WT Forums

at least the STOVL version. This doesnt bode well for the USMC either.


Britain's new US-built jets are 'too heavy to land safely'
By Sean Raymont, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 16/05/2004)


A £5 billion defence project to supply Britain's armed forces with the world's most sophisticated fighter jet is facing severe problems because the aircraft is too heavy to be flown safely.

The Ministry of Defence has agreed to buy 150 of the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, which cost £35 million each, to replace the Royal Navy's Harrier jump jets.

However, it has emerged that the warplane, which is being built by the US manufacturer Lockheed Martin, is 3,300lb overweight, making it difficult for a pilot to land the fighter without its wheels coming off.

The aircraft is also understood to be too heavy to carry out vertical take-offs, and requires too long a runway to land easily on the two aircraft carriers which are being built for the Royal Navy.

The Ministry of Defence admitted that it was "concerned" about the aircraft's weight and said that urgent attempts were being made to resolve the problem so that it could come into service as planned in 2012.

An analysis by Lockheed Martin has disclosed that the jet can only land safely if it has used its full complement of bombs and missiles and if its fuel tanks are virtually empty. Otherwise the undercarriage is likely to collapse during landing.

The weight problem has been caused by the aircraft's jump-jet engine. Although widely accepted as the most advanced of its kind, it is far heavier than the designers envisaged.

If the weight problem cannot be solved and the jump-jet version has to be scrapped, the Royal Navy will be forced to buy an alternative version of the aircraft which takes off in the conventional manner.

Such a decision would have a significant impact on the plans for two new 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, costing £2.5 billion, because their runways have been designed primarily for jump jets and are too short for standard combat jets.

The carriers might, therefore, either have to be made longer or redesigned, adding significantly to the cost of construction.

One civil servant told The Sunday Telegraph that the excessive weight of the Joint Strike Fighter could not be easily remedied.

"Combat jets are like Formula One racing cars - every part has a vital function - you just can't get rid of it and still expect it work. I don't know how the weight is going to be reduced by 3,300lb," he said.

"Until recently, the Americans were claiming it was only 1,000lb overweight, and they have spent a year and a half reducing that without success."

Rob Hewson, the editor of Jane's Air Launched Weapons, said that the difficulties were devastating. "This is going to cost at least £60 million to correct - if it can be corrected," he said.

Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, says that the aircraft will be the most advanced multi-role fighter ever. The programme is the largest and most expensive military aircraft procurement project devised.

About 3,000 planes costing a total of £250 billion are expected to be built during the next 30 years.

Although officials from both the US Department of Defence and the Ministry of Defence believe that the weight problem will be solved, The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Lockheed Martin has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to reduce the weight of the aircraft without success.

A spokesman for the MoD said: "The weight problem is a concern, but problems like this occur in the early stages of complex programmes. From our perspective, these problems do not undermine the programme or our choice of aircraft."

The RN wants no part of the F-18E/F. Not ever once have they voiced even the slightest interest in it.

Purge yourself of the thought, there is absolutely no chance of a RN F-18 buy.

They need to build their carrier for F-35C ops. The F-35C has all the potential to be the next great navy fighter. Something the F-18E/F has failed to become.

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

Kipling-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
the USN needs something a little more than the F-35C anyways
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No version of any current aircraft can match F-35C range/payload, on paper anyway. It has been advertised with a 19000 lb internal fuel capacity which, along with the F-135 engine, would give it a fuel fraction and thrust/weight the F-111 would envy. The only advantage an upgraded F-18 would have is you can have it sooner for less money. Otherwise, it is 75% the usefullness of an F-35C, assuming that design meets its specs of course.

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

However, it has emerged that the warplane, which is being built by the US manufacturer Lockheed Martin, is 3,300lb overweight, making it difficult for a pilot to land the fighter without its wheels coming off.

The aircraft is also understood to be too heavy to carry out vertical take-offs, and requires too long a runway to land easily on the two aircraft carriers which are being built for the Royal Navy.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As is common with non technical publications, the message is kind of garbled here. What they mean is that the short <b>takeoff</b> distance is as long as a conventional aircraft and the <b>vertical</b> landing can't be achieved at all with any usefull load. It never was intended to take off vertically with any warload.

_________________
????

if we engage a modern enemy with significant modern SAM systems, Eagle and Falcon parts will likely rain from the sky unless we work for a few weeks with B-2 and F-117. THE most important thing F-22 brings is a greatly reduced kill zone for the SAMs.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

The F-22 is everything that was promised and MORE.

The USAF needs as many of those as they can possibly buy.

What the USAF doesn't need is the F-35A or B.

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

Kipling-

<i>This article is short on technical details but indicates concern from across the pond.</i>


<b>U.K. Government Concerned about F-35 Weight Gain</b> (Posted: Tuesday, May 18, 2004)
[Reuters, May 17, 2004]

LONDON, May 17 (Reuters) - Britain is concerned about excessive weight on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter foiling its costly plans to deploy the U.S. jet on its aircraft carriers, a government spokesman said on Monday.

Lockheed-Martin Corp's (NYSE:LMT - News) single-engine F-35 is a radar-evading or "stealthy" supersonic fighter being designed in three variations which will replace several popular aircraft now in service, among them the F-16, F/A 18 and Harrier jump jet.

It is the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version that Britain intends to buy which has the biggest excess weight problem, found during computer development of its air frame.

"The extent of the predicted weight growth and its impact on STOVL launch and recovery performance continues to be a concern," the Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

Britain has committed 1.4 billion pounds ($2.48 billion) to the development of the F-35, the most expensive military jet programme in history.

The United States and the UK are expected to order about 3,000 of the planes, with seven other nations also interested. Low-rate production is expected to begin in 2007, with the first U.S. deliveries three years later.

The UK could spend up to 10 billion pounds if it goes through with plans to buy 150 of the jets, yet is wary of cost problems as the MoD battles a tight budget and cost overruns elsewhere.

A spokesman for Lockheed-Martin, which is leading the programme, said the company was confident the problem could be overcome in time for UK deliveries to begin in 2012.

"We're aware of the problem and we're working with our partners. We're confident we can resolve it," he said.

A second Lockheed spokesman said media reports of weight problems found in computer designs of the plane's engines or the STOVL version's lift fan or rear nozzle were incorrect.

"It's mostly in aerostructure," he said, confirming that initial designs for the 30,000-pound jets were now running about eight percent over that target weight.

UK media reports said the weight must be shed or the jets could prove too heavy for Britain, which plans to use them aboard two new aircraft carriers expected to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

"Problems like this often occur in the early stages of complex programmes such as JSF. These problems do not undermine the UK's choice of STOVL," the MoD spokesman said.

He said the ministry was engaged in talks with manufacturers on the programme to ensure Britain can keep to its schedule. Companies involved in the JSF include the UK's BAE Systems (London:BA.L - News) and aero-engine maker Rolls-Royce (London:RR.L - News).

_________________
????

dream on

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

What I do not think is worth it is the JSF for the USAF or the USN. The AF can get buy on new build F-16E/F's just fine for the next decade or life cycle just as well as the USN can get by on Super Hornets.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'm very down on the JSF today. It does not seem technically or financially viable anymore, and it's because of that STOVL F-35B. It is a time and money black hole. All resources are being sucked into it. You've probably seen that cartoon where the pilots of all services have to take a number to fly the only aircraft that the country can afford. The F-35B is that aircraft. Woe is us. The credibility of the US aerospace industry, especially L/M, will be put in the dumper for 20 years. Can somebody give me some good news?



Edited by - a10stress on May 19 2004 2:18 PM

_________________
????

I just saved a ton of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico!!!

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

Kipling-

<img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle>

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I just saved a ton of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico!!!

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We could be a comedy team. I'll be the set-up man You deliver the punch line. We need somebody to play the sound effect "rim shot" snare drum/cymbal thing.<img src=newicons/anim_bow.gif border=0 align=middle>

_________________
????

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

Kipling-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The F-22 is everything that was promised and MORE.

The USAF needs as many of those as they can possibly buy.

What the USAF doesn't need is the F-35A or B.

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

Kipling-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Got a chance to hear an F/A-22 briefing last week. 30 degrees per second turn rate, sustained, at under a hundred knots! I know a bunch of Eagle drivers that would die for that. The F/A-22 is worth its weight in gold vs European and Russian next gen fighters...

ATTACK!!!!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Got a chance to hear an F/A-22 briefing last week. 30 degrees per second turn rate, sustained, at under a hundred knots! I know a bunch of Eagle drivers that would die for that. The F/A-22 is worth its weight in gold vs European and Russian next gen fighters... <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yeah the real sad part is it can do this at Medium to high altitudes, while we are in Spin recovery and full departure....BTDT

Stick out of the chest..watch it transition to your six...Opposite rudder...Throttle To Idle, Pop the whole fucken bucket, and prey to hell your quicker on the Egress than it is on the Gun..... the sad thing is that, during that whole state of departure and it is transitioning, your in the 9x wez of him and he is out of yours...

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Edited by - mrmudd on May 24 2004 9:11 PM

Every time I hear about the F-22 its about how they won't be able to live up to demands. Its late, WWAAAYYY over budget, and fails to perform so far. Hence the maintainers name of the CRAPTER. But, having said that I belive that if they can turn the project around and start producing solid results and get the changes implemented on the manufacturing floor instead of when it hits the line then the F-22 could be the next great thing. Oh course, thats a hell of a lot of IFS.

Specs Make Better Lovers

<b>Wynne To Review JSF Weight Mitigation Plan This Month</b> (Posted: Tuesday, June 08, 2004)
[Defense Daily, June 8, 2004]

By Amy Butler

Officials managing the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the largest procurement program in Defense Department history, are planning to present a "replan" this month to the Pentagon's acquisition chief to get the effort back on track and mitigate weight problems on the fighter aircraft, according to a program official.

Acting Pentagon acquisition czar Michael Wynne is scheduled to chair a June 17 Defense Acquisition Board meeting to review the program office's proposal to manage the overweight stealthy fighter. Program spokeswoman Kathy Crawford said JSF is not required to adhere to a specification for weight. But, she said the fighter's currently planned weight could hinder its performance, a red flag according to Pentagon sources. Officials are, therefore, faced with decisions on what equipment to trade to ensure the aircraft performs as needed.
...

Wynne is well aware of the weight problems, according to sources. He conducted a May 27 "CEO Conference" with leaders from F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin [LMT], engine manufacturers General Electric [GE] and Pratt & Whitney [UTX] and other major F-35 contractors. Secretaries and acquisition executives from the Navy and Air Force were also present, and information discussed at the conference is treated as "for official use only," Crawford said. This conference, one of a few conducted throughout the year, was hosted by Lockheed Martin, at its Bethesda, Md., corporate headquarters.

A source said Wynne sternly emphasized with those officials the need to prioritize the design for the short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) variant championed by the Marine Corps, tackling the carrier variant and conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant later in the program. Previously, CTOL had been a priority. STOVL is largely viewed as the most challenging JSF model in terms of design, and officials feel that if they meet with success on STOVL, the remainder of the program will proceed with more ease, according to a former Air Force official.

Air Force acquisition chief Marvin Sambur also announced last week the service was curbing its CTOL purchased in favor of more STOVL aircraft, according to a Reuters article. The former Air Force official said the service's rationale behind the shift was two-pronged, emphasizing fiscal realities of the program and operational needs of the Air Force. Economically, the services are focusing on investing in STOVL as much as possible to shore up JSF on the front end, hoping to avoid crises later in the program. <u>Additionally, the STOVL airframe could fill a crucial operational niche--providing close air support to ground troops as the existing close air support airframe, the A-10, ages. STOVL will be more capable of operating in austere airfields, a need underscored by the war in Afghanistan that called on the Air Force to fly aircraft out of rudimentary facilities near the landlocked countries, the former Air Force official said.</u>
...


<i>How austere can the basing situation be? They make it sound like STOVLs can operate from dirt landing pads on mountain tops. Can AV-8s operate from dirt strips without FODing themselves? If so, how do they do it? Do they always do rolling takeoffs and landings? In Marietta, we seem to be damaging engines several times a year on a maintained tarmac with vacuum cleaners and daily FOD walks. I wouldn't want to be in charge of maintaining an airport where AV-8s live. Jet blast must tear the heck out of the taxiways and runways.
They keep talking about how the F-35B would be eminently useful in Afganistan. Isn't it hot and high there? Performance of vertical take off machines (including helicopters) must be severely curtailed. A lot of serious trade-offs have to be made for STOVL ops, maybe sometimes it pays off. I'd like to watch real AV-8 operations someday (not airshow tricks) to see how they make it pay. If they are overselling the F-35B there are going to be a lot of unhappy customers.</i>

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Hence the maintainers name of the <b>CRAPTER</b>. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's a knee slapper. I passed it around the office but no one else thinks it's funny. Oh well, comedy isn't pretty.

_________________
????

as far as I know the USMC always do rolling landings and take-offs except on ship. Is there a reason thay cant do a rolling landing on a ship for the F-35 to help with the weight problem? At what speed does that wing stop generating even a few thousand pounds of lift? What sort of AoA (AOA may be technically the wrong nomenclature for a vert landing as I guess technically the AoA would be HUGE on descent lol ) does the F-35 land at in the verticle mode? What about the speed of the ship itself? CVs help out in that reguard why not the helo carriers?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence the maintainers name of the CRAPTER.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's a knee slapper. I passed it around the office but no one else thinks it's funny. Oh well, comedy isn't pretty.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

maybee if he had spelled it right: <b><i>CRAPTOR</i></b> lolol

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As far as I know the USMC always do rolling landings and take-offs except on ship. Is there a reason thay can't do a rolling landing on a ship for the F-35 to help with the weight problem? At what speed does that wing stop generating even a few thousand pounds of lift? What sort of AoA (AOA may be technically the wrong nomenclature for a vert landing as I guess technically the AoA would be HUGE on descent lol ) does the F-35 land at in the verticle mode? What about the speed of the ship itself? CVs help out in that reguard why not the helo carriers?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'd guess that ship speed helps out as you describe. At least, I'd give credit for it when based on a proper deck (i.e. not a helo pad). An extra 25 knots or so wind over deck should shorten the takeoff (or landing) roll a few hundred feet, getting it roughly to the size of, say, a catapult length or an arresting run-out. Hmmm, why are we doing this STOVL thing? I forget.

CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"It may be crap to you, but it's bread and butter to us"

Edited by - a10stress on Jun 10 2004 06:35 AM

_________________
????