F-16.net

F-16.net Editor Joined: Aug 23, 2003 Posts: 1763

I heard the report on the news last night and searched out the article on the BBC website. Kind of worrying as the Royal Navy is in the process of 'downsizing' its Sea Harrier force to zero Embarassed

800 Sqn just retired it's colours, so won't be seeing them in our local skies again Sad

Read it at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3718567.stm

and at http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article1081.html

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: Jan 31, 2004 Posts: 1561 Status: Offline

So if I'm to be believe that Tory defence spokesman, the F-35 is 3300 lbs overweight therefore it proves conclusively that "the government is failing to give the proper support to our armed forces"? Rolling Eyes

Somebody get that guy a hot cup of Earl Grey and tell him to relax already!

SHEESH! The program is two years into an 11 year development plan and already people on both sides of the pond are kvetching?! Our Brit friends can correct me but since when have Royal Navy Harriers routinely taken off vertically from the boat with a combat load? Recover, yes...but takeoff? All the RN carriers equipped with the Harrier have the "Ski Jump" to assist on the takeoff, don't they? And judging from the beefiness of the V/STOL F-35 landing gear I would conclude it could also use the same ski jumps. So what's the problem? The engine is heavier than expected, so what? Maybe it's because it has to drive all that articulated nozzle and lift fan equipment? Lockheed has a lot of smart people. They'll figure it out. Wink

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3098 Status: Offline

Amen! Looks like the ministry of defense has a good handle on things and, as usual, the politicians are playing politics Rolling Eyes

I've been around at airshows for years and seen USMC Harriers do demos for years. One thing they always demonstrate is the "Short Field Takeoff". Ask any jump jet driver and they'll tell you that they don't do vertical takeoffs when they're loaded down with gas and weapons. I don't recall ever seeing video or pictures of a Harrier doing vertical takeoffs from a ship, but I could be wrong. What could make the politicians think the JSF could?! Evil or Very Mad

Wait a minute, I think I just answered my own question - THEY'RE POLITICIANS!!! Rolling Eyes

Hmmm, F-111B, A-12, F-35 - what do they have in common?

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

The B is the real weigh issue jet here. The laws of physics ain't going to change for that design team. Be interesting if they can produce enough hamster power to spin that B model fan to where it can lift a useable combat weight without having some silly short combat range. Good luck.

So much for accurate bidding. At what point to you down check the winning bid and go with the runner up?

Here we go again; a case of the media playing the MOD up as people who can't get anything right. Yes theres been problems with other programs but these current development f-35's are test and development airframes and with news coming out about weight being a porblem it puts a bad spin on a very very young program.

In my eyes the problem is with the MOD trying to match a fighter with a carrier rather than a carrier to a fighter. It's known that the JSF and future carrier for the Royal navy are to be brought into service together and the new carriers have already been downsized twice, which puts into doubt weather the new carriers will be able to operate heavier aircraft with such lack of space. The new carrier will have ski jumps like the current fleet of three, (which by the way wont opertate JSF) which means VSTOL ops on a short deck can be achieved, so long as theres enough run room.

But the main point has already been raised weight of the JSF, its a problem yes but a problem that will be worked through after all the MOD and DOD are in agreement there's no going back on JSF.

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 58 Status: Offline

First Pratt and Whitney F135 STOVL Propulsion System For F-35 Successfully Demonstrates Hover Thrust

For the first time, Pratt & Whitney's Short Take-Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) Propulsion System for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has demonstrated 39,700 pounds of thrust, the level required for the unique combat aircraft to hover. At the same time, weight reduction initiatives have brought the F135 engine system below its contracted target weight.

This demonstration confirms pre-test predictions established for the F135 propulsion system and provides strong evidence that the production configuration of the F135 will achieve specification requirements for hover thrust. With completion of this demonstration, the F135 Team has accomplished another significant milestone on the path to qualifying the F135 engine.

The latest review of the F135 STOVL System revealed that the achieved-to- date (ATD) weight is below the contracted weight target value. An on-going weight management plan will result in a STOVL weight at 3% to 6% below the contracted target. The weight achievements are critical for F-35 performance.

The F135 STOVL team continues to investigate additional weight reduction and performance enhancement opportunities with Lockheed Martin, Rolls-Royce and the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office. "These achievements are especially significant in light of the intense focus on STOVL aircraft performance," said Bill Gostic, Pratt & Whitney's F135 program director. "Congratulations to the whole F135 team for making this achievement a reality. The results of the STOVL test are critical to our success and you made it happen." The F135 Propulsion System Team consists of P&W, the prime contractor with responsibility for the propulsion system and system integration for all variants; Hamilton Sundstrand, provider of the F135's control system, external accessories and gearbox; and Rolls-Royce, providing the Rolls-Royce LiftFan(TM), 3 Bearing Swivel Module and Roll Posts to the STOVL (Short Take- Off/Vertical Landing) F-35B.

For more information on Jet Engines

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

JSF is 'too heavy to take off'