F35 JSF Actualité

GE Aviation, with responsibility for 60 percent of the F136 program, is developing the core compressor and coupled high-pressure/low-pressure turbine system components, controls and accessories, and the augmentor (afterburner).

Rolls-Royce, with 40 percent of the F136 program, is responsible for the front fan, combustor, high pressure turbine nozzle, stages 2 and 3 of the low-pressure turbine, and gearboxes.

Conclusions

The Joint Strike Fighter is demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft in the sense of designs like the F-117A, B-2A and F-22A, as its stealth performance varies much more strongly with aspect and threat radar operating frequency band.

The degradation of the initially intended Joint Strike Fighter stealth performance occurred during the SDD program when a series of design changes made to the lower fuselage of the aircraft resulted in fundamental shaping changes in comparison with the X-35 Dev/Val prototype aircraft.[/font][/font] The Joint Strike Fighter SDD design departs strongly from key stealth shaping rules employed in the development of the F-117A, B-2A, and F-22A, or the never built YF-23A and A-12A designs.

As a result the tactical options available to Joint Strike Fighter users when confronted with penetrating modern Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS) are mostly those necessary to ensure the survival of non-stealthy legacy aircraft types.

The result of these limitations is that the operational economics of a fighter force using the Joint Strike Fighter will be much inferior to a force using a true all aspect stealth aircraft such as the F-22A Raptor.

As with claims made for Joint Strike Fighter air combat capability, claims made for the Joint Strike Fighter concerning the penetration of IADS equipped with modern radars and SAMs are not analytically robust, and cannot be taken seriously.

Moreover, it is clear that future Joint Strike Fighter users will pay a significant price penalty for a stealth capability unable to deliver much, if any, return on such investment.

Gajillion-Dollar Stealth Fighter, Now Easier to Shoot Down

The jet that’s supposed to make up more than 90 percent of America’s combat aviation fleet may have become a lot easier to shoot down.
Lockheed Martin, makers of the Joint Strike Fighter, has been under huge pressure to stabilize the jet’s skyrocketing costs. Production prices have nearly doubled on what was supposed to be an “affordable” fighter. R&D money is up another 40 percent. Some analysts predict the program could run as much as $388 billion for 2,400 jets.
So Lockheed decided “to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems,” according to InsideDefense.com.
But those cuts made it much harder for the Joint Strike Fighter to withstand a hit from an anti-aircraft weapon. “When you have something full of fuel under high pressure, some of it very hot, flowing close to hot metal parts and 270 VDC electrical components, your shutoff and check valves and fire suppression in the dry bays (places fuel will spray into) are your only defense,” a knowledgeable observer notes.
Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s chief weapons tester, recommended in a letter to Congress last month “that these features be reinstated.” The amount saved by trimming these components, he noted, would be more than made up, if just two aircraft were lost. “Live-fire ballistic testing has demonstrated that the JSF is vulnerable.” [CORRECTED: The second half of the quote was originally attributed to Lt. Gen. George Trautman, who favors the change.]

Now, one of the JSF’s now selling points was that it wouldn’t have to worry to much about taking on anti-aircraft fire; the jet would be so stealthy that the ground-to-air guns would never find it. But according to a report published by Air Power Australia, the plane is easier to spot than originally advertised. In fact, it is “demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft.”
Locheed says a recent “technological breakthrough” has fixed all that: a fiber mat that can blend stealthy qualities right into the composite skin of the aircraft.
And in an e-mail to Danger Room, Lockheed spokesman John Kent basically said the Pentagon tester was all wrong about the plane’s vulnerability.
“Rigorous combat analysis revealed that the survivability improvements afforded by the engine fuses and fire extinguishing features were very small,” Kent wrote. “These changes were thoroughly reviewed by the F-35 Operational Advisory Group and approved through the joint JSF Executive Steering Board, which includes membership from all nine JSF partner counties. All agreed that the weight saved by the elimination of these components would be better utilized in maintaining the performance capabilities of the aircraft. The present design meets the JSFPO’s expectations for vulnerability.”
Well, yeah. That’s true. “With the exception of a 30mm high-explosive incendiary round typically associated with light anti-aircraft artillery,” wrote Lt. Gen. George Trautman, the Marines’ deputy commandant for aviation, who favored the trim. Like the kind Russia has, and sells all around the world.

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.

Israel Approves Buy of 20 JSFs

After years of negotiations, Israel is moving ahead with plans to purchase 20 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters under an estimated $2.75 billion deal.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave his final approval Aug. 15 to buy the fifth-generation jets, along with training and maintenance gear, using a $3 billion defense grant from the United States, Reuters reported this week.The jets will not be outfitted with Israeli-built mission systems that the Middle Eastern nation has long wanted to put on any F-35s it buys.

Final Israeli government approval for the deal is expected in September. The jets are slated to be delivered between 2015 and 2017, making Israel the first non-JSF partner nation to operate the fighter.

Jump jets to fall victim to spending cuts
New jump jets for the next generation of Royal Navy aircraft carriers will be cancelled to save money.

In a move that could put hundreds of British manufacturing jobs at risk, defence chiefs are ready to abandon plans to buy a vertical-landing fighter jet for the Royal Navy.

Instead, a cheaper conventional-landing warplane will replace the Navy’s Harriers when they retire.

The decision is the first to emerge from the Strategic Defence Review to have direct consequences for British industry. Rolls Royce will be hard hit by the move, which could also strain British relations with the US.

The Navy is buying two new aircraft carriers at a cost of more than £5 billion. Army and RAF chiefs have questioned that plan and suggested that one carrier should be scrapped or shared with the French navy.

Attempting to defend the carriers, Royal Navy chiefs are seeking cuts elsewhere in their planned spending.

Aircraft carriers now in service carry Harrier jets, which are can take off from a short runway and land vertically by directing the blast of their engines downwards.

The next generation of carriers are expected to carry US-made Joint Strike Fighters.

Originally, the Navy was planning to buy a specially-adapted short take-off vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF, which would take off and land on the carriers much as Harriers do now.

However, developing and building the special STOVL version of the JSF would cost more than buying the conventional version, and insiders say that cost cannot be justified.

The military value of vertical landing has also been questioned by senior officers, who say conventional fighters are more useful because they can fly further and faster and carry more weapons.

Using conventional jets would also make it easier to conduct joint operations with allies including the US and France, whose carriers

As a result of those calculations, the STOVL aircraft is set to be scrapped in favour of the cheaper conventional JSF, which would be launched from the new carriers using catapults.

In recent weeks, the MoD has quietly commissioned design work on catapults to launch jets from the new carriers, due to enter service in 2014 and 2016.

Because construction work on the ships is still at an early stage, adapting their designs to accommodate conventional aircraft is said to be relatively easy.

In addition, a team of 12 Royal Navy pilots has been sent to the US to train with conventional take-off aircraft on carriers.

Much of the specialised engine system for the STOVL jet is being made by Rolls Royce in Bristol, and the switch would jeopardise hundreds of jobs there.

The decision to abandon the STOVL jet could be rubber-stamped at a meeting of the National Security Council next week, although ministers are aware that the move could be controversial.

Giving up on the STOVL aircraft could lead to accusations of waste, since the Ministry of Defence has already spent more than £500 million on the programme.

But insiders say the overall saving of buying standard fighters instead will more than justify writing off that spending.

Pulling out of the STOVL project could also strain British relations with the US. The STOVL jet is being jointly developed with the US Marine Corps, and without British involvement, US costs are likely to increase.

Government sources said ministers will blame the previous administration for the need to change plans on the carriers and their aircraft.

A source said: “Labour chose the wrong type of aircraft and the wrong configuration of carrier, and they wasted a lot of money doing it. What’s going on now is about trying to fix that mess.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the Autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”

F-35 alternate engine damaged after high-speed anomalyBy Stephen Trimble

General Electric/Rolls Royce is investigating manufacturing and assembly data on a single F136 engine after it was damaged during a checkout test on 23 September. The alternate engine for the Lockheed Martin F-35 was shut down "in a controlled manner" after an unknown anomaly at near maximum fan speed on the test stand damaged the front fan and compressor area, the company says. The GE/Rolls team is continuing to run two test engines after inspections revealed no signs of "similar distress". Five development engines have run for more than 1,000h since early 2009 so far. As the cause for the anomaly on the eighth development engine continues to be investigated, US lawmakers are debating whether to insert funding to keep the programme alive against the wishes of the Department of Defense. Since 2006, the DOD has tried to cancee the F136 alternate engine, arguing that the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine is sufficient to power the F-35. But a majority of lawmakers have consistently opposed cancellation. The F136's supporters cite the benefits of competition and the risk of relying on a single engine. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/09/28/347904/f-35-alternate-engine-damaged-after-high-speed-anomaly.html

Monopolies do not create incentives to reach for higher standards. Competition leads to higher quality and better value.

As a program manager who has worked on both the commercial and military sides for an aerospace supplier, I know that when vendors compete on cost, quality and schedule, the customer wins. In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), that customer is the American taxpayer. That is why I am troubled that the Defense Department is asking Congress to eliminate competition on the JSF engine.

For the past 15 years, both parties in Congress have agreed that a competitive environment is necessary to control costs related to the production and development of the JSF engine. They decided to fund a head-to-head competition between two powerplants, one by Pratt & Whitney (P&W) and one by the GE/Rolls-Royce team, with the understanding that such a competition would not only drive down costs, but inspire greater performance and safety standards.

But now, the Defense Department is pressing Congress to remove competition from the equation and grant P&W a $100-billion, sole-source monopoly for the next 30 years. While this may appear logical in the short term, it’s the wrong approach for the long-term. It would negatively affect the security of our airmen and the readiness of our aircraft.

Engine competition on the JSF project is driving cost savings today for taxpayers and our military. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has analyzed this issue in depth. Its findings indicate that funding the competition will ultimately save taxpayers $20 billion over the life of the program—and $5 billion in the next five years, when compared to single-sourcing.

What is more, the GAO found that P&W is already $2.5 billion over budget, and the price of its production engines is 40% higher than the company predicted. These are compelling numbers. Competition­—not monopoly—is the single most effective cost-control mechanism we can use for the next 30 years.

We figured this out in the late 1970s and ‘80s during the “Great Engine Competition.” Back then, I learned about the value of dual sourcing first-hand, when my friends and I were flying F-15s and F-16s that relied on a single engine manufacturer. As problems with the powerplants arose, the military was forced to ground sizable portions of its fleet while the problems were corrected. When the U.S. went from single to dual sourcing, competition drove up performance, safety and reliability.

Recognizing that relying on a single manufacturer would have put our national security at risk, the Defense Department decided it was essential to introduce a competing engine program. Every day, both manufacturers went to work knowing that unless they upgraded the capability of their engines, they could lose significant shares of the next buy. Quality improved substantially. And the nation witnessed a steady growth in reliability, performance and fuel economy and a drop in engine-related accidents for those fighter aircraft.

Today, competition on mission-critical aircraft components, like the JSF engine, is still essential to ensure the preparedness of our troops and allies. The JSF will represent 95% of America’s jet fighters; depending on a single-source engine threatens grounding the entire, massive fleet should powerplant problems arise. The F-15 and F-16 story has proven that our armed forces and taxpayers win with dual-source providers who compete on a program in similar size to the JSF engine.

After 15 years and a $2.5-billion investment, with only two years to go to ensure competition in engine procurement, shutting down the F136 engine program simply to meet short-term budget pressures is not logical. The GE/Rolls-Royce engine is on budget and will save taxpayers money. With the finish line so clearly in sight and the benefits so clear, stifling competition now makes no sense militarily or economically. Competition will better serve our national security, our troops and airmen, and our taxpayers.

I chair the national alliance called Aerospace States Association and the Vermont Aerospace & Aviation Association. Like my colleagues in other states, I am proud of my state’s substantial contributions to the industry. We at the grass roots of the American aerospace industry know that competition breeds excellence and economic growth. Washington owes it to our states and to the nation to preserve this competition.

Viewpoint by Vermont Lt. Gov. Brian E. Dubie, who has been a program manager at Goodrich and a commander in the Air National Guard.

There's not a lot of good news for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the UK review. A requirement for 138 F-35Bs has been wiped out and replaced by a smaller - possibly much smaller - number of F-35Cs. The UK's baseline plan is to retain only one carrier with a normal air wing comprising only 12 F-35Cs, while keeping the option to expand the wing to 36 jets - presumably by borrowing aircraft from the land-based units that replace the Tornado GR.4.

That requirement could be met by a 50-aircraft order. But there is lots of time to make that decision because the catapult-modified Prince of Wales will not be operational for another ten years.

Meanwhile, note this aside from the full UK report: "Overall, the carrier-variant of the JSF will be cheaper, reducing through-life costs by around 25%." This is not good even if the UK didn't include the added costs of cats, wires and deck-landing training in its calculations. If they did...

Could this mean that the F-35B itself is vulnerable? Granted, it's a long time since the Marines lost a budget fight, but most people expect that to happen with the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. And as DTI has reported, changes in the role of the Marine Corps could reduce the added value that STOVL brings to the force.

Losing the UK requirement will increase the cost of the F-35B, but a more subtle aspect is this: until now, F-35B defenders could argue that delaying, cutting back, or reviewing the STOVL variant was political dynamite because it would leave the main international partner's defense program dead in the water. That's no longer the case.

It's not the best time for the STOVL version to be restricted from powered-lift operations.

Meanwhile, competitors are starting to talk more boldly about taking on JSF. At Defense IQ's Fighter Conference in London today, Boeing vice-president for international business development Rick McCrary briefed predictions for the next ten years that included a start on technology development for a new Navy strike fighter in 2013 and EMD in 2016-17, as well as the extension of the Super Hornet as a "bridge" to the new program.

"It certainly isn't" the Navy program of record, he said, but Boeing holds the view that anti-access threats - such as China's anti-ship ballistic missile - will push the Navy into looking for a bigger increase in range than the F-35C offers[/size]

More surprising was a scathing attack on Labour's previous selection of the STOVL F-35B to meet the UK's projected 138-aircraft Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. The government will switch its commitment to the F-35C carrier variant (below), which Cameron says is "more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons". Buying the future US Navy type will reduce life-cycle costs by around 25%, the Ministry of Defence says.


© Lockheed Martin


The UK must now find a way of reaching an agreement with Washington over scrapping orders for three F-35Bs to have been used during initial operational test and evaluation. Rolls-Royce will also suffer directly from the decision, with the US Marine Corps and potentially Italy now the only remaining buyers for the STOVL version, which features its lift fan technology. And it makes a continuation of its alternate F136 engine programme for the Joint Strike Fighter with General Electric ever more important.

LOCKHEED MARTIN pourrait déléguer la production des F-35 :

(AOF) - Lockheed Martin envisagerait d'outsourcer une partie de la
production du F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a indiqué un cadre du groupe
cité par l'agence Reuters. Le fabricant américain pourrait ainsi
déléguer une partie de la production à des sociétés nippones si le
gouvernement japonais décidait de choisir ce modèle pour équiper sa
prochaine flotte de chasseurs. Le groupe a précisé qu'il était confiant
dans sa capacité à respecter les délais de livraison et les conditions
techniques réclamées par le ministère japonais de la Défense.

http://www.boursorama.com/infos/actualites/detail_actu_societes.phtml?num=16cb330af1256ecbd459877f49cfb5f8

Is the JSF Faster Than We Thought?

By DAVE MAJUMDAR • PARIS — The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) might be faster than previously reported.

In a briefing at the Paris Air Show on June 21, U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. C.D. Moore, deputy program executive officer for the F-35 program, said that the aircraft could fly at 750 knots and Mach 1.6. That would mean that at certain altitudes, the aircraft has a top speed that is considerably higher than previously known, although the Mach limit would remain the same.

Just a week earlier, F-35 test pilot Lt. Col. Hank “Hog” Griffiths had said the aircraft could do just 700 knots and Mach 1.6. Other test pilots had previously cited the same airspeeds.

By way of comparison, the F-16 is a 800-knot and Mach 2 jet.