F-35 grounded.

[gregg136]

Oh dear, looks like yet another set-back.

"The Pentagon on Friday suspended the flights of all 51 F-35 fighter planes after a routine inspection revealed a crack on a turbine blade in the jet engine of an F-35 test aircraft in California.

It was the second grounding of the warplane in two months and marked another setback for the $396 billion (259.7 billion pounds) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the Pentagon's biggest weapons program. The program has already been restructured three times in recent years and may face further cutbacks if Congress does not avert major budget reductions due to take effect on March 1.

The F-35 program office said it was too early to know if this was a fleet-wide issue, but it was suspending all flights until an investigation was completed. A total of 51 F-35 jets were affected, including 17 that are being used for testing and 34 in use for training in Florida and Arizona.

It said it was working closely with Pratt & Whitney, the United Technologies Corp unit that builds the engine, and Lockheed Martin Corp, the prime contractor for the radar-evading warplane, to ensure the integrity of the engine and return the F-35 fleet to flight as soon as possible.

The Pentagon's F-35 program office began notifying the chiefs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps late on Thursday about the engine issue and decision to ground the planes, said Kyra Hawn, a spokeswoman for the program office.

She said that a routine inspection at Edwards Air Force Base in California on February 19 revealed a crack on a low pressure turbine blade that is part of the F-35's F135 engine. The blade was on an F-35 A-model, or Air Force variant, which takes off and lands from conventional runways.

Pratt spokesman Matthew said the inspection showed "an indication of a crack" on the third stage low pressure turbine airfoil. He said the company was working closely with the Pentagon, Lockheed and the military services to get the planes flying again.

Engineering teams are removing the turbine blade from the plane and plan to ship it to Pratt's engine facility in Middletown, Connecticut, for more thorough evaluation and root cause analysis, according to the Pentagon and Pratt.

Hawn said an initial analysis was expected next week.

The grounding comes on the heels of a nearly month-long grounding of the Marine Corps variant of the new warplane after a manufacturing defect caused a fuel line to detach just before a training flight in Florida.

The Marine Corps variant of the F-35, which takes off from shorter runways and lands like a helicopter, was grounded for nearly a month after a fuel line detached just before a training flight at Eglin Air Force Base in January.

That issue was later found to be caused by a manufacturing defect. The Pentagon and the U.S. Navy lifted flight restrictions on the B-model of the plane on February 13."

Link: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/22/uk-lockheed-fighter-idUKBRE91L11J20130222

Edited February 22, 2013 by gregg136

[SkippyBing]

I bet someone feels stupid for cancelling the alternate engine program now...

[GrahamS]

As I keep saying - Paint it anti-flash and call it Dumbo......

Graham

[JohnT]

Can't say I hold a candle for the F35 and she looks a tad, ugly but isn't this sort of thing par for the course with a new airframe/engine combo?

[Dave A]

New? Development started in the 1990s, it's been under contract since 2001, the airframe first flew 7 years ago. Thank god the USA doesn't actually HAVE any major enemies any more....

[grahamwalker]

just wondering did bae ever get asked about a replacement for the Harrier? if not y not? or couldnt they replace it . I would of thought they would of some ideas to improve or replace, mind have they thought about a replacement for the |Tiffy seeing how long it seems to take now days.

[magwitch]

just wondering did bae ever get asked about a replacement for the Harrier? if not y not? or couldnt they replace it . I would of thought they would of some ideas to improve or replace, mind have they thought about a replacement for the |Tiffy seeing how long it seems to take now days.

British (Leyland) Aerospace propsed the Big Wing GR.5 Harrier in the late 70s/early 80s. The MoD/RAF very wisely and untypically caught the unmistakable whiff of impending and expensive disaster opting for the McDonnell-Douglas AV-8B instead.

BAE and its progenitor companies haven't had the capability to design and build complete combat aircraft outside multinational coalitions for decades. I'd guess the Buccaneer was the last purely British front line combat aircraft. Hawk 200 doesn't count and the Harrier was begat by a NATO/US/UK/FRG program.

The Typhoon will be replaced by a combination of more F-35s, UAS and nothing as fiscal circumstances dictate.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Sadly for us, the passing of the likes of Sidney Camm, Teddy Petter and Stanley Hooker meant the end of our aerospace industry leading the world.

We were lucky to have them at the right time.

Everything now will be computer designs.

Can you say 'Cyberdyne Systems'?

#!

http://designworldonline.magnify.net/video/Air-Force-Bugbots%3bsearch:US%20Air%20Force%20-%20MAV%27s

Edited February 24, 2013 by bentwaters81tfw

[Giorgio N]

Does any of you know how many aircrafts have entered service with this kind of problems in the past ? The TF30 of the Tomcats had both compressor and turbine blade cracking problems and these were kind of solved more than 10 years after the F-14 had entered fleet service. I say kind of solved as part of the solution was a stronger engine carter to contain the blade in case of failure...

A large number of the F-35 groundings are due to the approach taken by the US in testing the system thoroughly before it enters full service. Gone are the days when the Hunter could enter service with an engine that switched off when the guns were fired....

[magwitch]

Does any of you know how many aircrafts have entered service with this kind of problems in the past ?

Probably all of them to some or degree or other. What's different about the F-35 is the massive scrutiny every single issues gets due to the vast financial and political scope of the project.

[MPaul]

Pentagon have again lifted flight restrictions.

It gets way more publicity for the reasons mentioned above.

I remember the whole RAF Tornado fleet being grounded several times during my time on them, for one reason or another. Never even got a brief mention in the press.

[Michaelvk]

I'd say that's because the Tornado didn't cost nearly as much, but that's a lie.. That was as far as I know an equally awful money pit when it first took to the skies.. They're still cruising around now, so I reckon they got most of the kinks out, I suppose..

[bentwaters81tfw]

More problems.

http://rt.com/usa/stealth-fighter-test-pentagon-027/

[MPaul]

I'd say that's because the Tornado didn't cost nearly as much, but that's a lie.. That was as far as I know an equally awful money pit when it first took to the skies.. They're still cruising around now, so I reckon they got most of the kinks out, I suppose..

I am talking within the last decade. Its usually done as a precautuonary measure, to give time to check things etc.

Imagine how much worse the publicity would be if they continued fling and one was lost/crew lost due to a part/failure they had already found on another aircraft of the type.

[Giorgio N]

More problems.

http://rt.com/usa/stealth-fighter-test-pentagon-027/

Again, the same occurred to a number of aircrafts: the F-18E/F that many people here would like to see in service instead of the F-35 was accepted in service only after the initial range specifications were lowered so that the aircraft could meet them. And the same happened to the F-18A (range and landing speed).

Going back in time would show a lot of other interesting examples.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Imagine how much worse the publicity would be if they continued fling and one was lost/crew lost due to a part/failure they had already found on another aircraft of the type.

Or a civilian on the ground...

Doesn't bear thinking about.

[Navy Bird]

Reminds me a bit about the biggest development program back when I was a kid, a program that pushed the boundary of then-existing technologies. The services were sold on the premise that one aircraft could serve the needs of both the USAF and the USN. It was beyond late in its development and horribly over budget. The Navy version was significantly overweight and unsuited for carrier operations. The media were constantly hounding the program, pushing to have it cancelled.

Its combat debut with the USAF in SEA was an unmitigated disaster when three of six aircraft were lost within a month. (As it turned out, all had been lost to a design/manufacturing issue, not by enemy fire.) Public opinion, fueled by front page coverage, demanded the program be halted.

F-111, anyone?

Perseverance and hard work led the F-111 to become an outstanding combat aircraft, serving well over 40 years.

Cheers,

Bill

[Technik1.wills]

Well, this is fairly typical. They STEAL our design, then decide they can do better without us, then bribe us to join THEIR new project (for a huge cost) and then, when it doesn't work, they ground it and IT WILL COST US for them to "fix" it. WE always end up paying for their mistakes/problems/failures - somehow...

Serves them right. We should have started development for the supersonic variant of the Harrier (i.e P1154) straight after the GR7/9 entered service.

[Navy Bird]

Well, this is fairly typical. They STEAL our design, then decide they can do better without us, then bribe us to join THEIR new project (for a huge cost) and then, when it doesn't work, they ground it and IT WILL COST US for them to "fix" it. WE always end up paying for their mistakes/problems/failures - somehow...

Serves them right. We should have started development for the supersonic variant of the Harrier (i.e P1154) straight after the GR7/9 entered service.

I'll assume that "they" is the US.

Stole the design? Which part of it? Since the end of your post is about the Harrier, I'll guess you are referring to the STOVL engine and/or the Harrier itself.

The Pratt & Whitney F135 engine was developed from their F119 engine which is used in the F-22 Raptor. Short take-off and vertical landing is accomplished by coupling the F135 engine to the "Rolls Royce Lift System" which was developed by a team led by Rolls-Royce (last I heard this was a British company), BAE (another British company), Pratt & Whitney, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and Hamilton Sundstrand.

The Rolls Royce Lift System shares little design philosophy with the Rolls Royce Pegasus in the Harrier. In fact, it more closely resembles the system used in the Russian Yak-141 technology demonstrator. Indeed, Lockheed licensed some of the technology from Yakolev at the end of the cold war and made it available to Rolls Royce. The F-35B lift system also incorporates design ideas similar to that seen in the German EWR VJ 101 (in the Deutsches Museum in Munich).

Since Rolls Royce, who also developed the Pegasus engine in the Harrier, is the team leader for the development of the Lift System, it is disingenuous to claim that the US stole the design from the British.

And the US bribed the UK to participate in the program? How? By the UK being the only Tier 1 partner? From GlobalSecurity.org:

"A major part of the UK industrial contribution to the F-35 will come from BAE Systems aircraft manufacturing facilities in Warton and Samlesbury, as well as facilities at Rochester and Edinburgh. The aft fuselage and empennage (tails and fins) for each F-35 are being designed, engineered and built at the BAE Systems Samlesbury site.

"BAE Systems is responsible for the design and delivery of key areas of the vehicle and weapon systems, in particular the fuel system, crew escape, life support system, Prognostics Health Management (PHM) integration and Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS). BAE Systems also has significant work share in Autonomic Logistics, primarily on the support system side, and is involved in the Integrated Test Force, including the systems flight test and mission systems.

"BAE Systems is also responsible for supplying the Vehicle Management Computer, the Communication, Navigation and Identification (CNI) modules, the active stick and throttle and the EOTS Laser subsystem.

"BAE Systems facilities in the US & UK are responsible for developing an Alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (AHMDS) as part of the risk mitigation effort for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. BAE Systems has successfully completed the Critical Design Review (CDR) which was funded by the UK Joint Combat Aircraft Integrated Product Team (UK MOD).

"The SDD phase is estimated to be worth $2.4 billion to BAE Systems in the UK. Production could be worth $16.5 billion to BAE Systems UK, and these figures do not include export sales, support or other opportunities such as upgrade programs."

BAE employ over 1,500 people on F-35 related work.

http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_019772/f-35-lightning-ii

Regarding the costs to fix issues that occur in development, it is in fact the US taxpayer who bear the brunt of this, as these charges are disproportionally rolled into the unit costs of aircraft destined for the US forces, not equally shared with the UK or any other partner.

It may also be appropriate to review some of the history of the second generation Harrier. It was a joint UK-US team that first proposed a new Harrier with the Pegasus 15 engine in 1973. When the UK government pulled out of this program, the US government was unwilling to fund it fully at that time, so the project ended in 1975. However, the US DoD authorized McDonnell Douglas to begin development of the "Harrier II" in late 1976. The aircraft, a modified AV-8A with new wings, larger intakes, etc. first flew in 1979. BAE Systems decided to join the McAir team in 1981. McAir was the program lead, and BAE had 40% of airframe work-share. Rolls Royce received 75% of the engine work-share. The US did not "steal" the Harrier design.

Cheers,

Bill

[mrvr6]

are we allowed access to the software yet?

the more i hear this thing getting slammed in the media the more i want it to work lol

[Technik1.wills]

OK Bill - clearly free speech and opinion is simply not allowed on this part of the forum; that is, unless it concurs with yours!

I thought that this was a "British" modeller's forum, where opinion, ideas, etc were welcome. Obviously, I have hit a "raw nerve".

Maybe you'd like to report me to the moderators and have me removed and banned?? >:-(

Derek Nelson-Wills, AMBCS

[mrvr6]

OK Bill - clearly free speech and opinion is simply not allowed on this part of the forum; that is, unless it concurs with yours!

I thought that this was a "British" modeller's forum, where opinion, ideas, etc were welcome. Obviously, I have hit a "raw nerve".

Maybe you'd like to report me to the moderators and have me removed and banned?? >:-(

Derek Nelson-Wills, AMBCS

actually im the 1st to jump all over excessive moderation but on this occasion all he did was counter your statement in a reasoned manner

[Max Headroom]

The original Harrier was truly multinational in that the vectored thrust concept was invented by a Frenchman, Marcel Wibault, developed by British ingenuity and if I remember correctly funded (in part at least) by the USA.

The trinational team working up the Kestrel was British, American and German (did Germany throw money in the pot?).

You could therefore argue that Harrier is British, French, American or even German.

As for the F-35, it will be scrutinised because it is perceived as a money pit (rightly or wrongly) with a never ending litany of 'faults'. It may well develop into a fine (expensive) warplane. Whether it is allowed to reach maturity is another thing.

Personally I predict in the future a smaller force of F-35's or Typhoons with slaved UAV's effectively doubling their bomb loading capacity.

Trevor

[mrvr6]

The original Harrier was truly multinational in that the vectored thrust concept was invented by a Frenchman, Marcel Wibault, developed by British ingenuity and if I remember correctly funded (in part at least) by the USA.

The trinational team working up the Kestrel was British, American and German (did Germany throw money in the pot?).

You could therefore argue that Harrier is British, French, American or even German.

As for the F-35, it will be scrutinised because it is perceived as a money pit (rightly or wrongly) with a never ending litany of 'faults'. It may well develop into a fine (expensive) warplane. Whether it is allowed to reach maturity is another thing.

Personally I predict in the future a smaller force of F-35's or Typhoons with slaved UAV's effectively doubling their bomb loading capacity.

Trevor

are uavs quick enough to go with typhoons etc?

or do you mean a combined arms kind of setup?

is it safe to have uavs in the same airspace as manned planes?

whats the situational awareness like with a uav?

[Max Headroom]

are uavs quick enough to go with typhoons etc?

or do you mean a combined arms kind of setup?

is it safe to have uavs in the same airspace as manned planes?

whats the situational awareness like with a uav?

I am speaking from the position of complete ignorance. It's a comfortable one!

In my nativity I assumed that UAV's could match the performance of the 'parent' aircraft as one half of a matched pair.

It would make for an interesting WHIF

Trevor