F-35 Lightning II (2) testing and production thread

reply to post by Harlequin


Umm is this the link people are refering too?
www.defenselink.mil...

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

so many threads so confusing

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

scroll down to `engine problems`

reply to post by Harlequin

As of December 1, 2007, neither Lockheed Martin's nor Hamilton Sundstrand's 2007 news archives show any trace of this award.

How convenient awarded a $71,503,988 modification that goes unlisted in the news. A major component was off by 35% for power output and they are like oh no big deal can't let anyone get wind of this they may walk away. Seriously why would you put your countries defense in greater risk with dealing with the USA military development complex that can't be trusted to be there when your planes start falling out of the sky and they run off with your money.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

actually

Lockheed Martin can issue a subcontract to Hamilton Sundstrand to fix the F135's power generator without any publicity, and they have done so.

Its only because P&W got a new contract to fix teh generator that any news of this came to light - LM won`t ever tell anyone this project is allready over budget will they.

Well we have official roll out of the F-35 B STOL airframe for inital testing. Got to love the mint green and white finish! lol. Seriously though if you had to rate this on fith gen looks I'm impressed! while not the prettest its defently interesting. On a more technical note.

Compared with the conventional take-off and landing F-35A already flying, the F-35B has a shaft-driven lift fan mounted behind the cockpit, roll ducts installed in the wing and swivelling nozzle fitted to the engine.
In STOVL mode, doors open above and below the lift fan, a clutch engages to drive the two-stage contra-rotating fan from the engine and the rear nozzle pivots downward to deflect engine thrust.

www.pbase.com...

www.flightglobal.com...



Lets hope these next test/tethered flights for the B version go smoother the the A versions first couple months. The flights are due to start in the early part of O8 so watch for more info then till then it will be more power on checks and taxi runs for the airframe.


[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Lets hope these next test/tethered flights for the B version go smoother the the A versions first couple months. The flights are due to start in the early part of O8 so watch for more info then till then it will be more power on checks and taxi runs for the airframe.

Looking forward to the footage..
This is the most complex version, I hope it goes well.

FIRST SHORT TAKEOFF/VERTICAL LANDING STEALTH FIGHTER UNVEILED AT LOCKHEED MARTIN

FORT WORTH, Texas, December 18th, 2007 -- The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35B Lightning II, the first fighter to combine stealth with short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) capability and supersonic speed, made its debut today amid customers from the United States Marine Corps, the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and the Italian Air Force and Navy.
Attendees at the rollout ceremony in Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth assembly plant included Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway. “The flexibility that the STOVL variant of the F-35 will add to the contemporary Marine Air Ground Task Force is amazing,” Conway said.

High-Resolution Image

"The plan is that we will get the F-35 as soon as it's possible," the senior IAF official says. He says the service will end up with more than 100 F-35s, but he would not confirm the size of the purchase or that Israel is asking that the initial delivery date be accelerated by two years to 2012. The IAF wants the JSF "the minute it is available."

www.military.com...

Frankly I don't want them to have it and give away the tech again. If they get the 35 I hope its just a empty shell. I like the IAF but the freakin diplomats and Gov that give away tech like the B-2 or F-35 components should be locked away forever.

Also this statement is the opposite of what I read 2 days ago that the IAf was considering less 35s due to a lack of faith in the stealth and survivablity in the possiblity of a long airwar. I don't really think they are right but frankly the IAf is sounding just as divided as the RAAF.

reply to post by Canada_EH


The IAF seems to be harping on a different tune than the Pentagon and Lockmart; they need to get over themselves with this "special" nonsense. They're not going to get the F-35A before 2014 (at the earliest) nor will they get as much freedom as they want when it comes to full technical information, avionics and weapons introduction.

Anyway, this production test version of the F-35B (BF-1) is the first aircraft from the F-35 family (prototype, test or otherwise) to incorporate the weight reductions and slight airframe modification which Lockheed designed. AA-1 was built before the design modifications and therefore is not truly representative of the production version of the F-35A; BF-1 however will be virtually identical to the production F-35B which will be developed. Notice, the nose landing bay door, inlet ducts, and other slight airframe modifications. Combined they reduce weight by a few thousands pounds and increase performance capabilities.

Also, there seems to have been a chance, the accordion lift fan doors from the X series has been replaced with a single piece cover. And the auxiliary engine ducts located behind the lift fan have also been redesigned.

reply to post by WestPoint23

I was wondering about the lift door as well Westpoint. The new style if this is indeed the case will be easier to stealth (though still not very effective) and be less moving parts to fail. Is weight a issue here again and the effect on airflow are all things this new door will be affecting.

With a quick look I found this CG image from 2006 that has the above mentioned changes. So this seems to have been in the works for at least the past year and a half or so.



For other peoples reference this is the old style lift doors that where on the X-35 model. I guess we should be surprised if we remeber the number of changes that happened between the F-22 prototype and production model.



Holy Cr@p I keep noticing things after I've hit post. Look at the rear exhaust doors that allow the exhaust to be vectored below the aircraft and the fan doors they all have been modified for reduced return as well the the broken edges. Just look at the image on this link www.pbase.com... I think the thing to take note of here is that there has been more focus on stealth then with the X model which makes sence.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Sorry wrong post...

[edit on 19-12-2007 by WestPoint23]

This is a very minor and trivial point, I know, but I wish they had reshaped the fins, they just look so much like they have been lifted off a much smaller and cheaper ( as in quality, not cost) plane.

I think a bit of taper would have gone a long way

Found something interesting about Israel`s rquirements:

Elta, the electronics division of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), has a version of the AESA, according to the retired general. "We need our own radar that we don't share with others. We also need our own advanced radar warning and active jamming." The Israeli AESA was flown last year; but for now it remains a generic system, not tailored to any specific aircraft�—although it's sized for an F-16, an Elta official says. Flight trials are continuing.

www.military.com...

alot of `stuff` about the Israel pressure for block 1 F35`s - and how they want to use there own equipment and weapons (and want the US to certify them as well for use)

and it just gets better:

Another major issue is what comes with the aircraft and what is Israel allowed to develop on its own. Industry officials are struggling with the problem since the F-35 has a highly integrated sensor suite that makes it harder to replace one black box with another. A senior Lockheed Martin official says Israel will not be allowed to simply replace parts of the electronic suite.

However, an IAI executive sees a workaround. The company expects to build JSF structural elements. Once the structure is well understood, there could be opportunities for embedding unique sensors, he says. The information from these sensors could be shown in the cockpit through bolt-on displays if integration proves too difficult.

bold = mine

`Once the structure is well understood` - ie they`ve ripped it apart , reverse engineered it and sold it to China.

i am quite concerned now about the entire sale to Israel - let alone early - just at all.

[edit on 20/12/07 by Harlequin]

OK to repost a reply from another thread and should be here:

reply to post by WestPoint23

Originally posted by WestPoint23AA-1 is not representative of the F-35B due to redesign changes made while it was being assembled. BF-1 on the other hand is much closer in comparison to the F-35B, hence why I did not bring t up.

AA-1 is the finite version of the F35A - the weight reduction applied to the F35B is now being applied accross the entire range - by LM themselves and not because of any contracts changing the build.

Originally posted by WestPoint23Umm… no LM or the US military has not publically or officially released anything to indicate such. An unconfirmed, unnamed, person (yes singular) claiming to work within the huge F-35 program stating unsupported information is, as I said above, meaningless.

Neither LM nor the US military announced the electrical system redesign because they messed it up and it was shorting out , nor did they mention the engine gearbox redesign at an additional cost of $71 million for the engines used by both the F35C and the F35A - only a keen sighted websight spotted the new contract which they were hoping to slip out quietly.

so do i would suggest reading around regarding this aircraft and not dismiss out of hand , what you call speculation, because it did not come from LM themselves.

Originally posted by WestPoint23Please quote, you wont because there is nothing but a single passage from a source such as the one I indicated above.

previous conversations , linking the likes of flight global , DID , defencetech, defence-aerospace etc all supporting more than 1 insider.

Originally posted by WestPoint23Umm… no it does not, please read up before stating such. What LM has proposed is to reduce the number of test flights due to computer simulations and other advanced means or testing. However that has nothing to do with the structure of the program, or how many test aircraft there will be.

LOL - no ; LM want to reduce the number of airframes being used from 15 to 13 and for the number of test flights (reduce by 800) as they have `run of of money` or rather there contingency fund - and so risk` losing profit` per airframe - since the US military has allready cut the number to be ordered - and will likely further cut the number.

www.aero-news.net...

from august but adresses it nicely - they messed up with the over weight aircraft.

Originally posted by WestPoint23For some refreshing, the X-35 (ABC) were all prototypes because they were the concept and technology demonstrators. They not only had major structural and design differences (from the final production version) but they also used off the shelf technology and systems to simulate advanced ones that would eventually be fielded. And in some case the X series lacked certain systems altogether because it was just a technology and concept demonstrator. It was not a test aircraft by any stretch of the imagination

no thats wrong, the JSF competition was held along similar lines to the ATF - that each company could design an aircraft for a certain criteria and then prove that the aircraft could match the design within a certain margin ; redesigns which were not overly massive came later - same as the X22>F22.

all except the weight problem - which is an LM mistake.

As for systems - thats other companies jobs - LM`s job was to build a flying aircraft and work with others to intergrate teh systems to fight it - those systems would have been similar for either of the JSF aircraft.

The raptor has 2 X test aircraft for 1 reason - engines ; both were flown with both of the engine choices - which is different to the JSF in that the P&W engine was chosen and it was only the UK that want the GE engine, hence why it was due to be cancelled until the UK put pressure on it not to be cancelled.

Originally posted by WestPoint23The F-35 series already had the X-35 initial prototypes and there will be a total of 23 test aircraft (F-35's of all variants) built for various purposes. Of these 15 will be used for flight tests, 7 for non-flight tests and one will be a radar signature test airframe. These pre production models will be thoroughly tested and they do in some forms differ from the final production standard. IOC (at the earliest) for the F-35A is scheduled for 2011, so there will be several years of IOT&E.

those aircraft used for flight testing - same as the F22 as well , will be brought up to operational standards and then deployed - ergo they will be production standard aircraft used for testing.

More news on the testing front. Announced today that the first military pilot has taken the controls of the F-35A. And also the article hints too into the fact that some jobs are expected to be cut as the design phase of the 35 program slows.

A US Air Force test pilot has become the first military service pilot to fly the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Lt Col James "Flipper" Kromberg flew the first F-35, aircraft AA-1, on its 26th test flight on 30 January.

Lockheed says AA-1 will soon begin aerial refuelling flight tests from its Fort Worth, Texas plant. The first short take-off and vertical landing F-35B, aircraft BF-1, is expected to fly around the middle of the year.

The company has informed employees at the Fort Worth plant that it expects to take some 850 engineers off the JSF programme this year as design work on the F-35 winds down. This is expected to result in some 650 jobs being cut, beginning in April.

Sounds like we are finally and truly moving forward with the flight schedule and look forward to the BF-1 flight later this year.

Well they are at it again. After posting the federal budget the DOD is trying to make another bid to cancel the F136 RR/GE powerplant for the F-35. Cancellation of the F136 and no funds for more Boeing C-17 airlifters are the top releases from the budget.

Of the total, $45.6 billion is for aircraft development and procurement. The FY2009 request funds for procurement of the Lockheed F-22 and F-35, Boeing F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, and Bell Boeing V-22 at or close to planned levels.

Congress overturned the DoD’s bid last year to cancel the alternative JSF engine by adding back the full $480 million in funding for FY2008. This will take the money spent on F136 development to $1.3 billion of a planned $2.4 billion, says the GE/R-R Fighter Engine Team.

FY2008 will be the peak year for spending on F136 development, the team says, with $440 million required in FY2009 to keep the programme on schedule.

Be pretty risky to cut the engine or try to again with the amount of internaational pressure that could be applied if countries like the UK and AUS or CAN take up the protest. (then again don't see Canada caring much lol). Anyways anyone care to weight into the subject.

www.flightglobal.com...

[edit on 5-2-2008 by Canada_EH]

[edit on 5-2-2008 by Canada_EH]

Holy the bad news just keeps coming! There has been a blade failure on F-135 (maybe we should keep the 2nd engine after all) in more or less the same test and same place as happened last year that held up in flight tests last year (CTOL) JSF AA-1 airframe. The rest is from Aviation weeks report.

The failure of the low pressure (LP) turbine blade is thought to have occurred in engine six which was undergoing flight clearance "proof test" ground runs prior to installation in the first STOVL F-35, BF-1.......

The August failure, which contributed to a prolonged delay for both ground and flight tests of AA-1, the first conventional flight test F-35A, was traced to an unsteady flow regime in the wake of the stator upstream of the LP turbine third stage.......

According to information revealed at the December roll-out of the BF-1 in Fort Worth, Tex., the aircraft was expected to make its first flight from a conventional take-off roll in late May or early June. This was to be followed with a gradual "build-down" to STOVL tests by around the end of 2008. It's unknown right now if and by how much the recent failure, which occurred on Monday, will affect the F-35B test schedule.

www.aviationweek.com...

At this point we only have a general statement from P&W on the subject but it does explain a bit of the issue that happened "on February 4, during proof testing of a F135 STOVL engine variant on a Pratt & Whitney test stand in West Palm Beach, Florida, an incident occurred involving a single 3rd stage blade. The engine is being inspected and Pratt & Whitney is working in concert with the Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin to determine next steps."

Personally they should keep the F-136 they already have poured more then enough money into it and the extra engine honestly I think does more good then harm. It does sound like though at this point that the test flights will have to be pushed back and of course more money spent.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by Canada_EH]

reply to post by Canada_EH


this is quite serious - that engines was built after the first engine failure , and with the gearbox redesign and stronger components being used.

reply to post by Harlequin


I'm not sure if thats correct Harlequin. When I read the section below it make me think that this one had already been built and was told to continue testing etc.

In the meantime it cleared specific engines to allow flight test to resume of AA-1 in December 2007, and hoped tests of engine six would similarly clear the way for BF-1 to start tethered hover pit tests originally set for April.

reply to post by Canada_EH


on rereading it looks like the engines were all `original build` and they wanted to pass the BF-1 engine:

The tests were aimed at proving, on an engine-by-engine basis, that the specific unit was safe to use in BF-1, and that it did not exhibit the same combination of assembly characteristics, tolerances and other factors that led to a similar failure on a test stand engine on August 30.

looks like it did have the saeme manufacturing deect(s) which elad to AA-1 engine faling on the stand.


but
:

P&W is developing a fix involving redesigning the stators and is planning to test the improved configuration by the middle of this year

how many engines have been delivered? the only figures i could find were 3 between 2005 >2006 at 6 monthly intervals.

www.f-16.net...

if thats the case then the numbers would say engine 6 is the latest engine.

they wanted to fly BF-1 conventional take off in may/june - with another engine failure (and i guess another delay) we could be looking at october before first flight - and countries that want to order the F35B with whatever engine will want to see it fly before signing on the dotted line.


edit:

how much will the cost go up this time i wonder.

[edit on 6/2/08 by Harlequin]