F-35A Lightning II aircraft aren't much affected by the JSF project's cost overruns.That's because of budget and schedule buffers built into the Royal Australian Air Force's New Air Combat Capability (NACC) program, which is buying the planes, he said.A senior defense official in Canberra said March 18 that Australia's budget for the program, and the timing of its orders, are based on the NACC program office's own independent estimates of the JSF program's cost and schedule. These take into account the estimates from the Joint Program Office in Washington and from Lockheed Martin, the JSF's prime contractor, but they include a contingency margin, he said.

Source: Asian Defence

 

[Armand2REP]

Australia was already ruffled by the F-35 delays years ago which is why they bought Super Hornets. RAAF will likely only get 50 F-35s.

 

[mattster]

Anytime you have a major paradigm shift in the design of an aircraft, then cost is going to go up. Adding the R & D costs to the cost of the plane inflates the number.

When you take the NRE(Non Recuring Engineering which includes the R & D part) cost of a project like the F-22 and try to amortize the cost of NRE into the cost of each plane sold, then you get a hugely bloated number.

In the case of the F-22, the NRE costs should be viewed as a separate piece of which only a portion should be added to the cost of the plane.
The R & D part of it should be eaten by the government and partners as the price to new state of the art technology.

For instance, imagine if you were to take the entire R & D cost of the Tejas programme and the Kaveri engine program by DRDO from the very begining 20 or 30 year ago, and use that number as part of the calculation of the cost of each LCA aircraft - then you will get something that looks like this.

Lets say for sake of argument that the total entire program cost of the LCA from the very begining 20 years ago to now is Rs. 10000 cr for the LCA and Rs. 5000 cr for the Kaveri. That would make the total cost about Rs. 15000 cr approx. about $3.7 billion US dollars. I am sure this number is really much higher in reality....but I just want to make a point here.

Assuming that the IAF and IN order around 150 LCAs throughout the life of this aircraft. If you wrap up the R & D cost into the price of each aircraft, then you would have a cost of US 25 million dollars assigned to price of each LCA aircraft before you even pay out HAL one dime for the actual manufacturing, labor, and parts, assembly cost of the aircraft.

Then your $20 million dollar LCA, will become more like $40 million or $50 million providing they build 150, but if it gets obsolete and the IAF buys less, then the cost goes up even more.

This is what the US GAO is doing in calculating the cost of each F-22. I am not saying it doesnt make sense from an accounting standpoint, but take it with a grain of salt !

 

[nrj]

F-35 Lightning II nails first vertical landing

F-35 JSF Succeeds In First Vertical Landing
​

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md., March 18th, 2010 -- A supersonic Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35B Lightning II stealth fighter rode more than 41,000 pounds of thrust to a vertical landing today for the first time, confirming its required ability to land in confined areas both ashore and afloat.

“Today’s vertical landing onto a 95-foot square pad showed that we have the thrust and the control to maneuver accurately both in free air and in the descent through ground effect,” said F-35 Lead STOVL Pilot Graham Tomlinson.

Tomlinson performed an 80-knot (93 miles per hour) short takeoff from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., at 1:09 p.m. EDT. About 13 minutes into the flight, he positioned the aircraft 150 feet above the airfield, where he commanded the F-35 to hover for approximately one minute then descend to the runway.




“The low workload in the cockpit contrasted sharply with legacy short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) platforms,” said Tomlinson, a retired Royal Air Force fighter pilot and a BAE Systems employee since 1986. “Together with the work already completed for slow-speed handling and landings, this provides a robust platform to expand the fleet’s STOVL capabilities.”

Robert J. Stevens, Lockheed Martin chairman and chief executive officer, said, “Today’s vertical landing of the F-35 BF-1 aircraft was a vivid demonstration of innovative technology that will serve the global security needs of the U.S. and its allies for decades to come. I am extremely proud of the F-35 team for their dedication, service and performance in achieving this major milestone for the program.”

Doug Pearson, Lockheed Martin vice president of F-35 Test and Verification, said, “The successful first vertical landing today met our test objectives and demonstrates the F-35B’s capacity to operate from a very small area at sea or on shore – a unique capability for a supersonic, stealth fighter. This is the first of many such tests to fully define the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) characteristics of the world’s most capable 5th generation fighter. We will routinely conduct vertical landings and short takeoffs to further expand the operational flight envelope for the F-35B.”

The aircraft in today’s test, known as BF-1, is one of three F-35B STOVL jets currently undergoing flight trials at the Patuxent River test site. It is powered by a single Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan engine driving a counter-rotating Rolls-Royce LiftFan®. The shaft-driven LiftFan system, which includes a Rolls-Royce three-bearing swivel duct that vectors engine thrust and under-wing roll ducts that provide lateral stability, produces more than 41,000 pounds of vertical lift. The F135 is the most powerful engine ever flown in a fighter aircraft.

The F-35B will replace U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B STOVL fighters and F/A-18 strike fighters. The United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and the Italian Air Force and Navy will employ the F-35B as well. With its short takeoff and vertical landing capability, the F-35B will enable allied forces to conduct operations from small ships and unprepared fields, enabling expeditionary operations around the globe.

The F-35 program is using the Lockheed Martin-developed Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) for maintenance actions, spares tracking and technical data support.ALIS is part of the F-35’s innovative sustainment architecture monitored by the F-35 Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS) Operations Center in Fort Worth. The early deploymentof the F-35 net-enabled logistics system to be used by all nine partner countries helps ensure the F-35'ssmooth transition to operational status, and is a key enabler for lower life cycle costs.

The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations, advanced sustainment, and lower operational and support costs. Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.

 

[Armand2REP]

Boeing is upto some tricks I guess. All those who have raised issues with the JSF have looked at the F18. My conspiracy theory mind thinks.

It isn't Boeing tricks, it is LockMart's failure to reduce costs of F-35.

 

[nandu]

Flawless’ vertical landing by F-35 signals possible tipping point

Flawless’ vertical landing by F-35 signals possible tipping point

Lockheed Martin still has much to prove, but two days of flight tests on 17-18 March did more than offer a short burst of relief for the F-35 programme's supporters.
Both the timing and visual effect of the hover and vertical landing tests offer the opportunity for Lockheed to achieve a critical tipping point in the programme.
In a single 13min sortie, BAE Systems test pilot Graham Tomlinson provided a vivid glimpse of the F-35's most impressive features, which Lockheed rushed to post on YouTube within an hour of the event.
Moreover, achieving both hover and vertical landing milestone events within a two-day window - with only the availability of a redundant search and rescue helicopter delaying the vertical landing event by 2h - lends hope that Lockheed can begin closing a gaping lag in the flight-test schedule.
Only about 3% of more than 1,200 flight tests planned in fiscal year 2010 had been completed through February, while the vertical landing itself had been delayed from mid-2009.
As always, programme officials spoke confidently of making real progress. Speaking after the historic flight, Tomlinson said the same flight recorded a total of 40 test points. Lockheed plans call for averaging 10 test points per each sortie over the nine-year span of the flight-test phase on all three aircraft variants.
"It's certainly not a smooth sequence yet, but we're making some giant steps with some of the sorties we're experiencing at the moment," Tomlinson says.
Perhaps humbled by a series of recent setbacks, Tom Burbage, Lockheed F-35 vice-president, struck a cautious tone. F-35 programme officials predicted at last year's Paris air show that the programme would achieve 1,600 sorties in 2011, meaning each of the 12 flight test aircraft would fly 12 times a month. But Burbage stopped short of predicting such success after the vertical landing event.
Instead, he cited the programme's arguably next biggest milestone event. Lockheed is scheduled to fly two conventional take-off and landing F-35As to Eglin AFB, Florida, in mid-year to stand-up the first training unit.
By that time, Burbage says, "we'll be able to get a really good lock on whether we can achieve these kind of legacy-type [sortie] rates, and we think we will".
For the moment, however, the programme can celebrate a key breakthrough. Even some of the programme officials acknowledged the F-35B's flawless landing surprised them.
"I'm still rather speechless about it," says Tomlinson, lead test pilot for the short take-off and vertical landing variant. "We constantly expected we'd get issues and we saw nothing."

http://www.flightglobal.com

 

[Rage]

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter thread

I propose this singular thread for developments on the Joint Strike Fighter front.

..................

F136 Reaches Full Thrust In Afterburner Test

Mar 26, 2010

By Guy Norris
Cincinnati


Away from the funding furor in Washington over the F136 alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, the General Electric/Rolls-Royce development team is pushing ahead with full performance tests after running the production-configuration engine in maximum afterburner for the first time.

The milestone was achieved on Engine 006, the first of six system development and demonstration (SDD) production-standard F136s due to be run by the end of 2010, and it clears the engine for unrestricted afterburner operation, says the team. Performance, durability, operability and control data from the tests provide the basis for initial flight release in 2011 of the F-35 conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) version.

“The plan is to have more than 1,000 hr. on the latest SDD configuration,” says GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team President Al DiLibero. “This will be a tri-variant configuration, and we’re confident we’re in a good position to meet the aircraft specification.” Although the focus is on tests for the F-35A conventional variant engine, GE/Rolls-Royce says the work also lays the foundation for trials later this year that will support tests of the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) version.

“Make no mistake about it, 2010 is the year of execution. What we are doing on Engine 006 will pave the way for the rest of the program,” says DiLibero. Tests also proved changes to the instrumentation, which failed in its original configuration and twice interrupted initial ground runs of the first SDD engine last year.

The configuration also includes revisions to clearances in the No. 4 bearing and strengthened attachments on the diffuser splitter between the combustion chamber and turbine inlet, both due to findings of the initial SDD tests. The beefed-up bolts in the combustor/diffuser/nozzle assembly were added after borescope inspections revealed that a loose unit caused turbine blade impact damage during runs of Engine 005 last October.

With all the improvements in place, DiLibero says Engine 006 test results so far indicate performance and durability is exceeding design expectations and turbine inlet temperatures are cooler than planned. “So that’s more margin for durability, or power,” he adds. GE/Rolls-Royce declines to comment on the top thrust levels achieved in maximum afterburner, but the team previously said it anticipated an estimated 5% margin over the F-35’s baseline Pratt & Whitney F135 powerplant.

“Both engine developers are working to the same specifications, and our customer has made it clear it is not in anybody’s interests to be over. However, we’re on firm ground by saying we have margin,” says F136 marketing manager Tim Morison. GE/Rolls-Royce says the additional thrust may be particularly valuable for increasing weapons bring-back capability and hover performance for the F-35B Stovl version. “We think the three-stage low-pressure turbine is what drives the margin in Stovl,” Morison says.

Tests of Engine 006 are being run in GE’s altitude test facility in Evendale, Ohio, which simulates inlet conditions at both high altitude and high Mach numbers. For full afterburner tests, the engine was connected to the common exhaust system designed to accommodate both the F135 and the F136. One test of the engine, which incorporates a radial augmenter design derived from the F414 and F110-129-132, included running at maximum afterburner for more than 60 sec., the team says.

Preparations are also underway to add the next two test engines that together will help qualify several key technologies, including the F136’s counter-rotating vaneless turbine configuration and lightweight ceramic matrix composite vanes. Next in line is Engine 005, which will be used for both performance and operability tests at Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) in Tullahoma, Tenn., this summer. The engine is currently being built up and will be checked out at GE’s Evendale site before shipping to AEDC in the second quarter. Aeromechanical testing will be undertaken in mid-year using the second build of Engine 004.

“Engines 005 and 007 will be piggybacking off each other for operability and performance software tests,” says *DiLibero. Engine 008 will be used throughout the second half of 2010 for CTOL accelerated mission testing in the Evendale altitude test facility, while Engine 009 is expected to run in the fourth quarter as part of a series of ingestion and vibration tests. A second build of Engine 006 will be used for the start of Stovl tests late in the year, DiLibero says.

“We have funding in fiscal year 2010, and we’ve had to work with the funding available,” says DiLibero, noting that the current test plan “supports the whole CTOL initial flight release in 2011.” The target for first flight of a F136-powered F-35 is December 2011, while the first flight of the Stovl version is planned for about a year later, with initial service release anticipated at the end of 2013.

DiLibero, the architect of last year’s surprise fixed-price contract offer for engines in low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 5, says that despite the continuing funding uncertainty, “we feel confident in what we can do, and what we can deliver. We’re willing to take on that risk.”

The proposal, which effectively brings forward by two years the date by which the F136 could be competed on the F-35, covers a fixed-price proposal for the initial 21 engines in LRIP Lot 5 instead of the original cost-plus contract of the directed buy plan for Lots 5 and 6. As currently envisioned, the aircraft in Lot 7 are the first F-35s that would be competed with both engines.

“With the restructuring of the program, we’ve got to look at how that comes out. However, we still feel confident in what we offered up last year,” says DiLibero. “All we want to do is have an opportunity to compete, and we’re so close to completing development of this program.”

GE/Rolls-Royce estimates $1.3 billion will be needed to finish the effort in the next five years, including all tooling and associated infrastructure. Of this, it says less than $1 billion is needed to complete development, versus almost $3 billion spent to date. “The bottom line is we’re still focused on what we need to deliver and on engine testing,” DiLibero says.

Photo: GE/Rolls-Royce


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ll Thrust In Afterburner Test&channel=defense


------

Feel free to converse about the JSF F-35 when you so desire.

Here's your F-35B:

 

[nandu]

U.S. Marines Remain Committed To JSF Program, For Now

The future of U.S. Marines on aircraft carriers may hinge on the F-35 program. The Marine Corps, which is the only U.S. service that has not announced a significant delay for the Joint Strike Fighter, remains fully committed to the F-35B Lightning II short take-off, vertical landing variant. Marine officials have already purchased 29 planes in the fiscal 2008-10 budgets and officials insist they are on track to see a squadron operational by December 2012.
he test plane, BF-1, conducted its first vertical landing March 18, checking off a major milestone in the F-35B program, but that event was delayed by almost a year. Still, officials with Lockheed Martin, the F-35's lead manufacturer, and the Corps said they are confident the timeline will be met, adding that the first two training aircraft are expected to be delivered by the end of 2010.

"We are going to be able to operate our planes from the sea, on our amphibious force fleets initially, and we'll move ashore to the same kinds of forward operating bases that we operate the AV-8B," Lt. Gen. George Trautman, the deputy commandant for aviation, said in a conference call with reporters.

Trautman said nothing about the Corps' jets operating from carriers - as the Marines F/A-18 Hornets do today - but he did say the first F-35 squadron is expected to deploy with a Marine expeditionary unit in 2014.

Some observers say the Corps' commitment to the F-35B is driven by a long-term desire to break away from Navy carriers. A powerful and versatile fighter jet that could operate from smaller-deck amphibs would grant the Marines more autonomy than ever before.

"If the F-35B makes its numbers, that empowers the Marines in their effort to get a divorce from the traditional large carrier groups," said Richard Aboulafia, a defense analyst with the Teal Group in Virginia.

Big Navy is not happy about the potential break up.

At a time when the Navy is already facing questions about whether it really needs 11 carriers in the fleet, the leadership will have an even harder time persuading lawmakers to fund the world's largest ships if the Marines don't have any use for them.

The Corps, however, maintains that it wants a fifth-generation fighter capable of operating off carriers, amphibs and from forward operating bases downrange, said Capt. Craig Thomas, a Marine spokesman based at the Pentagon.

Commandant Gen. James Conway has admitted that the service does not have any clear alternatives to the F-35B, since it opted not to purchase any F/A-18 Super Hornets. The service's aging Hornets will start transitioning out of service in fiscal 2013 as will its Harriers. That means questions about the future of the F-35 may lead to even more questions about the future of the Marine's fixed-wing fleet, according to some analysts. If the F-35 became too expensive, the Marines may have no other options. While the Navy can just buy more Super Hornets, the Corps has expressed no interest in buying them or extending the purchase of the AV-8B Harriers.

"In the end, the Marines may not have a jump jet," said James Hasik, a defense analyst in Virginia. "I'm not terribly convinced of the argument that the Marine Corps actually needs its own close-support arm that isn't rotary driven."

Winslow Wheeler, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington, agreed.

"How many times have you seen an AV-8B land next to a unit engaged in combat to talk to the commander and get insights on the close-air support mission?" Wheeler said. "I don't think it's ever happened."

Thomas says the Corps has no intentions of saying goodbye to its fixed-wing fleet. The Corps' commitment to the aircraft is a key factor, said Bob Dunn, a retired Navy vice admiral who has watched it closely.

"When the Marines get dedicated to something, they are going to go for it - come hell or high water," Dunn said.

http://www.defensenews.com

 

[Agantrope]

Gen II Helmet Display Flies On F-35B

Vision Systems International (VSI), on March 22 said its F-35 Gen II Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) completed its first flight on the F-35B Lightning II.

The Gen II HMDS displays biocular video and symbology information on the helmet visor, providing pilots with information necessary to execute day and night missions. Night imagery is provided by the helmet-mounted night camera and aircraft Distributed Aperture System (DAS). Pilots also can cue onboard weapons and sensors using the helmet display.

Days earlier, Lockheed Martin announced the first vertical landing of the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B.

“The most advanced helmet-mounted display system in the world flew a very successful flight on the F-35,” said VSI President Drew Brugal. “The Gen II system is the culmination of extensive VSI R&D. It provides the F-35 aviator unmatched situational awareness, presenting symbology and pilot-selectable augmented reality in a wide field-of-view display format.”

VSI, a joint venture of Elbit Systems of America and Rockwell Collins, is performing under a low-rate initial production contract to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics for delivery of the Gen II helmet displays and aircraft ship-sets. The company also has received contracts for production tooling and initial funding for the Pilot Fit Facility Standup at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/categories/military/Gen-II-Helmet-Display-Flies-On-F-35B_67262.html