F-35 Lightning II

[polluelo]

Es que no creo que la Usaf pague solo sus motores, los Marines los suyos y la navy el resto, se hace una compra conjunta y cada uno paga la parte proporcional a su participación en el programa.

Si este contrato tiene mas motores A, el anterior mas Bs y el proximo tendrá mas Cs es indiferente, cada servicio no paga por cada uno de los motores sino la parte proporcional del contrato independientemente de cantidades y modelos

Es que no me cuadra de ninguna manera que después de varios años pagando unas cantidades que se han movido poco de buenas a primeras un modelo de motor se dispare hasta seis veces su precio, cuando con tantas cosas como se han contado los problemas de motor han sido mí­nimos. El B está dando problemas de peso, de compuertas, de esto y lo otro pero de motor no han dicho practicamente nada.

De hecho el mismo que escribe la noticia dice que con esta manera de contratar es casi imposible saber el precio de cada motor, así­ que supongo que debe ser una manera distinta a la habitual. Y luego, para terminar de liarla, en los demás contratos los Marines no pagan nada en equipos especiales ni modificaciones y ¿el gasto lo asumen los demas o sus aviones no necesitan nada de eso?

Me suena todo rarí­simo.

[polluelo]

Y por otro lado las noticias sobre la venta a Japón.

O están haciendo un dumping bestial o algo se nos escapa porque aquí­ dan como buena una cifra de 65 millones por aparato japones y 15 millones por cada motor.

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-japa ... 6802.story

[champi]

Hombre, esa cifra la da Lockheed que es el que quiere vender:

The average price per plane is about $65 million, Lockheed said.

Los que compran y pagan dan otras no tan optimistas.

[polluelo]

La verdad, me extraña que LM salga dando una cifra para que mañana le endiñen en toda la boca con otra cuatro veces superior.

Una cierta desviación podria ser entendible pero estamos manejando cifras que como poco son tres veces superiores. Pero vamos, los japos han hablado de 114 millones por avión que siguen estando muy lejos de los mas de 180 millones que salen con estas cuentas.

De todas maneras viendo a cuanto les ha salido el kilo de avioncito a los suizos yo diria que 120 millones, mal que nos pese, es barato.

[champi]

Algo sobre los distintos bloques: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... s---l.html

By Stephen Trimble on January 3, 2012 4:26 PM

Thanks to ELP's blog for discovering this five-month-old presentation (see Ebersole brief), Here's what the F-35 is supposed to do over the next five years. The clock on LRIP-4 started last year. LRIP-5 is getting sorted out now, although it technically should have been awarded before 1 October 2011.

The timing for Block 2B, 3I and 3C (3F) are currently being reviewed, according to the chart. However, if one was forced to guess, a rightward shift is probably the safest bet, given programme history. It will be interesting to learn which weapons could be accelerated into Block 2B.

Ah, y LM cae en bolsa ante el rumor de que este mes se anunciará un recorte en el número de unidades a adquirir: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lockhe ... atest_news

[champi]

Turquí­a da luz verde a la adquisición de 2 unidades: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =EUR&s=AIR

By UMIT ENGINSOY and BURAK EGE BEKDIL
Published: 5 Jan 2012 16:21

ANKARA - Turkey's top decision-making body Jan. 5 paved the way for the country's formal participation in a U.S.-led program for the production of next-generation F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.

"The Defense Industry Executive Committee has authorized the Undersecretariat for Defense Industries [SSM] to conduct talks for the aircraft's purchase order," the committee said in a statement after its meeting. The committee's members include Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan, Defense Minister Ä°smet Yilmaz, Chief of the General Staff Gen. Necdet Ozel and procurement chief Murad Bayar.

SSM and Lockheed Martin, the plane's main manufacturer, now are expected to sign a formal document for Turkey's purchase order for a first batch of two F-35s. This decision enables Turkey to begin the reception of the aircraft in 2015.

Turkey is a member of the F-35 consortium, but until Jan. 5 had not been committed officially to buy the aircraft. Turkey plans eventually to operate about 100 aircraft. Other members of the consortium include the United States, Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Norway and Denmark.

Other countries have interest in the aircraft but are not part of the consortium, including Israel. A recent decision by Japan to buy the F-35 has been a major boost for the program. Japan and Israel are expected to receive deliveries as of 2016.
...

Recibirí­an estas dos unidades un año antes que Israel.

[champi]

Si ya habí­a lí­o con los precios del LRIP V ya empiezan los contratos para el VI. Y ojo con los precios que dan, para todos los gustos y colores: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=AIR

By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 6 Jan 2012 18:12

Pratt & Whitney has won a $194 million fixed-price contract for long lead parts for 37 F-35 engines, the Pentagon announced Jan. 6. The engines are for the sixth production lot of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force, which flies the conventional F-35A version of the tri-service jet, will receive 18 of the engines. The U.S. Navy will receive seven engines for its carrier-based variant - the F-35C model - while the U.S. Marine Corps is buying six engines for its short take-off vertical landing F-35B model planes.

There are also six foreign engine orders, four for the Italians and two for Australia.

The Navy is paying $37 million for the engines; the Air Force is paying $54 million; and the Marines are paying $84.6 million. The engines for the Marine Corps are more expensive because they include the lift-fan propulsion system needed for its variant.

As for the foreign engine orders, the Italians are on the hook $11.5 million while the Australians will pay $5.6 million.

The work should be completed by this September. The contract is being administered by the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River, Md.

[champi]

Sobre el problema del gancho de frenado en la versión C: http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html

Va a haber que rediseñar y parece que el problema es serio...

[Orel]

Puede que Italia tenga que recortar la cantidad de F-35 esperada:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i40 ... g22-23.png

Y un par de imágenes:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i40 ... c-2011.jpg
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i40 ... n-2012.jpg

[champi]

El F-35 excedió los objetivos de desarrollo marcados para 2.011: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... goals.html

Lockheed Martin F-35 Program Exceeds 2011 Flight Test Goals
(Source: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company; issued January 12, 2012)

FORT WORTH, Texas --- The Lockheed Martin F-35 System Development and Demonstration 2011 flight test program resulted in the completion of more test flights and test points than in any year.

The 2011 flight test plan called for the accumulation of 872 flights and 6,622 test points by Dec. 31. For the year, the SDD program flew 972 flights and tallied 7,823 test points.
The F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant flew 474 flights and accomplished 3,600 test points.
The F-35B Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant accomplished 333 flights and 2,636 test points.
The F-35C Carrier Variant (CV) flew 165 flights and tallied 1,587 test points.

Along with this, the STOVL executed 268 vertical landings. The cumulative 2011 milestones were achieved through a combination of planned test flights and test points along with test flights and test points added throughout the year.
...
The overall F-35 SDD flight test program plan calls for the verification of 59,585 test points through developmental test flights by Dec. 31, 2016. Through 2011, the flight test team has accomplished 12,728 test points or 21.4 percent of overall testing requirements.
...
Major flight test achievements in 2011 include:

--A major highlight for October was the completion of F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) ship suitability testing aboard the USS WASP (LHD-1) off the coast of Virginia. The test began when BF-2 executed the first shipboard vertical landing on Oct. 3. The next day, BF-2 executed the first short takeoff from the WASP. During the third week of sea trials, BF-2 and BF-4 operated simultaneously on the ship. Combined, they accomplished 72 short takeoffs and 72 vertical landings during the three-week testing period.

--The mission systems test aircraft performed Block 1A and Block 1B software testing including demonstrating Communication Navigation and Identification (CNI) range and accuracy and integrated Electro-Optical Targeting System testing that included Tactical FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-Red) and combat laser firing. The software also displayed imagery from the Distributed Aperture System on the Helmet Mounted Display. Further testing accomplished radar search and target tracking, Synthetic Aperture Radar Mapping, Electronic Warfare testing, and multi-sensor fusion of four sensors. In addition, baseline Radar Cross Section signature testing was accomplished on three mission system aircraft.

--On Nov. 18, CF-3, an F-35C test aircraft, conducted the first F-35 launch from the Navy's new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). Testing the F-35C on EMALS marked the beginning of the process to integrate the carrier variant with the future carrier fleet aircraft launching system.

--The F-35B STOVL jets conducted 268 vertical landings (VLs) in 2011 compared to 10 VLs in 2010. F-35B aircraft also completed 395 short takeoffs (STOs) last year.

--AF-1 achieved the F-35's maximum design limit speed of Mach 1.6 for the first time on Oct. 25.

--Jet Blast Deflector (JBD) testing was performed by F-35C Lightning II carrier variant (CV) aircraft CF-2 at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J. from June 25-July 8. CF-2 successfully completed this portion of tests required to ensure the F-35C is compatible aboard an aircraft carrier.

--AF-6 and AF-7 completed Maturity Flight testing of the training syllabus software at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., designed to simulate operating an F-35 without a mission control room.

--The F-35 program successfully performed aerial refueling testing with KC-135 and KC-10 aircraft.
...

Primeros F-35B para los Marines: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... se-366816/

Noruega busca coordinarse con otros socios del programa F-35 para hacer pedidos: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -f_35.html

Respecto a la posibilidad de controlar UAVs, parece un oficial de guerra electrónica (F-35 biplaza ) podrí­a controlar 4 sin problemas: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ghter.html

By Stephen Trimble
on January 11, 2012 4:41 PM
...
On the subject of UAVs, Romig allowed that Skunk Works has much more than the RQ-170 in its classified product stable. "There's a whole large collection of classified programmes (within Lockheed) in the area of small UAVs," Romig said.

A major effort at Skunk Works is now underway to make UAVs more autonomous. Internal demonstrations have proven that a single operator can control more than two UAVs simultaneously. "How large that number can get is unclear," he said.

Intriguingly, Romig said that if the US Air Force returns to the days of "back-seat" electronic warfare officers, the F-35 could control a swarm of four "buddy" UAVs. He didn't directly say that Lockheed is considering two-seat F-35s, but the possibility tanatalises. (Two years ago, we reported that Israeli industry officials already anticipated the emergence of a two-seat F-35 eventually.)
...

[champi]

Primer vuelo nocturno: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/news_ite ... tem_id=560



Sobre el rediseño del gancho para la versión embarcada, parece que todo marcha bastante bien y no va a suponer demasiados problemas: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... RONTPAGE|s

Lockheed Martin has traced the U.S. Navy F-35C Joint Strike Fighter's troubles with catching a carrier's arresting gear wires to the tailhook design.

Efforts to fix the problem are well underway, a top company official said.

“The good news is that it's fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself,”said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. “It doesn't have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane.”

Moreover, the rest of the design of the tailhook system, which include the doors and bay that conceal the device and other ancillary hardware, is sound, Burbage said.

“What we are trying to do is make sure that we got the actual design of the hook is optimized so that it in fact repeatedly picks up the wire as long the airplane puts itself in position to do that,”he said.

A preliminary review has already been completed and was done in conjunction with the Naval Air Systems Command and F-35 Joint Program Office.

Burbage said the hook system is already being modified in accordance with the new test data.

“We're modifying the hook to accommodate what we found so far in test,”Burbage said. “The new parts, we expect to have them back in the next couple of months.”

Tests with the newly modified tailhook should start at Lakehurst, N.J, in the second quarter of this year, Burbage said.

That will give the F-35 program another set of data to study to make sure the new design works as promised. However, until those tests are done, there is no ironclad guarantee that the redesign of the tailhook will work, but Burbage said he is confident of that the modified design will be successful.

“The big test for this airplane is not until the summer of '13 when we take the Navy jet out to the big deck carrier and do actual traps at sea,”Burbage said.

Burbage dismisses claims that the F-35C will be unable to land on a carrier as falsehoods.

“That's patently not true,”he said.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said the claim that the F-35C could never land on a ship was always highly dubious.

“They turned the YF-17 into a carrier plane, why couldn't they correct carrier-hook problems here?”he said. “This does not appear to be a killer problem.”

Flight testing is designed to uncover and fix problems with a new aircraft, Aboulafia said.

“This is the kind of problem that might come out during the flight testing of a carrier-based plane,”he said.

Aboulafia added that the F-35 is an extremely ambitious program with its three variants — technical problems are par for the course.

The reason the problem with the hook arose in the first place is because of the inherent constraints of building a stealth fighter, said Burbage. The F-35 is the first naval stealth fighter and as such, Lockheed had the unique challenge of designing the jet with a tail-hook that had to be concealed when it's not being used.

Because the tail-hook has to fit within the outer mold line of the F-35, the device had to be fitted further forward on the jet's ventral surface than on other naval aircraft, Burbage said. The result is that the hook behaves differently than on previous fighters like the F/A-18.

In an ideal world, an arresting-hook will catch a wire 100 percent of the time, however in the real world that doesn't happen due to various dynamic forces, the veteran former Navy test pilot said.

In the case of the F-35, one of those dynamic forces includes the way the wires react when the jet passes over them. The wire reacts in a sine wave pattern, Burbage said. “The time differential between when the main gear rolls over the cable and the time the hook picks up the cable on a more convention airplane, there is more time for that wave to damp out,”he said. “In the case of the F-35, one of our design constraints is that hook just has to be closer to the main landing gear than on a conventional aircraft because of the requirement to hide it inside the airplane.”

Another factor that effects landing on a carrier is the sheer force of the impact from a carrier landing. Unlike conventional land-based aircraft, naval aircraft don't flare on landing. While the landing is on a more precise spot, it causes the tail-hook to oscillate vertically- which increases the chances that it won't catch a wire, Burbage said. The dampening of that motion has to be tweaked, he said.

The shape of the hook itself also has an effect on the probability of catching a wire, he added. All of these are being tweaked to increase the chances that the F-35C will catch a wire on a carrier's deck.

“We're doing a redesign of the hook to increase the probability the hook will engage the wire a high percentage of the time,”Burbage said.

Y parece que a la versión B también le va bastante bien: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... ionstories

Por cierto, la tercera unidad de esta versión ya ha sido entregada: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/news_ite ... tem_id=561

[champi]

Me doy réplica a mi mismo con el tema del gancho: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ntrol.html

Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published Jan. 19, 2012
...
Contrary to what Burbage says, the problem is not isolated to the hook itself, as the QLR report identifies not one but “three major AHS design issues:”(1) the location of the tailhook on the airframe; (2) the tailhook design, and (3) ineffective performance of the tailhook's hold-down damper, located on the airframe. (See page 11 and Annexes A9 to A12—Ed.)

By mentioning only the “tailhook itself”while ignoring the major design issues raised by its location on the airframe, Burbage gives a seriously misleading picture '' unless, of course, he knows something that the report's authors did not.

The real issue is that, if the tailhook cannot catch the arrester wire because it is located too close to the main landing gear, then the entire rear airframe will have to be redesigned to relocate the hook's attachment point. This is likely to be highly complex.

The tailhook must be completely retracted to reduce the aircraft's radar signature, and because it has to cope with the very high forces involved in arresting in only a few feet a 35,000-lb. aircraft moving at over 100kts, there are only very few places where it can be attached to the airframe without disemboweling the aircraft at each landing.

Recognizing the complexity of this problem, the QLR's report's authors say “the AHS is considered an area of major consequence”and add that “this issue represents a major concurrency risk which would have a significant retrofit impact to LRIP aircraft already delivered…(and)….in many respects, invalidate previously obtained developmental test and evaluation data.”

Their conclusion: “major concurrency risk '' significant redesign risk and options are unknown at this time.”

Not quite the same as Burbage's claim that this “straightforward”issue is “limited to the hook itself,”and that the “rest of the tailhook system's design is “sound.”

Lockheed was also economical with the truth in a Jan. 12 press release proudly claiming that “F-35 Program Exceeds 2011 Flight Test Goals.”The release contained this remarkably upbeat statement:

"These achievements speak to the rapid maturation of the F-35 program and to our team's commitment to performing with excellence," said J.D. McFarlan, vice president of F-35 Test and Verification. "We will now turn towards 2012, expanding the flight envelope as we continue to demonstrate the F-35's excellent flight characteristics for all three variants."

Well, Lockheed may indeed have exceeded goals as to the number of test flights, but as a conveniently-leaked report by the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) makes clear, F-35 flight tests last year exposed many serious problems and shortfalls.

Regarding the tail hook issue, the report states “The tail-hook point is undergoing a redesign and the hold-down damper mechanism requires modifications to enable successful arrestments on the carrier. Resolution of these deficiencies is needed for testing to support F-35C ship trials in late 2013.”

The report also found numerous other problem issues. Here is a selection:

-- “Measurements of progress based on test points accomplished indicate mixed results for flight sciences of the three variant”
-- “Very limited mission systems software flight testing took place in 2011.”
-- “significant work and flight tests remain to verify and incorporate modifications
to STOVL aircraft required to correct known STOVL deficiencies and prepare the system for operational use.”
-- “current reliability and maintainability data indicate more attention is needed in these
areas to achieve an operationally suitable system.”
-- “live fire tests and analyses showed the fuel tank inerting system is incapable of providing protection from threat-induced fuel tank explosions”
-- “structural loads on the vertical tail fin of the F-35A aircraft…are higher than predicted and may require modifications to the tail or further changes to the flight control software to reduce these effects.”
-- Testers “found that fuel migrated back into the aircraft”in both the F-35A and F-35B variants, which “has the potential to create an unsafe condition.”
-- The horizontal tail “sustained heat damage at the inboard trailing edge area”in an F-35A after its afterburner was used for a long time on a flight test mission. “The damage consisted of blistering of the surface and missing pieces of the trailing edge.”Similar damage was found on an F-35B.


Click here for the DOT&E report's 13-page section on the F-35, from which the above quotes are taken.

This is not quite as rosy as picture as Burbage and his Lockheed colleagues would have us believe.

Having a manufacturer defend its products is not, per se, objectionable, and Lockheed has so far done a decent job in catching up some of the delay in the flight test program.

What is objectionable, however, is the company's very loose grasp on the truth, and its willingness to play fast and loose with the facts.

To date, two of Lockheed's long-standing claims regarding the F-35 program have been proven to be catastrophically wrong:

-- its stubborn insistence that the aircraft would cost about $65 million apiece has finally been put to rest, and the unit cost of the aircraft (in LRIP Lot 5) has now risen to over $159 million '' without engines.

-- its repeated claims that little flight-testing was necessary, because it was able to detect any flaws and issues through simulation, has also been conveniently dropped, as flight testing has brought up one serious issue after another.

It is stunning that, a decade after the Joint Strike Fighter program first began encountering serious problems, Lockheed has still not woken up to the fact that manipulating the truth makes it an easy target for its critics, and does absolutely nothing for its credibility.

Pues nada, opiniones para todos los gustos...

[dacer]

http://bacteriosclub.blogspot.com/2012/ ... on-20.html

sábado 21 de enero de 2012
¡Ay omá qué rico! (Versión 2.0).-
En enero pasado, el Secretario de Defensa Gates colocaba la versión VSTOL del F-35, la Bravo, en un perí­odo de dos años de "libertad vigilada" ante los sucesivos y reiterados problemas que el aparato estaba sufriendo durante su proceso de desarrollo y ensayos. A dí­a de hoy, la "condena" ha sido levantada dado el vertiginoso adelanto que el avión ha demostrado y que lo colocan, como mí­nimo, al nivel de sus hermanos, las versiones Alpha y Charlie.

En un momento en el que leyendo los foros especializados en estos temas, parece darse a entender que de golpe y porrazo, la industria estadounidense se ha olvidado de cómo fabricar aviones de guerra, quiero hacer dos comentarios. Recordar primero que desde este Club, entre cubata y cubata, ya dijimos en "¡Ay omá qué rico!" que habrí­a un antes y un después en misiones CAS/BAI tras la entrada en servicio del F-35. El segundo comentario es un aviso para la industria aeronáutica europea, de cuyas calidades y cualidades poco queda que añadir vistos sus extraordinarios productos de mercado; señores licenciados, no se duerman en los laureles que aquí­, el más tonto, hace relojes.

El sistema de misión del F-35 ha terminado parte de las pruebas del software Block 1B, donde ha demostrado la precisión y alcance de su sistema CNI (Communication Navigation and Identification) y la integración (aún no completa) de su sistema electro-óptico de designación de objetivos que incluye FLIR táctico y láser de designación. El software también ha gestionado la presentación de imágenes desde el DAS (Distributed Aperture System) en la pantalla del casco del piloto. Puede decirse que van por buen camino, por excelente camino dirí­a yo. También se ha probado el proceso de mapeo mediante el protocolo del radar de apertura sintética (excelente), el sistema de guerra electrónica y la fusión de sensores, esta última francamente aún muy mejorable, pues solo incluye cuatro de dichos sensores, aunque tres de ellos ya han cumplido con los requisitos exigidos de firma RCS (furtividad).

[Orel]

En enero pasado, el Secretario de Defensa Gates colocaba la versión VSTOL del F-35, la Bravo, en un perí­odo de dos años de "libertad vigilada" ante los sucesivos y reiterados problemas que el aparato estaba sufriendo durante su proceso de desarrollo y ensayos. A dí­a de hoy, la "condena" ha sido levantada dado el vertiginoso adelanto que el avión ha demostrado y que lo colocan, como mí­nimo, al nivel de sus hermanos, las versiones Alpha y Charlie.

Pues me acaban de confirmar (fuente solvente) que la versión B (VSTOL) está al filo del abismo.
Podrá acabar bien, pero está siendo realmente un quebradero de cabeza. Y que el F-35, como venimos viendo, al final de "affordable" nada (con lo que será muy bueno pero incumple una de sus principales premisas de desarrollo). Incluso contando la producción en serie masiva, su precio podrí­a ser incluso mayor que el de otros como el Typhoon (que es caro).
Y, una vez más, que el F-35 es predominantemente un diseño AS por muy multirol que sea, así­ que cazas muy buenos en AA como el Tiffie aún tendrán qué decir.

[champi]

Curioso "pantallazo" de una presentación del F-35 en el que parece que bebe JP4: http://theaviationist.com/2012/01/23/f-35-jp4/