F-35: Update (Sept 2004)

In recent months the F-35�s weight has been a large issue for discussion, with many antagonists of the program stating that it is doomed or at best not able to achieve the performance parameters set forth by the DoD for the STOVL version.

This issue has been solved as the Lockheed engineers in Fort Worth, TX have managed to shed 2,700 lbs (1,225 kg) while at the same time increasing the output of the F135-PW-100 turbofan to approximately 40,800 lbs of thrust. The Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 is an evolution of the F119 engine powering the F/A-22 Raptor.

It is now expected that when the DOD�s board of acquisition meets on October 14th that they will give the STOVL version of the F-35 their final stamp of approval.

This paves the way for the following timetable:
Spring 2005 � final assembly of first F-35 aircraft begins at Lockheed, Fort Worth
Fall? 2005 � completion of first F-35 aircraft.
2006 � first flight of F-35 test aircraft



(Source: Lockheed Martin; Sept. 14, 2004)


[edit on 23-9-2004 by intelgurl]

Fortunately the F135 engine is the first Pratt engine with considerable IHPTET technology built in. The turbine blades are made of a new process compared to the old cast blades. Modern tech has made blade halves photo etched surfaces and then diffusion bonded and then barrier coated so they withstand temperatures hundreds of degrees higher than old technology engines like the F100. Upping the thrust so modestly it might not even reduce turbine life much if at all.

Are there any pictures available that show how the actual F-35 will look rather than the X-35 pictures that are passed off as the F-35 by some?

Yep, go to Lockheed Martins website and download the F-35 media pack PDF, and zip folders of side views, top views and front view illustrations of the production aircraft.

www.lmaeronautics.com...

Good. This is an important aircraft, so i'm glad to see its gonna work out after all, I figured it would of though with 17 countries involved and all of our braches wanting it.

I'm just curious on what they did differently to loose 2,700 lb.

Also, Waynos - The X-35 is the F-35, except its in its experimental stage still. There aren't any differences

[edit on 21-9-2004 by Murcielago]

I think they used a low carb diet!

Thanks for the pics, now I've seen them I can see that just as murcielago says, the F-35 is no different, externally, from the demonstrator. I have to confess I feel a little let down by this as after I saw the differences between the F/A-22 and the YF-22 and also the X-32 and the F-32 I was hoping for something fairly dramatic in that department. Of course the reality seems to be that Lockheed knew exactly what they about when they designed the X-35 whereas Boeing were groping in the dark somewhat

Great to see you back Integurl - hope this is not going to be your last post for a while as have missed your insisive input.

Yeah,welcome back Intelgurl.Thanks for more good info.

Originally posted by Popeye
Great to see you back Integurl - hope this is not going to be your last post for a while as have missed your insisive input.

Popeye, Paralyz,

Thanks for the kind sentiments guys,
I've been out of pocket for a while and am currently back at my office until the second week of October.
It's good to be back!

Natalie

yay intelgurls back.

anyways, to solve the weigh problem they should cancel the f-35C and replace it with the F-22n, so the plane will weigh less and be able to lift vertically.

Although the "pelican" (X-32) did'nt win the fly-off, From what I know of the program, the aircraft was a dream to fly. Well, once you fixed the hydraulic leak after the first flight into Edwards AFB and worked out a few bugs. Oh, and then kept it flying long enough to perform the tests. Anyway, even though it was an ugly bird.....it did have a special place for it. Someone put in alot of hours to get it flying........

I have a few photos I took from the fly-off (x-32 and x-35) Also yf-23, F-18 Superhornet, A-10 two seater, UAV's and others.....everyone is welcome to check them out at the link below. Please note that some pictures were not taken by me.......just some I liked.......Feel free to ask questions if you have 'em.

pg.photos.yahoo.com...@sbcglo bal.net/album?.dir=/4d38&.ph&.tok=phYA_oBBjzG1HgTu

Originally posted by roniii259
anyways, to solve the weigh problem they should cancel the f-35C and replace it with the F-22n, so the plane will weigh less and be able to lift vertically.

What.

Theres alot wrong with that post.

I'm assuming you accidently typed a "n" after F-22, because an F-22n doesn't exist.

F-35C is the Carrier version, the F-35B is the STOVL, The Navy will be getting the "C" Version.

The weight problem was mainly focused on the F-35B.

To make the F-22 a carrier bird you would have to put alot of money into it, it needs a stronger frame as well as longer wings for starters, which takes time and money that is unnessisary because all that time and money has allready being put into the F-35 program. If you cancell out the carrier version in order to develop the F-22 Carrier craft then the cost of the F-35's would go up.

and none of these jets can take off vertically, but the "B" Version can take off in as little as 600 ft.


Regarding the X-32, I'm glad this thing beat it, other then just looks. The X-32 had several problems one was that they couldn't do in flight re-feuling, and after going super sonic they had to take some parts off of it to land vertically.

2,700lb weight loss...Will that help it reach Mach 2?

Yes i did say F-35c, meaning the carrier borne version. With this cancelled the "scar weight" from the carrier would be eliminated and once again the plane would be in shape. the F-22n is a proposal by lockheed to build the Navy a version of the F-22. While yes there would be significant changes, data already gathered from the JSF program can be used because the two are very alike in most regards.

Originally posted by roniii259
While yes there would be significant changes, data already gathered from the JSF program can be used because the two are very alike in most regards.

Really? I may be mistaken, but i thought they were in most ways different - such as 2vs1 engine, size (17 tons for the JSF 24 for the F-22), stealth ability, payload ect.

Im acually referring to the aerodynamic principles, stealth design, engines (JSF engine is just tweaked F-119 used on F-22) avionics, systems integration were all taken from the F-22. The JSF is basically a cheaper cousin of the F-22, ussing the most of coponents of the Raptor but making it cheaper.

The F-35C is better for the navy in my view as if they got the much bigger and heavier F-22N they would have to sacrifice numbers, not merely because of price but also the physical size of the thing and the space available on the carriers to accomodate them, which in itself might negate the higher capability of the F-22N with each aircraft having to take on a higher workload.

The F135 engine is more than a "tweaked" F119, it is optimized for lower speeds, but with more thrust. It's airflow is higher, the temps it runs at are different. It has great subsonic thrust but far less supersonic excess power than the F119.