F-35B Grounded

[marcos]

I don't think this is a big deal. They had a pipe or hose that was leaking or completely failed. Luckily, nobody got hurt. They'll fix this ...

 

My question is, what in the world do we need F-35B for? We have 12 carriers and countries (many of them corrupt) that allow us to use runways all throughout the world. Why are we spending billions, and billions and billions of dollars on VTOL? Who's going to buy this airplane?

I'm asking the very same questions about the UK's F-35B purchase. The logical point of having new 280m long carries is to not require STOVL. Just fit a catapult and buy an F-35C, or even better a Rafale M.

 

Can you actually imagine that happening? :D Somehow I feel like the MoD would rather burn...

That's the problem. It's all become about ego over capability.

 

Making a non-carrier Typhoon was the world's stupidest screw-up. The second most stupid screw-up was not fitting a catapult to the new carriers. Third most stupid screw-up was signing up for an overly complicated STOVL stealth fighter, that can't carry stand-off weapons internally (therefore no stealth advantage), can't dog-fight and has no gun and no range. At least the C variant would only have 2 of those disadvantages.

 

The Rafale M? Sure, it's less stealthy, but has better range, can dogfight and has a gun. So it has maybe it has a lower RCS, but wit closing speeds of over 1km/s, IRST, the R^4 term in the radar equation and MRAAM success rate, I'm not going to bet on a small stealth advantage as a plug for all holes. Buy a Rafale M and invest the spare cash in radar technology, ECM and EW.

Edited January 20, 2013 by marcos

[Phantom88]

Some more in depth info has come out on the Grounding The F-35B........

 

The $150 million F-35B is now unable to fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm because engineers believe it could explode if struck by lightning.

The grounding of the aircraft reported by David Cenciotti for us yesterday will not be lifted until an oxygen gauge in the fuel tank is redesigned in all current F-35B vertical takeoff variants.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has experienced setbacks since 2000 when the first concept designs by Boeing, and winning contractor Lockheed Martin, were scaled back due to cost overruns and development delays. Current estimates place the cost of operating the projected U.S. fleet of F-35s at about $1 trillion over the five decades it's expected to serve the Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

This most recent development is mentioned in the Pentagon's 2012 Operational Test and Evaluation report that annually examines developing defense programs until they reach full production.

The section on the F-35 doesn't mention the critical fuel problem until the second page where it seems to have been known about since 2009.

From the DoD report:

Tests of the fuel tank inerting system in 2009 identified deficiencies in maintaining the required lower fuel tank oxygen levels to prevent fuel tank explosions. The system is not able to maintain fuel tank inerting through some critical portions of a simulated mission profile. The program is redesigning the On-Board Inert Gas Generating System (OBIGGS) to provide the required levels of protection from threat and from fuel tank explosions induced by lightning.

Lockheed released a January 11 F-35 program highlight sheet mentioning the F-35B accomplished 396 flights, met more than 2,400 test points, and executed 102 vertical landings. Of the 30 JSF deliveries made in 2012 only one was an F-35B and that was made to Britain's Royal Air Force in October.

Part of Lockheed's, and the Pentagon's success at signing countries onto the program is integrating its development into foreign economies, making jobs a part of final delivery. The Telegraph points out that concern in an article today:

The future of the aircraft is also key to Britain’s defence industry and will help to sustain over 20,000 jobs.

Although the plane is being manufactured by Lockheed Martin, Britain is a major partner in the programme, with both BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce playing key roles in the production and design of the jet.

The UK already cut its F-35B order to 48 from the 2006 order of 138 jets.

A spokesman for Lockheed Martin told The Telegraph: "“The F-35 is a stealth aircraft and by definition it is less vulnerable than any fourth generation fighter flying today. We don’t consider this a major issue. We have demonstrated very good vulnerability performance and we continue to work this with the Joint Programme Office.”

All of this comes after Canada's December announcement that it would be stepping back from its F-35 commitment.

Australia followed Canada's announcement a few days later saying it would buy 24 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets if it saw any more delays in the F-35 program.

Firming its support for the program the Pentagon promptly announced it was signing a contract with Lockheed Martin for a fifth batch of 32 jets worth $3.8 billion.

U.S. pilots started training in the F-35 at Eglin, AFB starting this month can likely plan on duty stations at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, which will be the first U.S. F-35 overseas base in the world.

All of that is good news for Lockheed Martin and its investors who now expect profits in the high single digits following about 10 years of four percent profits during the F-35's development phase.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35b-grounded-exploding-lightning-fuel-tank-2013-1#ixzz2IWdUtZSE

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35b-grounded-exploding-lightning-fuel-tank-2013-1

Edited January 20, 2013 by Phantom88

[marcos]

Some more in depth info has come out on the "Fueldraulics" problem in The F-35B........

 

The $150 million F-35B is now unable to fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm because engineers believe it could explode if struck by lightning.

That means it'll never pass airworthiness. The lightning strike test is always a fundamental part of testing.

 

The fact the US Navy bought F-18E/Fs should have given the game away. Something is needed in the interim at the very least.

[Darkwolf]

They will never drop the F-35 now that China got their own copycat.

 

Could you imagine the situation ? USA dropping the F35 development, while China succeeded with their F35-replica ? A few people at R&D would suicide.

[Jona33]

I hope they consider it a little more thoroughly than that... ;)

 

Don't be silly, we don't have the money to pay people to debate over whether or not we should have a committee to debate whether or not we should consider buying the Rafale. :D (Plus they'll need to fill in Health and Safety risk assessment in case they strain a thumb when typing.)

[Cali]

I didn't think it would be replacing ALL hydraulics, only some where fuel was already headinf, and hydraulic fluid not -

"Commercial turbofans use fuel to actuate VSV/IGV, VBV and cooling valves through Hydro Mechanical Unit. "

Isn't that effectively " put(ting) a "T" on the fuel line somewhere and use(ing) fuel as your hydraulic fluid.. " ?

 

I thought you were saying replace hydro fluid with fuel completely.

 

What's the worst thing that could happen? Would it turn solid?

 

I wouldn't know, but I don't think it would turn solid, cause it doesn't even freeze.

[EtherealN]

They will never drop the F-35 now that China got their own copycat.

 

Specific variants ov it might be dropped, however.

[EtherealN]

I wouldn't know, but I don't think it would turn solid, cause it doesn't even freeze.

 

I'm not familiar with the details of what goes in aircraft fuels, but one phenomenon I've seen myself (in hydraulic oils) is where too high pressure combined with low flow in small parts cause additives to separate; the additives can then turn solid, and you now have a plug that is a PITA to get rid of.

 

If this is a risk in components that actuate engine parts... That could certainly be a big deal. But of course, in all cases I've seen this has been additives that do the fun, not the actual hydrocarbons, so no clue whether this could happen in a jet fuel system. (Most common culprit has been those polymer balls they use to moderate visqocity index, if I remember right.) I'd wager they make damn certain not to use the wrong additives in jet fuel though. :P

Edited January 20, 2013 by EtherealN

[Phantom88]

A bit Comical,The F-35B "Lightning"II Can't fly in "Lightning" or risk getting blown up!!

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35b-grounded-exploding-lightning-fuel-tank-2013-1

[Sierra99]

Sad thing is I don't think anyone really wants the F-35...

 

Navy and Marines like he 18-E/F models and the Air Force would have rather had the F-22s that were cut to move funds to the F-35...

 

It used to be the military told contractor what they wanted and the contractors delivered... Now we buy what the say the can deliver... Kinda sucks ballz.

 

Gadgets

[aaron886]

The Rafale M? Sure, it's less stealthy, but has better range, can dogfight and has a gun. So it has maybe it has a lower RCS, but wit closing speeds of over 1km/s, IRST, the R^4 term in the radar equation and MRAAM success rate, I'm not going to bet on a small stealth advantage as a plug for all holes. Buy a Rafale M and invest the spare cash in radar technology, ECM and EW.

 

That's an awfully simplistic comparison, but OK.

[marcos]

That's an awfully simplistic comparison, but OK.

Well there's an awful lot riding on this 'stealth capability', probably too much. Take away stealth and the F-35 is a bad plane that nobody would want, especially the B variant.

 

When the UK and others signed up to the B variant, they were given the illusion that it would be the same as the other two but VTOL. It turns out to be nowhere near the truth.

 

1) It's STOVL, providing the problem of recovery landings on aborted mission.

 

2) Its range sucks.

 

3) It can't carry any standoff weapons internally. Not the JSOW or JSOW-ER. It can't carry 2000lb bombs internally either. The A and C can do both these. As for JASSMs or Storm Shadows, not even close.

 

4) Dogfight - can't do it.

 

5) Survivability - stealth yes, but only one engine (and blows up in lightning).

 

Funny that the Chinese, for all their alleged blind copying, weren't stupid enough to built a single-engined carrier plane. Credit where credit is due.

 

I don't think the BVR advantage will play out as well as it does in training with 90-100% simulated success rates for AMRAAMs and WVR a Rafale M will f*ck an F-35.

 

As regards interdiction and denied access areas. Even assuming the F-35B has the range to reach them, without external tanks, why bother when I can launch a KEPD 350 from 500km away and not even have to access the airspace. Or even a Tomahawk/MdCN from maybe 2000km away.

 

SEAD? Can the F-35 carry HARMs internally? Nope. Certainly not the B variant.

 

Whilst it has all this supposed stealth image thing going for it. I don't see it being the magic bullet, mostly because the people building it either weren't thinking, or made so many compromises to achieve stealth and STOVL that mission capability was sacrificed in a big way.

 

Stealth - yes. STOVL - yes. Capable fighter - no.

Edited January 21, 2013 by marcos

[wilky510]

The Rafale M? Sure, it's less stealthy, but has better range, can dogfight and has a gun. So it has maybe it has a lower RCS, but wit closing speeds of over 1km/s, IRST, the R^4 term in the radar equation and MRAAM success rate, I'm not going to bet on a small stealth advantage as a plug for all holes. Buy a Rafale M and invest the spare cash in radar technology, ECM and EW.

Ah yes. How could one forget about the godly IRST. The apparent stealth killer.

[wilky510]

.

 

Funny that the Chinese, for all their alleged blind copying, weren't stupid enough to built a single-engined carrier plane. Credit where credit is due.

Their engines aren't matured enough to be put on single engined aircraft. They still rely heavily on Russian engines.

[aaron886]

Actually anyone who makes the suggestion that two-engined jet aircraft were all about redundancy just doesn't know what they're talking about. The purpose, in general, was for increased total thrust.

[marcos]

Actually anyone who makes the suggestion that two-engined jet aircraft were all about redundancy just doesn't know what they're talking about. The purpose, in general, was for increased total thrust.

And that's why we have a STOVL fighter with a hugely complicated lift fan system that's going to be a maintenance nightmare. The lift fan is there because it doesn't have 2 engines and therefore doesn't have enough thrust for STOVL operations without it.

 

With 2 F119s, it could have just used diverter nozzles.

 

Their engines aren't matured enough to be put on single engined aircraft. They still rely heavily on Russian engines.

And the Russians could have built them one but they correctly recognised it as the silly solution it was.

Edited January 21, 2013 by marcos

[Cali]

And that's why we have a STOVL fighter with a hugely complicated lift fan system that's going to be a maintenance nightmare. The lift fan is there because it doesn't have 2 engines and therefore doesn't have enough thrust for STOVL operations without it.

 

With 2 F119s, it could have just used diverter nozzles.

 

 

And the Russians could have built them one but they correctly recognised it as the silly solution it was.

 

I'm sure they already thought of that and many other things.

[marcos]

I'm sure they already thought of that and many other things.

I personally think they just started with the single engine because it seemed to make more internal space for weapons carriage, and then just carried on digging regardless of what problems they ran into, e.g. the 50,000lbf engine ending up with 43,000lbf.

 

I can't help but sit here and suggest that an easier solution would have been to build a Raptor with larger weapon bays and folding wings for carrier use. Fit it with the cheaper to maintain stealth material and the F-35 avionics and design diverter nozzles for VTOL.

 

As an engineer, I can't for the life of me see how that could have been any harder, or produce a worse solution, or taken as long.

[sobek]

And that's why we have a STOVL fighter with a hugely complicated lift fan system that's going to be a maintenance nightmare. The lift fan is there because it doesn't have 2 engines and therefore doesn't have enough thrust for STOVL operations without it.

 

The lift fan is there to have a source of lift forward of the CG. How would you position a 2nd engine so it provides that? Diverting compressor air like the Harrier does has it's own set of problems.

[marcos]

The lift fan is there to have a source of lift forward of the CG. How would you position a 2nd engine so it provides that? Diverting compressor air like the Harrier does has it's own set of problems.

As many as a lift-fan? It's been done and it's a proven technology but even putting the B variant aside, designing a separate aircraft to the F-22 for the F-35A & C, just seems bizarre. All it needs was a bigger bomb bay and CATOBAR mods.

[swift]

Engineers discover culprit behind F-35B fueldraulic line failure.

"Evidence revealed a quality discrepancy from the company that produces the fueldraulics line," the JPO says. "The investigation determined the line was improperly crimped."

SOURCE

[aaron886]

Nice. Glad to hear continued, prompt, effort.

[mikoyan]

I'm sure they already thought of that and many other things.

 

Have you seen the harrier compressor? it is big; I don't think that you can duplicate that layout with a regular engine. The first part of the engine on a harrier pushes cold air from the compressor which needs to be big. The russians solved that issue with another jet engine at the front, but once you are flying conventionally it becomes death weight. The f-35 uses a clutch and a driveshaft and that makes it very complicated plus reducing the space available because of the driveshaft tunnel.... anyway it is a mess... VTOL has always been a compromise, the harrier so far has been the only successful story, but it is no super fighter.

[Cali]

Nope, I haven't seen the compressor. I think we are still a long way off from having a star wars take off jet. I was just saying that I'm sure the engineers thought of all sorts of things trying to make this work better. Those have got to be some of the smartest dumb people on earth.

[Exorcet]

1) It's STOVL

And I don't really see the point. The F-35B has always been a waste of money, and always will be.

2) Its range sucks.

Seems good to me, and if I recall they only gave lower range figures. Large tanks and relatively high bypass turbofan on a clean body is going to provide decent range.

 

 

 

4) Dogfight - can't do it.

Since when?

 

5) Survivability - stealth yes, but only one engine (and blows up in lightning).

Stealth yes, that's a huge advantage along with the sensors and cooperative capability with other F-35's. On top of that it's no worse than current fighters performance wise.

 

 

With 2 F119s, it could have just used diverter nozzles.

With 2 F119's you would lose a plane as soon as a single engine went out on the vertical landing and probably on the short take off too. You'd also burn more fuel.

 

And where are you going to place these F119's to allow vertical maneuvers? 70,000 lbs of thrust won't go any good away from the cg.