Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions.
- Thread starter Lankan Ranger
- Start date
Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
2008 doc. Chaining F35's across borders for one big NATO radar picture? Or the affordable part?
Last edited:
dexter
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,111
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
dexter
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,111
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Excellent article on the F-35's engine nozzle...
Code One Magazine: History Of The F-35B Swivel Duct
Code One Magazine: History Of The F-35B Swivel Duct
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Good article appreciate it!!
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
BAE Working F-35 and Typhoon Interoperability
Jul. 14, 2014 - By AARON MEHTA
BAE hopes to link the training systems of the F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon programs. (Copyright Eurofighter-Geoffrey Lee)
FARNBOROUGH, ENGLAND— The F-35 joint strike fighter may well come to rule the skies of the future, but for decades to come it will need to work with existing “fourth-generation” fleets. Finding ways to make that work is an early topic being discussed at this year’s Farnborough International Airshow.
BAE, a major partner on both the F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon programs, is undergoing tests to find ways to link the training systems for the two planes together in order to determine best tactics for operations, according to a company spokesman.
The spokesman said the firm is currently underdoing the third round of trials for the system, which have “done well.”
The firm is also exploring the question of “fourth-to-fifth” and “fifth-to-fourth” communication. Key to the F-35 is the ability to gather and share massive amounts of data automatically through its MADL system, but making sure that data can be received and processed by fourth-gen fighters is a major undertaking and focus by the corporate partners.
One method being eyed by BAE is the Link 16 system, which is used across a number of Pentagon systems. Northrop Grumman, another F-35 corporate partner, recently tested using the Link 16 system to communicate between an F-35 and F-22.
Ensuring information can be passed from the F-35 back to fourth-gen aircraft is the “best investment for us in the future,” said Billie Flynn, a senior experimental test pilot for Lockheed Martin who has flown both the Typhoon and F-35.
Tactically, Flynn said the capabilities of the JSF allow it to move ahead of older aircraft that may be more vulnerable to ground-based defenses.
“We come and go with impunity, and we gather situational awareness no one else can have,” Flynn said of piloting the F-35. “We get to go to places, gather information and bring that information back. So as an attack vehicle we get to go out in front, we get to neutralize the surface to air threats, we get to make it safe for a fourth generation plane to get in.”
Flynn, who commanded a CF-18 wing that took out Serbian defenses during operations in the 1990s, said tactically, fifth-generation planes will not operate in large formations going forward, a contrast to the way fourth-generation systems will work.
“Gone are the days that we will fly in some tactical formation like we remember from every movie that was around in the fourth generation,” Flynn said. “We’re many miles away in elaborate formations that allow us to cover vast amounts of sky. Evolving our tactics to fly as a proper fifth-generation airplane, that’s our future.
BAE Working F-35 and Typhoon Interoperability | Defense News | defensenews.com
Jul. 14, 2014 - By AARON MEHTA
BAE hopes to link the training systems of the F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon programs. (Copyright Eurofighter-Geoffrey Lee)
FARNBOROUGH, ENGLAND— The F-35 joint strike fighter may well come to rule the skies of the future, but for decades to come it will need to work with existing “fourth-generation” fleets. Finding ways to make that work is an early topic being discussed at this year’s Farnborough International Airshow.
BAE, a major partner on both the F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon programs, is undergoing tests to find ways to link the training systems for the two planes together in order to determine best tactics for operations, according to a company spokesman.
The spokesman said the firm is currently underdoing the third round of trials for the system, which have “done well.”
The firm is also exploring the question of “fourth-to-fifth” and “fifth-to-fourth” communication. Key to the F-35 is the ability to gather and share massive amounts of data automatically through its MADL system, but making sure that data can be received and processed by fourth-gen fighters is a major undertaking and focus by the corporate partners.
One method being eyed by BAE is the Link 16 system, which is used across a number of Pentagon systems. Northrop Grumman, another F-35 corporate partner, recently tested using the Link 16 system to communicate between an F-35 and F-22.
Ensuring information can be passed from the F-35 back to fourth-gen aircraft is the “best investment for us in the future,” said Billie Flynn, a senior experimental test pilot for Lockheed Martin who has flown both the Typhoon and F-35.
Tactically, Flynn said the capabilities of the JSF allow it to move ahead of older aircraft that may be more vulnerable to ground-based defenses.
“We come and go with impunity, and we gather situational awareness no one else can have,” Flynn said of piloting the F-35. “We get to go to places, gather information and bring that information back. So as an attack vehicle we get to go out in front, we get to neutralize the surface to air threats, we get to make it safe for a fourth generation plane to get in.”
Flynn, who commanded a CF-18 wing that took out Serbian defenses during operations in the 1990s, said tactically, fifth-generation planes will not operate in large formations going forward, a contrast to the way fourth-generation systems will work.
“Gone are the days that we will fly in some tactical formation like we remember from every movie that was around in the fourth generation,” Flynn said. “We’re many miles away in elaborate formations that allow us to cover vast amounts of sky. Evolving our tactics to fly as a proper fifth-generation airplane, that’s our future.
BAE Working F-35 and Typhoon Interoperability | Defense News | defensenews.com
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Experts: Don't Bet on Revival of 2nd F-35 Engine
Jul. 20, 2014 -By MARCUS WEISGERBER and AARON MEHTA
A US Senate panel is calling on Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to reassess the value of an alternate power plant, such as the General Electric-Rolls-Royce F136 pictured here, for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. (US Air Force)
WASHINGTON AND FARNBOROUGH, ENGLAND— The revival of the Pentagon’s storied F-35 alternative engine program is unlikely despite a US Senate panel raising that possibility, experts say.
Finding billions of dollars for such an effort within the Pentagon’s already capped budget would prove a herculean task, particularly if sequestration caps return in 2016, these experts say. And even if the caps are removed through a long- or short-term congressional budget deal, the alternate F-35 power plant could threaten funding of another Defense Department engine program.
“This may be one time when sequestration imposes a needed discipline on the budgeting process,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute and a consultant to defense firms. “To restart the alternate engine program, legislators would have to find billions of dollars.”
The Obama administration, led by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, lobbied hard to kill the second engine program in 2011, so it would not support legislation to revive the program, Thompson said.
DoD said the F-35 prime engine, built by Pratt & Whitney, would suffice and save DoD billions of dollars needed to field a second engine. Advocates of the alternate power plant, built by a GE and Rolls-Royce team, said a second engine is necessary to generate competition and drive down the price.
These advocates also say it is necessary should a major problem arise with one of the engines, thus grounding the fleet of thousands of planned F-35s.
A June 23 engine fire on an Air Force F-35 attempting to take off subsequently grounded all F-35s for more than two weeks. The jets were cleared for restricted flight operations last week, but Pentagon officials opted not to send the aircraft to its scheduled European debut at the Farnborough International Airshow in England.
In a report issued last week, the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee “recommends” senior Pentagon officials “reassess the value of an alternate engine program creating competition to improve price, quality and operational availability.”
The panel’s report on the Pentagon 2015 spending bill states that members believe “that had the alternate engine program continued, competition would have incentivized [Pratt & Whitney] to find creative methods to drive down prices and ensure timely delivery of a high-quality product, which is consistent with current department preference for competition in acquisitions.”
The GE-Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team had no comment on the Senate recommendation.
One possible bill payer, should the second engine program return, could be the Air force’s Adaptive Engine Technology Development program, in which the Pentagon plans to invest $1 billion between 2016 and 2019, some experts say. That effort is focused on developing a “sixth-generation” fighter engine that could provide better fuel-burn rates. But the high-performance engine program is already at risk, as DoD officials have said they would cancel the effort if sequestration returns in 2016.
But even if the program is revived in 2015 or 2016, generating competition would be difficult considering the GE-Rolls-Royce F136 program has been stalled since 2011.
“The prospects for having an engine competition anytime soon are zero,” Thompson said.
Frank Kendall, Pentagon acquisition executive, said on July 14 he had no desire to reopen the competition.
“Overall we’re confident in the design,” he said. “We’re still in development, we still have work to do, [largely] on the margins, but overall we’re confident. We’re not interested ... in going back several years and opening up to another competitor.”
Bennett Crosswell, who heads Pratt’s military division, said he wasn’t worried about the Senate report language.
“I’ll let others decide how they want to treat this,” he said. “I don’t even think about it. I just think about meeting the requirements of our customers. I know it sounds kind of corny, but truly, that’s what we’re focused on.”
The largest reason a new engine may not rise to challenge Pratt? Spending caps that would require something else within the Pentagon’s annual budget to be cut. Without an obvious offset, this competition may just be a dream.
“The debate about the alternate fighter engine had little to do with rigorous analysis and technical assessments, and more to do with partisan and regional politics,” Richard Aboulafia, a Teal Group analyst, wrote in an email. “Thus, even though this incident would seem to help make the argument for a second engine as an insurance policy for the program, it won’t matter very much if all the politicians involved continue to follow a rigid ideological or local script.”
The culprit behind the fire, which claimed the fighter designated AF-27, was a part of the engine known as the integrally bladed rotor (IBR). There are multiple IBRs in each F135 engine, but this particular one was located in the fan section of the engine.
The blade is designed to rub against the shell of the engine as part of normal operation, but this part rubbed too much — Kendall described it as “excessive” rubbing — leading to the fire.
“I don’t think the engine fire is a sign of a problem that will derail the program, especially since it was the first such incident in 25,000 hours of time on its engines,” said Mark Gunzinger, a former DoD official and now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.
Although Pentagon officials indicated they believe the issue is a one-off and not a fleetwide issue, they are not taking chances. As part of the return to flight issued on July 15, F-35 engines must be inspected after every three hours of use.
Crosswell said his company is ready to assist the government in sections of the engines going forward.
This is the second IBR-related engine issue to crop up in the past eight months. A test engine was heavily damaged in December after an IBR blew after 2,200 hours of testing, a significant amount roughly equivalent to nine years of service
Experts: Don't Bet on Revival of 2nd F-35 Engine | Defense News | defensenews.com
Jul. 20, 2014 -By MARCUS WEISGERBER and AARON MEHTA
A US Senate panel is calling on Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to reassess the value of an alternate power plant, such as the General Electric-Rolls-Royce F136 pictured here, for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. (US Air Force)
WASHINGTON AND FARNBOROUGH, ENGLAND— The revival of the Pentagon’s storied F-35 alternative engine program is unlikely despite a US Senate panel raising that possibility, experts say.
Finding billions of dollars for such an effort within the Pentagon’s already capped budget would prove a herculean task, particularly if sequestration caps return in 2016, these experts say. And even if the caps are removed through a long- or short-term congressional budget deal, the alternate F-35 power plant could threaten funding of another Defense Department engine program.
“This may be one time when sequestration imposes a needed discipline on the budgeting process,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute and a consultant to defense firms. “To restart the alternate engine program, legislators would have to find billions of dollars.”
The Obama administration, led by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, lobbied hard to kill the second engine program in 2011, so it would not support legislation to revive the program, Thompson said.
DoD said the F-35 prime engine, built by Pratt & Whitney, would suffice and save DoD billions of dollars needed to field a second engine. Advocates of the alternate power plant, built by a GE and Rolls-Royce team, said a second engine is necessary to generate competition and drive down the price.
These advocates also say it is necessary should a major problem arise with one of the engines, thus grounding the fleet of thousands of planned F-35s.
A June 23 engine fire on an Air Force F-35 attempting to take off subsequently grounded all F-35s for more than two weeks. The jets were cleared for restricted flight operations last week, but Pentagon officials opted not to send the aircraft to its scheduled European debut at the Farnborough International Airshow in England.
In a report issued last week, the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee “recommends” senior Pentagon officials “reassess the value of an alternate engine program creating competition to improve price, quality and operational availability.”
The panel’s report on the Pentagon 2015 spending bill states that members believe “that had the alternate engine program continued, competition would have incentivized [Pratt & Whitney] to find creative methods to drive down prices and ensure timely delivery of a high-quality product, which is consistent with current department preference for competition in acquisitions.”
The GE-Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team had no comment on the Senate recommendation.
One possible bill payer, should the second engine program return, could be the Air force’s Adaptive Engine Technology Development program, in which the Pentagon plans to invest $1 billion between 2016 and 2019, some experts say. That effort is focused on developing a “sixth-generation” fighter engine that could provide better fuel-burn rates. But the high-performance engine program is already at risk, as DoD officials have said they would cancel the effort if sequestration returns in 2016.
But even if the program is revived in 2015 or 2016, generating competition would be difficult considering the GE-Rolls-Royce F136 program has been stalled since 2011.
“The prospects for having an engine competition anytime soon are zero,” Thompson said.
Frank Kendall, Pentagon acquisition executive, said on July 14 he had no desire to reopen the competition.
“Overall we’re confident in the design,” he said. “We’re still in development, we still have work to do, [largely] on the margins, but overall we’re confident. We’re not interested ... in going back several years and opening up to another competitor.”
Bennett Crosswell, who heads Pratt’s military division, said he wasn’t worried about the Senate report language.
“I’ll let others decide how they want to treat this,” he said. “I don’t even think about it. I just think about meeting the requirements of our customers. I know it sounds kind of corny, but truly, that’s what we’re focused on.”
The largest reason a new engine may not rise to challenge Pratt? Spending caps that would require something else within the Pentagon’s annual budget to be cut. Without an obvious offset, this competition may just be a dream.
“The debate about the alternate fighter engine had little to do with rigorous analysis and technical assessments, and more to do with partisan and regional politics,” Richard Aboulafia, a Teal Group analyst, wrote in an email. “Thus, even though this incident would seem to help make the argument for a second engine as an insurance policy for the program, it won’t matter very much if all the politicians involved continue to follow a rigid ideological or local script.”
The culprit behind the fire, which claimed the fighter designated AF-27, was a part of the engine known as the integrally bladed rotor (IBR). There are multiple IBRs in each F135 engine, but this particular one was located in the fan section of the engine.
The blade is designed to rub against the shell of the engine as part of normal operation, but this part rubbed too much — Kendall described it as “excessive” rubbing — leading to the fire.
“I don’t think the engine fire is a sign of a problem that will derail the program, especially since it was the first such incident in 25,000 hours of time on its engines,” said Mark Gunzinger, a former DoD official and now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.
Although Pentagon officials indicated they believe the issue is a one-off and not a fleetwide issue, they are not taking chances. As part of the return to flight issued on July 15, F-35 engines must be inspected after every three hours of use.
Crosswell said his company is ready to assist the government in sections of the engines going forward.
This is the second IBR-related engine issue to crop up in the past eight months. A test engine was heavily damaged in December after an IBR blew after 2,200 hours of testing, a significant amount roughly equivalent to nine years of service
Experts: Don't Bet on Revival of 2nd F-35 Engine | Defense News | defensenews.com
Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
Rear-view mirror IN the helmet.
Thanks for the share, Sir.
It was a good read.
-------------
I so cannot wait till JMSDF, JASDF, JGSDF acquires these babies...soon!
betonamujin1902
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2014
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
those babies so beautiful
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
The highlighted shows your ignorance in the concept of engineering/manufacturing concurrency. Simply put...What you believe about the concept and its execution is wrong.
As for the generals and admirals you cited, with all due respect to their yrs of service, they are not omniscient. Generals and admirals have been proven wrong -- grossly wrong -- before, especially when it comes to technology. Among the most famous of these errors and lack of innovative thinking is the potential of air power vis-a-vis General Billy Mitchell and the sinking of ships as demonstrators of what air power can do back in 1921. It is interesting that you extolled the F-16 when that aircraft was practically hated by all the men who wore stars and bars on their shoulders at the Pentagon. And look at the F-16 today. Spectacularly successful in terms of innovation, popularity, and production.
Do you really think that engineering/manufacturing concurrency is something new in industries ? As an avionics specialist, any of us can tell you that engineering/manufacturing concurrency is common. Ask any automotive designer/engineer and he/she will tell you the same thing as General Motors with its many subdivisions and their cars sharing the same common platforms for cars and trucks. Same for Ford or Chrysler.
But just in case you object that electronics components and cars are not applicable to support engineering/manufacturing concurrency in aviation, let us see what Boeing and Airbus may have something to say about that, shall we ?
Case Study IBM Airbus PLM Implementation Engineering Concepts | TechDrummer
Boeing 777 Case Study Abstract
What else can we find about the concept of engineering/manufacturing concurrency ?
Concurrent Engineering - organization, levels, examples, definition, school, company, business
Lockheed may not have the market time constraints for the F-35 as GM do for its vehicles, but LM is pressured by the US military because of the aging fleets of its aircrafts and the progress of combat technologies from US adversaries.
But...Basically, YOU, an anonymous face on this little corner of the Internet, knows more about the concept of engineering/manufacturing concurrency than the tens of thousands of engineers, managers, technologists, and corporate chiefs put together. If Lockheed is stupid, then so are General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Boeing, and Airbus, right ?
Similar threads
