F-35 STOVL Flight Delayed

solomon May 5th, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Despite the good news contained in this story you can bet that the F-35’s critic’s will latch on to the delay like puppies at feeding time…

Andrew M May 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am

6 months != one year, and it’s good news you don’t have to make those weight cuts. While optimally the weight would work out perfectly, this is the real world, and that doesn’t always happen. Not having to fix it is great news, and probably allows for a more robust airframe.

pfcem May 6th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

Since a couple have already missed it. The reason why the F-35B no longer has a weight problem is because of the success of the 2 year weight reduction program which brought the operational empty weight of the F-35B from 32,161 lbs down to 29,695 lbs. There was no deliberate attempt to “turn up the power” just the quite typical exceeding of requirements. The goal is a hover weight of 39,000 lbs in which the engine hover thrust expectation is/was 40,550 lbs. The recent hover test demonstrated 41,100 lbs.

linebackerii May 6th, 2009 at 11:01 pm

For all who believe Lockheed Martin has invented this “STOVAL” technology need to do a Google search of the YAK41/141 Soviet aircraft developed and flown in the 70’s. For the naysayers, I am a retired SAC Senior NCO, with no interest and little respect for the former Soviet Union.

Keep It Simple May 6th, 2009 at 11:43 pm

Well this should be no surprise to anyone. Lockheed Martin is known to miss EVERY delivery schedule from the beginning. They usually et the customer (USAF) to change the published delivery dates to realign the missed milestones within their schedules. We will see the USN follows the USAF lead or goes against tradition and invokes late delivery penalties against Lockheed. Lockheed was told during a formal PMR years ago that “Sometimes it takes the sight of the gallows to focus the mind”. This was in terms of contract cancellation due to being over budget, miss schedules and late deliveries of another product they produced for the DoD. You would think they would have learned something.

Douglas M. Henry May 7th, 2009 at 12:24 am

lockheed makes the best fighter planes so suck it up.

Do the right thing May 7th, 2009 at 12:40 am

We pay them dearly to build the plane overweight. Then we pay them even more to pare the weight off. A win/win situation. The serious money is made when the customer wants to sit down and talk changes and modifications to the program. Bring several checkbooks.

JCitizen May 7th, 2009 at 1:58 am

F-15 a phenom? Maybe more like a figment of our imagination; that tired old venerable bird is falling apart. It takes more money than they are worth to rebuild. We are talking new technology even by today’s standards.

You can’t just drill the rivest out and rebuild the airframe, these things were some of the first composit aircraft. They are essentially one piece — glued together — you could rip them appart down to the orignial titanium base frame, and rebuild — but why? They are obsolete, and it would actually cost more than simply building a basic frame F-35.

If our government were smart(NOT); they would build all of them so they could be eventually converted to VSTOL capability. THAT is probably why there was a weight problem! We should have kept that a secret! Dang reporter blabber mouths!!

Terry W. Colvin May 7th, 2009 at 5:35 am

The old engineering aphorism: good. fast. expensive. You can only have two of the three.
Sacrifice fast and try to control expensive to
build a good F-35, able to take on enemy aircraft
for a few decades, that is, with software and other upgrades.

Harrier qualified ATC(ret) May 7th, 2009 at 7:40 am

For Nicos:
“How do you stop the main wheels of the STOVL from getting singed and burnt or, for that matter, the tarmac or the ship’s deck?“
The Harrier has been operating for 20 years with little or no problem. If you hover and land, you immediately taxi off that spot to prevent tire damage. Other than that, it really is no major problem.

elderdragon May 7th, 2009 at 1:58 pm

I’ve seen video of JSF doing vertical take-off and landing, so what is this first flight test the article mentions?

fred,fred burger May 8th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

We have come up with a nifty way of making the weight problem less of a risk. Its cool!

Tom B May 8th, 2009 at 8:44 pm

This article and numerous other articles that address defense budgets refer to a U.Mass study that says defense spending does not produce the same stimulus effect that education or highway spending does. Somebody needs to go look at that study because it does not make sense.

Spend $1000 and it becomes jobs, parts and profit. (In education that might be jobs, supplies and local tax cuts but the terms are equivalent.) But parts and supplies are made by somebody and that is jobs, parts and profit. Profit becomes capital improvements and dividends and that also turns into jobs, parts and profit. To me it seems like spending becomes jobs regardless of what it is spent on.

Unless some defense suppliers are secretly holding bonfires to burn cash I just don’t see how money spent on defense can be less stimulating that any other type spending. In fact the only spending I can imagine that does not stimulate the economy is import purchases and because a bigger percentage of low income discretionary spending feeds imports it may be the case that defense spending is more stimulating. I wonder if academics might have argued that defense jobs earn more than average and therefore defense workers pay a bit more in non-stimulating taxes so that the taxes take away from the stimulus effect. But that is an erroneous argument as taxes paid really is just a discount on the stimulus spending and that effect should be calculated out.

There are a lot of defense spending cuts that have been justified by the UMass study. If we want to have a country that does have weapon systems it needs for a range of conflicts, somebody has to discredit any study that says money spent on defense is wasted or less effective.

Tom

pfcem May 10th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Nicos,

Because people are to lazy to update their pdf files.

The 2007 program review gave the then new weights after the weight reduction program.

The F-35C hasn’t grown in weight it was always going to be 3,000–3,500 lbs heavier than the F-35A.

They are Operating Empty Weight, basic empty weight hasn’t been used for decades.

What is going to cause the main wheels of the STOVL to get singed and burnt or, for that matter, the tarmac or the ship’s deck?

Johann June 10th, 2009 at 8:03 pm

With an operating empty weight of 29,695 lbs and a target max hover weight of 39,000 lbs, the bring back of the F-35B — before the increase in hover thrust rating to 41,100 lbs — would be about 9,300 lbs. The bring back of the Super Hornet is 9,000 lbs. The bring back of the mighty A-6E I flew in was 9,000 lbs. So why are the Brits still researching SRVL? Engine life? Seems the extra costs of carrier landing aids and proficiency training would be much greater. Am I missing something?

Johann June 12th, 2009 at 3:41 am

In general, I share your skepticism of the claim that the Su-35 is a “JSF killer”. While a brilliant and superior visual range fighter, I believe the Su-35 would have difficulty winning a BVR fight against any AESA-equipped fighter with frontal aspect stealth. I think the key for the F-35 community will be to adopt tactics that keep it away from the merge — particularly if the external mounting of AIM-9X is found to jeapordize its frontal aspect stealth. “Shoot and run” might be a wise strategy. Unfortunately, history has shown that visual fights can happen in spite of intentions to avoid them. One thing I do worry about is the capability of the AMRAAM. I’ve broken lock of early versions in an A-6 by aggressive manuevering alone (the –Cs and –Ds are better but so are the countermeasures). It sure would be nice to have enough F-22s to fly top cover for F-35 strike missions until the fighter threat is eliminated. I hope 186 is enough…