Forum: General F-35 Forum

Last edited by spazsinbad on Mar 15, 2011 - 05:40 AM; edited 9 times in total

cafpilot said: "...The maintenance issue is the problem of 2 engines and stealth coatings. The idea with the F-35 is that the lack of a second engine (engines being the biggest chunk of maintenance time and money) would provide money to cover the stealth material maintenance...." What?

ADDITION:
Composites Machining for the F-35 Aug? 8/3/2010 Article From: Modern Machine Shop , Peter Zelinski, Senior Editor

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles ... r-the-f-35

"Lockheed Martin’s precision machining of composite skin sections for the F-35 provides part of the reason why this plane saves money for U.S. taxpayers. That machining makes the plane compelling in ways that have led other countries to take up some of the cost. Here is a look at a high-value, highly engineered machining process for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft....

...The F-35 features “supportable” VLO. That is, the VLO on this plane comes with very low maintenance cost.

Stealth aircraft of the past couldn’t make that claim. Because radar detects sharp edges, even small mismatches between exterior parts on past VLO planes were smoothed out using epoxy. The epoxy would dry, harden and separate in the field—meaning it had to be frequently inspected and replaced.

By contrast, adjacent parts of the F-35 match so fluidly and precisely that no epoxy is needed. The trouble with previous stealth aircraft has disappeared...."
___________________________

F-35C STEALTH ON THE CARRIER DECK MEANS HIGH PERFORMANCE, LOW MAINTENANCE

http://www.jsf.mil/news/documents/20080 ... ARRIER.rtf

"FORT WORTH, Texas, March 18th, 2008 -- The U.S. Navy’s version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is scheduled to make its first flight next year, but technicians have spent the last decade perfecting the aircraft’s stealth design and materials to ensure they stand up to harsh carrier-deck and combat conditions with very little upkeep....

...The F-35 achieves its Very Low Observable stealth performance through its fundamental design, its external shape and its manufacturing processes, which control tolerances to less than half the diameter of a human hair. Special coatings are added to further reduce radar signature.

The package is designed to remain stealthy in severe combat conditions, and tests have validated that capability. After obtaining baseline radar cross section (RCS) measurements from a highly detailed, full-scale Signature Measurement Aircraft (SigMA), a team of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman engineers intentionally inflicted extensive damage – more than three dozen significant defects – on the model. The damage represented the cumulative effect of more than 600 flight hours of military aircraft operations. RCS measurements taken after the damage showed that the stealthy signature remained intact.

“Even operating in harsh carrier-deck conditions, the F-35C will require no special care or feeding. In fact, its stealth adds very little to the day-today maintenance equation,” O’Bryan said. “We’ve come a long way from the early stealth airplanes, which needed hours or even days of attention and repair after every flight. The F-35 not only avoids that intensive level of upkeep, it will require significantly less maintenance than the nonstealth fighters it is designed to replace.”
_______________

THE F-35 LOW OBSERVABILITY’S LIFELONG SUSTAINABILITY: A REVOLUTIONARY ASSET FOR 21ST CENTURY COMBAT AVIATION

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=6065

"...Performance-wise, it is a very aggressive capability. From a design standpoint, it is a radical change from legacy systems. In legacy stealth, the stealth in effect is a parasitic application of a multiple stack-up of material systems done in final finish after the actual airframe is built and completed. In the case of the F-35, we’ve incorporated much of the LO system directly into the air frame itself. The materials have been manufactured right into the structure, so they have the durability and lifetime qualities. It makes them much more impervious to damage. It is a much simpler system with fewer materials to contend with...."
&
"SLD: How would you describe the stealth LO capability of the F-35 compared to legacy systems?
Bill Grant: Performance-wise, it is a very aggressive capability. From a design standpoint, it is a radical change from legacy systems. In legacy stealth, the stealth in effect is a parasitic application of a multiple stack-up of material systems done in final finish after the actual airframe is built and completed. In the case of the F-35, we’ve incorporated much of the LO system directly into the air frame itself. The materials have been manufactured right into the structure, so they have the durability and lifetime qualities. It makes them much more impervious to damage. It is a much simpler system with fewer materials to contend with...."
&
"Bill Grant: ...From day one, the supportable LO has been a key entity on the program and has had a profound influence on the very design of the airplane. In fact, the element that is manufactured into the skin was an initiative brought about by our LO maintenance discipline...."
____________________

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11171r.pdf

"...Objective 1: F-22 Lessons Learned
Study documents several steps taken by F-35 program to control and prevent corrosion based on F-22’s problems
• The DOD corrosion study identifies several areas where the F-35 program has incorporated
lessons learned from the F-22’s corrosion problems; examples follow.
• The F-35 program is mitigating corrosion risk associated with conductive gap filler3 and
paint by using a gap filler that is less galvanically dissimilar from aluminum, an alternative
to the conductive paint, a design with fewer seams that require gap filler, and more
representative verification and qualification testing. Many of the F-22’s corrosion problems
were linked to problems with gap filler materials and paint.
• The F-35 program made organizational changes that integrated the personnel working
within the corrosion materials and processes functional area and the low-observable
(i.e., stealth) functional area. In contrast, personnel working within these areas for the F-22
program were “stove-piped.”
• The F-35 drainage design is significantly improved with more, adequately sized drain
holes. Drain holes in the F-22 were found to be too small to enable good water drainage.
3Gap filler is the sealant between exterior panels that is required by low-observable aircraft...."
&
“...lessons learned from the F-22 program, the study identifies several important differences between the programs. For example, the F-35 program:
• has several technical performance metrics, such as sortie generation rate, that are indirectly driving actions to improve supportability, while the F-22 program did not;
• has a more robust corrosion design largely due to inclusion of more stringent Navy corrosion qualification tests;
• has a longer service life requirement (30 years vs. 20 years for the F-22); and
• has a Corrosion Prevention Advisory Board where corrosion issues are discussed in detail and both the contractor and the government display a willingness to address these issues....”
_______________

Production techniques gear F-35 for stealth

http://www.navy.mi.th/nrdo/jane/dev_w/p ... July48.pdf

"...In addition to machining advances that allow LM to achieve high manufacturing tolerances, advances have also been made in the composition of the radar-absorbent structure (RAS) of the aircraft. This Linhart said, is "completely different" from earlier RAS materials in the way it is resistant to chipping, even in the face of bird-strikes...."
_______________

Lockheed Gives a Peek at New JSF Stealth Material Concept by Amy Butler at May/17/2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 80e3609ae1

"It is called "fiber mat," and Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is "the single, biggest technological breakthrough we've had on this program."

He says that a new process to blend stealth qualities into composite material avoided the need for stealthy appliqués and coatings. Using a new process, Lockheed officials are curing the stealthy, fiber mat substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Burbage. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with Aviation Week in Fort Worth. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.

The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds.

Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators...."
&
New Stealth Concept Could Affect JSF Cost By Amy Butler - May 17, 2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

"FORT WORTH — As the debate rages about Joint Strike Fighter life-cycle cost, Lockheed Martin officials are raising a previously unheard point to bolster their low-price claims — a new low-observability (LO) substance called fiber mat.

Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for the company. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with AVIATION WEEK. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.

The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. The F-35 is about 42% composite by weight, Burbage says, compared to the F-22 at 22% and the F-16 at 2%.

Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified...."

F-16.net Sponsor

alloycowboy wrote:

Good Day!

The following is a copy of an email reply I recieved from the Honourable
Canada Laurie Hawn.

Thanks for this useful piece of info Alloy. As some have already noted, Hawn has a lot of credibility within the fighter community. He was also in on the CF-18 decision right from the beginning – both in terms of requirements/evaluation and early flight cadre.

Some technical inaccuracies aside, this piece does present the political case for the F-35’s acquisition very well.

He is right, the CF-18s did great over Kosovo but were hampered by a lack of Have Quick radios – no doubt about it. I also agree with Hawn that, from a Canadian perspective, the F-35 lets it get in the game and participate meaningfully in any campaign requiring LO. The key to the LO capability is that Canada can play with all the other air forces from day one in any Kosovo-like scenario. This is not so much about whether there will be such a scenario but rather that we can, if called upon, operate seamlessly with the top-drawer NATO nations. This is important from a political credibility perspective.

I am not entirely sure if Hawn isn’t politicking when he suggests that the Liberals signed on to the F-35 in the 1990s and that they always had an intention to purchase it. The Liberals certainly did not present it that way back in the day and in fact always claimed that the MOU was merely an industrial/technological cooperation deal with no commitment to purchase. His venom towards Williams is I think a little misplaced – Williams is merely stating some inconvenient truths although the former ADM (Mat) is starting to go about it in an increasingly political and polemical way.

As for the Rhino, I think Hawn misspoke, either deliberately or inadvertently, when he said that they will be retired from the Navy in the 2025. More likely they will start retiring them in that timeframe as some of the original Rhinos will be nearly 30 years old by then.

Couldn't they move the best Hornets to where they need coverage the most and lease F-16's until the F-35A is ready? Has to be a lot cheaper than F/A-18E or F models yet still covers their needs. Leasing is a better short term solution. If they agree to lease, however, I think it's only fair to look at what else could be leased yet retain interoptability with NORAD and NATO functions. With Sweden sitting on Gripens and the excessive numbers of Typhoons around, they might see what price they can operate them.

Or maybe they could retain F404 commonality and look at using GD T-50's as both trainers and to fill the gaps until F-35A is available. The T-50 solution may not be all that practical since it's not a turnkey solution like the others.

[quote="spazsinbad"]cafpilot said: "...The maintenance issue is the problem of 2 engines and stealth coatings. The idea with the F-35 is that the lack of a second engine (engines being the biggest chunk of maintenance time and money) would provide money to cover the stealth material maintenance...." What? quote]

Sorry Spaz, my statement might be a little confusing. As you posted the F-35s do have advanced stealth design and materials, but the CAF will still need facilities to test the RCS of the aircraft after any work is done, and the associated personel to go with it as well as any new handling or disposal facilities. Whether this means new specialized trades or just different training I don't know. But the cost will be more than what we spend now for Stealth maintenance which is nothing.

madrat wrote:

Couldn't they move the best Hornets to where they need coverage the most and lease F-16's until the F-35A is ready? Has to be a lot cheaper than F/A-18E or F models yet still covers their needs. Leasing is a better short term solution. If they agree to lease, however, I think it's only fair to look at what else could be leased yet retain interoptability with NORAD and NATO functions. With Sweden sitting on Gripens and the excessive numbers of Typhoons around, they might see what price they can operate them.

Or maybe they could retain F404 commonality and look at using GD T-50's as both trainers and to fill the gaps until F-35A is available. The T-50 solution may not be all that practical since it's not a turnkey solution like the others.

I don’t think the CF-18s are about to start falling out of the sky. I can’t see a lease as a viable option or even necessary. The requirement to replace the Hornets is clearly there, but its time frame is mainly being driven by optimum pricing and industrial participation. After all, Canadian airmen are pretty adept at keeping museum pieces up in the air. The CAF practically invented the “flying yesterday’s aircraft tomorrow” method of operations!

madrat wrote:

Couldn't they move the best Hornets to where they need coverage the most and lease F-16's until the F-35A is ready? Has to be a lot cheaper than F/A-18E or F models yet still covers their needs. Leasing is a better short term solution. If they agree to lease, however, I think it's only fair to look at what else could be leased yet retain interoptability with NORAD and NATO functions. With Sweden sitting on Gripens and the excessive numbers of Typhoons around, they might see what price they can operate them.

Or maybe they could retain F404 commonality and look at using GD T-50's as both trainers and to fill the gaps until F-35A is available. The T-50 solution may not be all that practical since it's not a turnkey solution like the others.

You have to understand that Canada has a small Air Force and and even smaller fighter force community. We only have two Tac Squadrons that comprise of only 40 total aircraft, if that, with less than 500 people. Leasing or acquiring multiple aircraft-type is not an option, we have trouble manning our current CF-18's - Pilots and maintainers.

When the F-35, or whatever SINGLE airframe is chosen, we would have time with the transition.

Actually we have less than that for aircraft, 78 were upgraded, we lost 2 in accidents last year. The Tac squadrons are less than 40 aircraft as we also have the OTU squadron (410) which has the majority of the 2 seaters. So it is a pretty small community.

skicountry wrote:

...The CAF practically invented the “flying yesterday’s aircraft tomorrow” method of operations!

They must have shared this information with the Air National Guard.

Very Happy

OL

Last edited by geogen on Mar 14, 2011 - 05:06 AM; edited 1 time in total

Skicountry - great post above btw, in response to alloy... regardless of where one stands on this email related discussion.

cafpilot - thanks for your response and interesting perspective.

And madrat -

I actually support the 'LEASE' concept you touch on as a viable consideration, for a number of Air Forces in question today and for various other applicable acquisition programmes too.

At the least, I support the study of its feasibility as something admittedly being outside the box, but highly relevant to the modern and future dynamic imho, something perhaps not yet fully taken into account by conventional decision makers. I also like your proposing a block 50/52+ type option (perhaps with AESA and latest avionics, EW suite for this block). At least for a 10-15 yr stopgap 'Lease' or buy (w/ intention to sell 2nd hand after fixed term). But so could a notional 10 yr LEASE of Super Hornet block II+/III be in the same play. For one thing, if it turns out that by early 2020s the World consists of more uncertain emerging threats than ever conceived... then it could be argued Canada made the right choice in the Stopgap move and could then be looking at a mid-20s F/A-XX/NGAD 'Lease'! If things in the Global spectrum of uncertainty and conventional security threats/instability were winding down, then Canada could either continue to hold onto the Supers another 10 yrs, or transition then to mature, upgraded block V/VI F-35A in a buy or Lease arrangement.

Either way, Canada will be getting F-35 Industrial synergies in the meanwhile due to there skill sets and capacity to do this work, right? Thus they could still remain part of the consortium... or perhapve even become a simple FMS customer with negotiated offsets in kind? I just think Canada has a better hand and position to play and could make a tougher stance then they currently might think they could in whatever negotiations they make. They have everything to gain by it and I think the time is good to man up. imho.

Discovery channel covered the initial selection and training of 5 potential CF-18 pilots in a multi-part series called Jetstream. They showed the challenges, hopes, and heartbreaks of new nuggets. It was very much worth watching and may be available through Discovery or on Youtube-type channels.

As pointed out earlier, workshare is much more likely to go to countries actually purchasing aircraft in accordance with the MOU.

I would guess that workshare will stay fairly relative to where it is today, albeit reduced in absolute terms for everyone as combined annual rates are significantly reduced and overall planned procurement is downsized. Everyone in the consortium could soon be juggling their originally intended total procurements and annual schedules, but the industrial synergies will have to continue to cooperate seamlessly, regardless of the volume.

Industrial skills and specialized vendors and other capacities for cost-reduction/competitiveness will likely be in high demand.

Lastly, estimated costs for FY12 procurement have exploded and think it's premature and in fact irresponsible to assume today that FY13 and FY14 costs will somehow dramatically fall to where they were estimated in the same list. Orders are most likely going to be adjusted accordingly.

No. Workshare goes to those in the program MOU, which Canada will not be if they drop out now to pursue some fantasy F-15 variant.

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

pushoksti wrote:

Vipernice wrote:

In no way has Canada looked at Rafale with F3(/F4) capability or Gripen NG

I'm glad the Canadian government doesn't use results from Ace Combat to pick their aircraft. Rolling Eyes

Because in 2003 these planes were already planned, right ?

luke_sandoz wrote: