Tuesday, April 05, 2011

F-35 STOVL Engine News.


via William (thanks...much appreciated!) from Defense Daily...
F-35 STOVL Engine Challenges Surmountable By Year's End Manufacturer Says
By Marina Malenic

      WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.--The manufacturer of an engine that powers
a jump-jet version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is confident that
engineering challenges facing the engine will be resolved this year.
      "By the end of 2011, no one will be talking about difficulties
with this engine,"
Warren Boley, the head of Pratt & Whitney's military
engine business, told Defense Daily in a March 31 interview.
      Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies [UTX], builds
the F135 engine that powers all three variants of the F-35--a
conventional variant for the Air Force; a short take-off and vertical
landing (STOVL) variant for the Marine Corps; and a carrier variant for
the Navy. Lockheed Martin [LMT] is developing the airplane.
      Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a
"probation" period for the STOVL variant, which has encountered more
developmental challenges than the other two, simpler models (Defense
Daily, Jan. 7). The Marines have said they need the STOVL variant to
replace the 25-year-old AV-B Harrier, which is used when landing on
amphibious warfare vessels and improvised airstrips.
      Boley said his company can complete all necessary improvements
to the engine by the third quarter of fiscal 2011.
      "If there are still problems at that time, I know they won't be
with the engine," he said. He added that he does not have "visibility"
into the avionics or any other airframe-specific problems that Lockheed
Martin
may be having.
      "With the engine, we are dealing purely with application
engineering at this point," he added. "Tech development is complete."

      Meanwhile, Pratt & Whitney is preparing to submit a pricing
proposal for the sixth low-rate initial production (LRIP) batch of
F135s to the Pentagon by the end of the month. According to United
Technologies CEO David Hess, the company was able to provide a 16
percent cost cut on LRIP 6 and is on track to keep reducing costs with
each follow-on production batch by 13 percent.

      Earlier this year, executives from the company said they would
require an additional $1 billion to add flight-test engines and related
support to the program after Gates restructured the F-35 program as a
whole. An extended development timeline and additional flight testing
will likely mean that four to six flight-test engines will be added to
the current fleet of 18, according to Boley.
      He added that about $600 million to $700 million of the $1
billion
would be flight-test costs, while the remainder accounts for
incremental "product improvement" demanded by the F-35 Joint Program
Office following a technical baseline review completed earlier this
year. Most of those improvements relate to maintainability and field
support, according to Boley.
This must be repeated...shouted to the roof tops and broadcast to all interested parties.

THE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE A 16 PERCENT COST CUT ON LRIP 6 AND IS ON TRACK TO KEEP REDUCING COSTS WITH EACH FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION BATCH BY 13 PERCENT!

I love it when a plan comes together.

9 comments :

  1. More of this needs to come out - sure can need some (continued) good news...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yet another article that won't be seen on Ares.

    @Thomas. I'm sure you think you're cute and all but really you just come off as a childish troll. Programs in developement have hurdles to overcome, that's why they're called "developement programs". Gee, who'd have thought?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Software is coming along Thomas. Block 0.5 load is reported as stable. Block 1 (full mission systems capability) is due for release to USAF/USN training squadrons in May.

    That is when weapons release starts. Given IOC is at least 5 years away for USAF and perhaps longer for the other services I can't see getting a stable Block 3 level of capability in 5 years time, will be an insurmountable hurdle.

    Care to opine differently?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thomas,
    I'll call you on the software 'snark'. Any specific claims on what might be a 'problem' with the software? I mean, other than what is the problem with all software development programs which is the development team is largely populated with with Asperger's sufferers and they like to 'verify at the end'? Please explain WHY whatever is the alleged problem IS a problem? Keep in mind I am intimately familiar with the F-35 software development approach.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I fail to see the need to expand further, given the well documented nature of the continued delays with the software development and practical guarantee that IOC will thus be delayed till 2018, at least, if not 2020.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Thomas: If it's documented so well that you feel no need to elaborate why do you keep bringing it up? Oh that's right- to troll. I suppose you think canceling the whole program and starting over would yield a better aircraft sooner and cheaper? No? What exactly is your point then?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just thought I'd post what an F-15 pilot thinks of the F-35. (Hope it's not too long.)

    "DAS coupled with LOAL dogfight missiles (ie. AIM-9X block2 , ASRAAM) will make the F-35 lethal in WVR combat.

    http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=16861

    SLD: As a former fighter pilot, you have much F-15 experience. How will pilots perform air-to-air operations differently with the F-35? It appears to be a big culture change.


    Bartos: Well, it is. And without getting into all the tricks that the F-35 has up its sleeve, because you’re stealthy, you can get a lot closer to the adversary and your missile shots are now lethal, no-escape shots. With the F-15 today, you’re very wary of the range of the other guy’s missile, and you basically have to assume that he’s locked on to you, or at least knows where you are since you are in a big, non-stealthy airframe. And since you don’t have a missile warning system, you have to always assume that there is a missile headed your way when you get near an adversary.

    You wind up playing this game of chicken, where you get close enough to throw a rock, and then you run away to avoid any rock coming back at you. And then you try to sneak back and throw another rock from a closer range. And then you run again and try to avoid his next rock. You hope he runs out of rocks first, or that he’s not looking when you throw one of your rocks. But you never get in there and throw rocks without the fear of retribution.

    Like the F-22, the F-35 can maneuver right in there and attack with a close-in kill shot without playing chicken. If the F-35 gets in a bad situation, the pilot can extract himself a heck of a lot easier than in an F-15. The F-35 can turn away and still attack because it has eyes in the back of its head coupled with high off boresight missiles.

    DAS is always tracking every aircraft nearby, in every direction, simultaneously, and looking for inbound missiles at the same time. F-35 mission fusion software keeps targets and IDs sorted out, even in a dynamic turning dogfight or when a target is directly behind you.

    While flying an F-15 in a dogfight, I have to constantly swivel my head to manually detect and track adversaries and wingmen with my eyes. Situational awareness breaks down quickly, and I’m suddenly wondering if that distant object I’m looking at is an F-15 or an adversary aircraft.

    I’ve flown against MiG-29s, and it wasn’t until I was up close and saw the paint job that I could be positive it wasn’t an F-15. With your head and eyes shifting back and forth under high G loading in a turning fight, it is very easy to lose sight, get confused, and misidentify aircraft.

    Data link update rates are too slow for ID purposes in a dogfight. ID correlations frequently are swapped from wingmen to bandits and vice versa as they streak past your jet and swap sides.

    The F-35 isn’t going to lose those IDs; it isn’t going to lose that situational awareness because there is always at least one sensor with high update rates tracking the various aircraft. In fact, you may even do better by just looking at your situational awareness displays or helmet symbology rather than at the confusing swirl of airplanes to visually sort out good from bad.

    And if a missile is shot at you in the F-35, you’ll see it coming whether it is smokeless or not. You can take the appropriate measures, or just let the aircraft automatically provide the countermeasures."

    (From F-16.net)

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Thomas:
    LOL! You parsed that answer to the point of being meaningless so well I thought I heard Sir Humphrey's voice for a moment as I read it. Very droll, Thomas. Very droll.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.