backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 132 comment(s) - last by Tomcatter.. on Dec 10 at 8:53 PM

Lockheed's F-35A Lightning II
Lockheed's F-35 program isn't exactly proceeding as planned

Earlier this week, DailyTech reported that the Pentagon is trying to sweep some money under the rug to pay for additional Lockheed F-22 fighter planes. Increased concerns over the reliability and structural soundness of the 30-year-old F-15 have lead to the calls for more of the $132 million USD F-22s.

It appears that the old F-15 isn't the only aircraft in the U.S. arsenal that is having problems. The F-35 program is facing setbacks of its own. The F-35 program suffered a serious setback on May 3 when a critical electrical system failure occurred while the jet was traveling 500 MPH at 38,000 feet -- the prototype plane, which was on its 19th test flight, had to be brought down for an emergency landing by the pilot and subsequent test flights were cancelled. The plane hasn't flown since and a scheduled flight for December 4 was scrubbed at the last minute.

Defense Industry Daily reports that the electrical system failure was attributed to a problem with the new 270 volt power supply that is used to control the aircraft's electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs).

"This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity -- not hydraulics," said F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley. Unfortunately for Lockheed, the EHA system now has to be redesigned to prevent further incidents.

In addition, the F-35C naval version suffers a design flaw in its power generator which in turn means that the gearbox for the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine has to be redesigned -- the redesign won't be complete until the close of 2009. The Pratt & Whitney F135 faced another setback in October when the engine overheated and blew up during bench testing.

But these are the least of the F-35's problems. The F-35 is being built and will be flown in conjunction with the help of a number of allies. European countries, which are eager to get their hands on the F-35, may not have fully functional, multi-role aircraft until 2016. The problem is due to the fact that software modules required to make the plane a competent air-superiority fighter are not yet complete and won't be until 2016 at the earliest.

As a result, the F-35 will be restricted to mainly ground-attack bombing runs.

There is the issue that the number of F-35s to be produced has been reduced from 3,500 to as little as 2,300 -- effectively raising the cost per plane -- and Australia's decision to go with the F/A-18 F Block II Super Hornet as a stopgate measure until the F-35 is ready.

The rising costs for the F-35 are looming over the entire program. "Nobody is interested in getting their airplanes earlier unless we can help them mitigate the fact the earlier airplanes cost more," remarked Lockheed executive vice president and F-35 program general manager Tom Burbage to the Star-Telegram.

Costs for the program have ballooned from $30 billion USD in 2002 to $40 billion USD today. And according to the Air Force, a single F-35 will cost $100 million USD when production is comfortably underway in 2013 -- this compares to $50 million USD for a single F-16 or $132 million USD for a single F-22 Raptor.

The F-35 program mechanical/electrical/avionics problems, delays and cost overruns are becoming burdensome to all nations involved. Many countries are looking to the F-35 to replace their aging fleets because the United States wants to keep its premier F-22 fighter to itself.

"If they're barred from buying the F-22, the question is, where do they go?" said Forecast International aerospace analyst Ray Jaworoski.

The F-35 will be produced in three variants: F-35A, F-35B and F-35C. The F-35A will be used by the United States Air Force to replace the F-16 and A-10, while the F-35B will take the place of the Marine Corps' AV-8 Harrier. The F-35C will be used by the Navy to replace the F-18A/B/C/D.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Electric
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 12:15:36 AM , Rating: 3
You know when I think of a fully electric jet I also think of that article about a microwave emitter for Police cruisers to disrupt and shut down the electrical systems of fleeing cars.

I wonder if that would work on multi-million dollar aircraft.




RE: Electric
By rqle on 12/6/2007 12:20:11 AM , Rating: 1
How are US AirPlane names? I wish they designated Air-Superiority fighter like the F15 and F22 in a different class then "FAS" class then just F+number. It makes it sound like the F16 > F15E but in reality its F22 > F15 > F18 > F16 in air superiority.


RE: Electric
By Goty on 12/6/2007 12:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or has the F15 not been the country's best air superiority fighter since... ohh, I don't know, the early 80s (i.e. the introduction of the F/A-18)?


RE: Electric
By IcY18 on 12/6/2007 12:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
The F-15 is the Air Superiority fighter designed to engaged any and all threats in any weather.

The F-16 was the winner in a competition against the F-18 for the Air Force's air combat fighter to complement the F-15.

So the Navy picked up the F-18 to compliment the F-14 the way the F-16 compliments the F-15.

So basically F-15 = air force, F-18 = Navy.


RE: Electric
By aeroengineer1 on 12/6/2007 1:24:57 AM , Rating: 3
The F-16 did not compete against the F-18 it competed against the F-17. It looked similar to the F-18, but was very different. It was a much smaller plane and much lighter than the F-18. The F-18 was 10,000lbs heaver than the F-17. It was also produced by a Northrop/Douglas team. Latter the F-18 was offered to the Navy as a lower cost plane to supplement the F-14.


RE: Electric
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/6/2007 1:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
If we want to get super technical, it was the YF-16 vs the YF-17 ;)


RE: Electric
By aeroengineer1 on 12/6/2007 1:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
Very true. Also to fill in the sequence of the numbers for the latest generation of fighters (30 years or so). There was the F-20 Tigershark, a derivative of the T-38/F-5 series. There was the F-21 Lion which was a plane built by Isreal (Kfir)and lease to the US. They were used in training roles. There was the YF-23 which competed against the F-22 and lost, though a very pretty airplane. And for the gap to the F-35, well that came as a surprise to Lockheed as they expected F-24 and probably was the result of the X-35 designation transferring to the fighter designation.


RE: Electric
By marvdmartian on 12/6/2007 9:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
I also remember, back around 1984, seeing a video where they talked about the development of an F-19 fighter. Don't remember if it was just an updated design of something else, or an all new design, but remember that the "cool" feature of it was the fact that it could be sitting on the tarmac (or in a revetment/hangar), a pilot could run out to it, flip a few switches, punch a button, and a minute later it'd be taxiing for takeoff. It had some sort of quick-start system for emergencies, which was being looked at to save fuel (you didn't have to have alert aircraft sitting idling, burning fuel on the tarmac), and to make it so if you were surprised by a sneak attack, you could get your fighters in the air quickly to defend your base.

The only downside is that once you used that quick start system something like 6 or 8 times, you had to replace the engine, since it put such a strain on it.

Oh, and let's not forget that long before it assumed a multiple role, the F-14 was the navy's air superiority fighter, likely equal to or exceeding the F-15 (imho).


RE: Electric
By inperfectdarkness on 12/6/2007 9:36:19 AM , Rating: 2
you'd better pray that you're wrong. (trust me, you are).

i say that, because the ONLY country flying the 14 is iran. if our "air-superiority" fighter can't stand up to it, we're in deep doo-doo.

trust me, the f-15 is far superior to the f-14 in every way. especially in maintaince costs. that was the reason for the inception of the super-hornet program. do a search on the % of mission readiness for the different airframes.


RE: Electric
By maverick85wd on 12/6/2007 10:36:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
i say that, because the ONLY country flying the 14 is iran.


that doesn't matter... anyone can get the air frames, it's the EW systems that are important. If you have an air frame and your electronics are crap it's just a fast plane


RE: Electric
By 1078feba on 12/6/2007 11:50:25 AM , Rating: 3
Well said. When you're talking over-the-horizon stand-off capability, it's all about the weps and software.

The only other countries on the face of the planet who are able to even remotely compete with the US anymore on that front are Russia and Israel. Russia because of all the legacy tech they had from the cold war, yet they fall further and further back each year. Israel out of pure necessity. India's making a charge, but they have quite a ways to go.


RE: Electric
By Cattman on 12/6/2007 11:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldnt be to concerned about Irans F-14's the weapons systems are non functional and they dont have any spare parts. They are sitting in storage somewhere quite harmlessly.


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 9:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
We said that in the '80s as well. We believed that and so did the Iraqiis. Unfortunately for them, the Iranians did buy into the story and used their F-14s to swat Iraqii jets like flies. Got the AIM-54s to work as well.


RE: Electric
By Chernobyl68 on 12/6/2007 1:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
The F-18 itself was designed to be a lower maintenance fighter. A driving force behind the Super Hornet version was the desire to have a longer range attack craft, which was lost when the A-6 was retired. No naval attack craft can compete with the Intruder for range.


RE: Electric
By cheetah2k on 12/6/2007 11:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
If the F15 is still the US's air superiority multi-role jet fighter, why not just take the F15 design and tweak it?

In the case where the F15 has been grounded due to fatigue, the US could be building more F15's now, and at half the price of 1 x F-22 or 1 x F35?

Two for One sounds like a deal to me!

I also just dont understand - "when it works - why change it?"


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 9:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from the age of the airframes, the excellent F-15 is no match for what's coming off the lines today. Typhoon, Rafale, probably Gripen, SU-27 and especially the SU-30 outmatch it. We have experience where F-15s have bounced Typhoons that hadn't yet been cleared for full maneuvers. Still, the Typhoons were on the Eagles' tails in less than one turn and could not be dislodged until the fight was called off. Look up Cope India 2004 and see how Eagles fared against SU-30s (and those weren't even the thrust vectoring ones).

In the case of F-22, although highly maneuverable, the tactic they use that has proven most effective so far is to supercruise at their normal altitude (which is 20-30,00 feet higher than that of most fighters) taking advantage of their stealth and "firing" down on their foes. In most cases the other fighters don't even realize the Raptors are even there until they're informed they've been killed.

We're going to always be outnumbered


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 9:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that was the F-20, where they got the idea to use the same cartridge system designed for airstarts after a flameout to light the engine on the ground for a scramble intercept (the aircraft having been prepositioned and the switches already set except for Master On). It didn't take a minute to get ready to taxi on an alert bird. Once you flipped Master ON and hit the start button, a minute later you were at 10,00 feet or so.

Using the cartridge didn't overstress the F404, it is a Great engine (as is the F110). But, using the cartridge was "dirty" which increase maintenance somewhat, plus unless you were on strip alert with a jet that was already "set up" it didn't gain you anything extra, so outside of that situation it wasn't used.