F-35 Lightning II developments

[Coati]

One problem less: F136, Rest In Peace; GE, Rolls Formally Declare It's Over

http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/02/f136- ... e-its-over

[Coati]

LRIP-5 is awarded to LM in a $4 billion contract, so the next 30 F-35s are under way: 21x F-35A, 3x F-35B and 6x F-35C.

http://defensetech.org/2011/12/09/lockh ... -30-f-35s/

So in total this means already 77 production aircraft are ordered for the US in LRIP I till V. Plus 20 for the IDF, 65 for Canada, 2 for NL, 3 for the UK, 14 for Australia and 4 for Norway. (108)

Grant total 77 + 108 + 12 SDD = 197 (plus two prototype and a pre SDD aircraft AA-1 means 200)


And the first production F-35B is due to delivery to Eglin next week:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/eglin- ... e-air.html

[Coati]

Friday the Japanese government will announce the winner of the F-X fighter competition to replace the F-4 fleet. The F-35 is tipped off as a winner. (other contenders are F/A-18E/F and Typhoon)

Japan Poised For F-X Announcement

Dec 13, 2011



By Guy Norris guy_norris@aviationweek.com
Los Angeles



The Japan Air Self-Defense Force is expected to announce the result of its exhaustive F-X fighter contest this week, with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 strongly tipped as the winner.

None of the contenders for the $4 billion contract, including Boeing and BAE Systems, have yet been advised of the decision, according to company officials. “The U.S. government will be told first,” says a Boeing spokesman.

Boeing was offering the F/A-18E/F in conjunction with the U.S. Navy, while BAE Systems was leading a Typhoon bid for Eurofighter with support from Japan’s Sumitomo Corp.

Japan’s defense ministry aims to procure the first of as many as 50 F-X aircraft in fiscal year 2016. The aircraft will replace the Jasdf’s aging fleet 67 F-4EJ fighters, the first of which are scheduled to be retired in 2013.

In the run-up to the final decision, Lockheed Martin bolstered its bid by offering Japan final assembly and checkout of the F-35, manufacture of several components, integration and testing, depot-level sustainment, modification, repair and overhaul. It also offered local final assembly of the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine.

The Japanese air force originally hoped to begin replacing the F-4 in 2009-10, possibly with the Lockheed Martin F-22. However, with the U.S. government decision to halt F-22 production, focus shifted to the current alternatives.

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

[Coati]

F-35A has flown Mach 1.6 and 9.9g, plus additional news on testing of the EOTS, radar signature etc.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

[Piet Luijken]

Nice in-depth articles:

EUROPE AND THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF) PROGRAM
http://www.iai.it/pdf/Quaderni/Quaderni_E_16.pdf

Proposal to Norwegian government:
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Tem ... I-svar.pdf

[Coati]

Apparently the F-35 indeed will be the big winner in the Japanese fighter contest with a buy of 40 fighters announced Friday:

Japan Picks F-35 as Mainstay Fighter: Reports

TOKYO - Japan has chosen the U.S.-made F-35 stealth jet as its next-generation mainstay fighter in a multibillion-dollar deal, reports said Dec. 13.

The Defense Ministry picked the jet made by Lockheed Martin to replace its aging fleet of F-4 jets over two rivals, the Boeing-made F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Yomiuri Shimbun said. Japan's biggest daily said the Defense Ministry had "agreed in principle" to select the F-35, with a formal announcement expected Dec. 16 at the Security Council of Japan, chaired by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda.

Kyodo News cited unnamed government sources as saying the ministry had decided to buy 40 F-35 fighters, while the Nikkei business daily said only that the jet remained a "prime candidate."

Earlier reports said Japan could buy as many as 50 new jets, equipped with stealth technology, with a price tag of more than $6 billion.

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=8553223&c=ASI&s=TOP

[Richard from Rotterdam]

Apparently testing and manufacturing are not quite going as well as the stories above seem to suggest...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

[Coati]

Apparently testing and manufacturing are not quite going as well as the stories above seem to suggest...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

There are a number of known problems which have been encountered during testing and manufacturing, and the long debated delay (1,5-2 years). But the author of this piece of work, Bill Sweetman is a known anti-JSF journalist. Het even described the JSF as less capable compared to the F-105 (or was that Wheeler), that the deck of the USS Wasp would melt etc etc. A lot of his statements and analyses proved to be wrong, but he never corrected them (like the lastest test results regarding Mach and g-force enveloppes, which a JSF could not reach accoring to Sweetman). Alos he has a tendency of reporting bad news and make it look even worse, while progress and testing results are never acknowledged by him. The fact that the stesting was stalling was mentioned by him numerous times, but now the testing has picked up and is even 10% ahead of the adjusted planning, is something not interesting enough to report.

This report of last year says it all, so whatever Sweetman has to "report" on the JSF, it is all pointed to underline his own statement that the JSF was, is and will be a distater, no matter what the facts are:

Aviation Week suspends Bill Sweetman from F-35 story

By Stephen Trimble on May 10, 2010 3:35 PM

Bill Sweetman notified me this morning that he has been temporarily ordered off the F-35 story by Aviation Week management.

Aviation Week editor Tony Velocci initially told me "no comment", but added: "It was supposed to be an internal personnel matter but I'm really sorry to hear that he's spreading it around."

Sweetman is the editor of Defense Technology International, a monthly magazine published by the Aviation Week Group.

It's not clear what immediately precipitated the decision. But Sweetman is well-known as arguably one of the most outspoken -- and, it should be said, well-spoken -- critics of the F-35 program.

Lockheed Martin denies having any role in Sweetman's removal from the F-35 beat. "I can tell you Lockheed was not behind this," a spokesman says.

Sweetman recently visited Lockheed's F-35 factory in Fort Worth, Texas, along with Velocci and Aviation Week staff writer Amy Butler. On the eve of his visit, Sweetman on 26 April posted a typically droll comment on his private Facebook page:

"Gentlemen, your target for tonight is Fort Worth. Flacks are predicted to be numerous and persistent on the run-in and over the target, and =censored= is expected to be dense throughout the mission. Synchronize watches and good luck."

Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane's. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds.

But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop. That position is always going to create a tension with his traditional role as journalist.

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... l#comments

[Richard from Rotterdam]

True, but you can't deny he has great knowledge of military eviction technology and is pretty well connected to industry sources. He is very critical of the JSF project and will never deny that, but there will surely be some accuracy and truth in his articles.

[Piet Luijken]

I prefer articles in aviation press to be all about facts and truth.
Clearly marked columns are the place for personal opinions.

[Coati]

True, but you can't deny he has great knowledge of military eviction technology and is pretty well connected to industry sources. He is very critical of the JSF project and will never deny that, but there will surely be some accuracy and truth in his articles.

What's the worth of his great knowledge of military technology when he only is able to bash a military aviation program because he is "against" it? As Piet states, an objective report from an independent journalist, based on facts is always acceptable, negative or positive. But constant reports of somebody with a mission to discredit and bash a specific program, and constantly missing the point and assuming failures which proved to be wrong, is not worth taking seriously. Especially when it is all about predicting doom.

[Richard from Rotterdam]

Other NEWS outlets have also reported on the leaked Quick Look Review and all conclude similar findings. And that QLR is based on facts, so I will still agree with Bill Sweetman's latest column.

[Richard from Rotterdam]

http://www.pogo.org/resources/national- ... 11129.html

the report itself

[Coati]

Other NEWS outlets have also reported on the leaked Quick Look Review and all conclude similar findings. And that QLR is based on facts, so I will still agree with Bill Sweetman's latest column.

Here a more balanced analysis on the concurrency issue from Flight global

A highlight in the QLR panel's 55-page report is a rarely glimpsed, detailed catalogue of all of the F-35's biggest non-classified problems and concerns. If the programme's critics had hoped for a bonanza of revelations about technical show-stoppers, however, it is likely they were disappointed.
The panel concluded that the F-35 in fact faces no technical issue that would trigger a recommendation to halt all new production. Instead, it recommends that the DoD continue building production aircraft as flight-testing continues, albeit at a reduced level.
The majority of the design problems identified in the report, such as potential immaturity of the integrated power package and complaints about the helmet-mounted display, have already been publicised. Some issues, such as wind buffeting, are described as a major risk, but the report then acknowledged that so far it is no worse than on other fighters.

The report could still mark a major turning-point in the programme's history. By recommending a flat production ramp, the panel challenges a fundamental element of the F-35's original acquisition strategy.

So far, none of the structural cracks have required Lockheed to make major design changes that would affect the entire aircraft. The QLR team also found problems that are being addressed locally, without broader design changes.

In any previous fighter programme, these issues may not have received such high-level scrutiny. But no other fighter programme has faced the cost of modifying hundreds of production fighters as flight tests reveal new problems over an 11-year period. Even if the changes are relatively minor, the cumulative cost to make the changes could be prohibitive.

The QLR study warned that all 521 production F-35s delivered during the flight test phase could be affected. Lockheed, however, has argued that the F-35 airframe and hardware configuration will be frozen after the fifth lot of low-rate initial production. If the company is right, only 88 F-35s would need the full package of concurrency changes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... nt-366056/

[Coati]

As expected Lockheed Martin wins Japanese fighter competition, beating the F/A-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter. Japan orders 42 F-35 JSF aircraft, as announced today.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/ ... 5L20111220