F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

HMS Astute

Junior Member
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

The average unit price for all three variants of the aircraft in LRIP 8 is approximately 3.6 percent lower than the previous production lot, costs are expected to fall even further.
 
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Sounds like they have an interim fix well in hand and are proposing various options internally and to the Program for long term fixes.

...

a moment ago I found details on:

Short Term Fixes

One of the short term fixes now underway with several existing test-airplanes includes flying the airplanes on two one-hour sorties doing very controlled maneuvers to “burn in” the engine such that it rubs an appropriate amount, Bogdan explained.

“In two sorties you can burn in the engine in a controlled way such that where this rubbing occurs has now been ‘burned in’ so to speak. Anything else you do with the airplane inside the envelop will not cause any more rubbing than it has already seen because it has already trenched a canal,” Bogdan said.

This involves flying the airplane in a very defined profile with certain specific altitude, G-force and roll-rate conditions in order to achieve the properly trenched, or ”burned in” canal in the engine.

This “burn in” process has already been validated on four F-35 test airplanes and is now being examined by air worthiness authorities in the Navy and Air Force for additional use on fielded jets, Bogdan added.

Another short-term fix now underway on two Air Force F-35As includes a process called “pre-trenching.” Bogdan described this as a process wherein portions of the engine’s stator, a non-rotating section that hooks to the frame of the engine, is specially pre-trenched or configured to avoid excessive rubbing.

“We expect to see some rubbing and some trenching. What we are going to do now is we are going to go in and pre-trench a canal in that material so that when we put the fan blade in there – no matter what we do on the airplane G-wise, altitude wise – it won’t rub anymore,” Bogdan explained.

During the test of this pre-trenching fix, two Air Force F-35s were able to fly a full envelope of potential missions without any excessive heating. Over the next two to three months, all 19 test airplanes will be configured with this pre-trenching fix, Bogdan added.

This approach is also being examined by air worthiness authorities for use on fielded jets, Bogdan explained.

Overall, both short-term fix approaches are needed because the pre-trenching method requires fabrication of a new stator, which take time to produce.

“Right now we’re only producing about one whole set of stators per week. It would take us a while to produce enough for all the airplanes. With the burn-in procedure we can start getting to the same results by flying airplanes instead of getting into the pre-trenching. That why it is important to get both solutions out there,” Bogdan said.

An important element of the pre-trenching process would need to include effort to make sure that the trench is not so big that there is airflow back in the compressor section which reduces the stall margin, Bogdan explained.

and

Long Term Fixes

Alongside these short-term fixes, the F-35 program and engine-producer Pratt and Whitney are also immersed in the exploration of a series of potential long-term fixes. Bogdan said F-35 program engineers are now analyzing five different long-term options presented by Pratt and Whitney.

The options include changing the polyimide material to a different substance that can better handle greater temperatures or treating the part of the titanium blade that hits the polyimide, Bogdan added.

“You could actually treat the tip of that titanium such that if you do get heating it can withstand 1,900 degrees,” he said.

Yet another option would be to put pre-trenched polyimide in the engine, Bogdan said.

The F-35 program plans to decide upon a long-term fix, which may involve a combination of options, by the end of this calendar year, Bogdan added.

“We have yet to decide on what combination of these different sets of options. We will put an engineering change in, qualify it, and sometime toward the end of 2015 we will start producing engines with the fix and go back and retrofit any of the produced engines that are not in engines yet,” he said.

The cost of fixes to fielded engines, either burn-in or stator procedures, will be handled by Pratt and Whitney. The cost of re-engineering or producing new solutions from production engines will also be handled by Pratt and Whitney, Bogdan explained.

However, the non-recurring engineering costs of production cut-ins or re-engineering of the engine will be paid by the government, per the initial F-35 development deal signed 14 years ago, Bogdan said.

in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator

HMS Astute

Junior Member
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I don't have the time to read through all the pages, but the good news is F35C will land on the carrier for the first time tomorrow. :D
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I feel the Need The Need For Speed!
Navy F-35 starts first sea trials with new tailhook
Oct. 31, 2014 - 06:00AM |

By Meghann Myers
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
Military Technology
If all goes according to plan, the F-35C Lightning II jet will roar into its first flattop trap Nov. 3 as news cameras roll, an event 17 years in the making.

Two Joint Strike Fighters are set to head out that morning from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, bound for the carrier Nimitz for two weeks of testing off the coast of San Diego, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the JSF program manager told reporters in the run-up to the carrier tests.

“And I will tell you, this summer, that was thought of as not even possible, because of the problems with the [tail]hook, the problems we were having with the nose gear, the problems we were having with a whole host of things to get there,” Bogdan said Thursday.

A series of setbacks pushed the carrier landing milestone back nearly a year, before more issues edged it further out in 2014. The tailhook redesign will allow the Navy to finally carrier test the F-35, an aircraft that would bring stealth fighters to carrier air wings, along with greater costs. The naval aviation brass are taking a wait-and-see approach to F-35C development, one influential aviation expert said.

The most recent problem to sideline the JSF was a June engine fire in the Air Force’s F-35A variant that unofficially grounded the airframe for weeks; the Navy jet has the same engine.

A fire investigation found that a fan blade rubbed the engine so hard that it heated to about 1,900 degrees, causing cracks that sent pieces of the engine flying through the fuel tank, where they caught on fire, Bogdan said.

There are two temporary fixes in progress now, he said, and a permanent solution is coming next year. All of the options involve creating trenches in the engine where the rotor blades dig in, reducing the friction, but not so deep that airflow backs up in the engine.

Engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney will pick up the tab to create trenches in already fielded aircraft, Bogdan said.

“I feel pretty good about this now,” he said. “Four months ago I would have told you ... there was risk.”

The carrier test comes after the redesign of the F-35C’s tailhook, the bar that catches one of the three tensioned wires on the flight deck to stop the jet safely.

Lockheed Martin had some issues designing a working tailhook that blended into the aircraft’s stealthy body, in contrast to hooks on legacy airframes, which are mounted on the outside of the skin. The first iteration wasn’t catching in 2013 tests.

Pilots successfully tested the redesigned tailhook in testing earlier this year at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, New Jersey, setting up for the sea trials.

Now, Bogdan said, he’s confident the aircraft has been put through its paces. He recalled watching tests at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, in which pilots forced the jets to land on their nose gear or on either wheel, to simulate the uneven angles created by a pitching and rolling ship.

Richard Aboulafia, vice president for analysis at the Teal Group, shared Bogdan’s optimism in an Oct. 28 phone interview with Navy Times.

“All of this has been modeled before,” he said. “It’s unlikely that there are going to be any showstoppers, technically.”

The outlook
The U.S. Navy is by far the F-35’s least enthusiastic customer in the world, Aboulafia said, with allies like the United Kingdom and Israel showing more interest.

The Navy ordered two F-35Cs for 2015, which would bring the grand total to 28 in the first seven years of production, according to inventories cited in the most recent Congressional Research Service Report on the JSF program.

By contrast, the Marine Corps requested six F-35Bs and the Air Force requested 26 F-35As, bringing their totals to 66 and 130, respectively.

The Navy’s low buy-in is a sign of indifference about a new, stealthier strike plane, Aboulafia said.

“There are some officers in the Navy who would like to see stealth brought to carriers, but quite a few who wouldn’t, who would rather stick with something they know, at a price they know, with two engines that they know and perhaps, shift all funding to the sixth generation [F/A-18],” he said.

However, he said, it’s not as simple as striking out on their own with more Super Hornets.

“On the other hand, of course, [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] has long tried to insist on them staying in just for the sake of program economics,” Aboulafia said. “In other words, there’s a certain damage to the program if they defect.”

However, there’s a chance that the Navy will downsize its order again, Aboulafia said. Budget constraints and congressional advocacy have led to constant negotiating of order numbers and pricing.

As recently as Oct. 27, the Pentagon finalized a deal for 43 more planes to go into production in 2016, with four slated for the Navy. That very slow procurement schedule is on purpose, Aboulafia said.

Coincidentally, the F-35C is landing on Nimitz 35 years and five days after the F/A-18A made its first carrier landing, aboard the carrier America in 1979, according to Naval Air Forces.

The Navy still has a soft spot for the F/A-18 Hornet, Aboulafia said, and he envisions a blended strike fighter fleet, with a sixth-generation F/A-18 and a few F-35s to round it out.

“There’s a couple of aspects of Navy aviation that are fairly unique,” he said. “One is that they would still like their own plane. The other is, if you don’t have enough aircraft, you run the risk of losing a carrier, which is unthinkable.”

It’s a mutually reinforcing situation, he said: You need enough aircraft to fill your flight decks, and you need enough flight decks to justify the number of planes you’re buying.

A theoretical F/A-18G wouldn’t be in the works until the 2030 time frame, he added, so logically, the Navy will have to fill in any F/A-18 E and F Super Hornet gaps with the JSF.

“All you can do is wait until the price comes down and the kinks are worked out with the F-35,” he said.

The F-35C carrier tests are scheduled to run through Nov. 17, according to Naval Air Forces.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

HMS Astute

Junior Member
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

CcDUIXm.jpg
 
Top