F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Aussie Digger]

They probebly score more than the AL-31F given at 1000 hours with a full-life span of 3000 hours.

And in the thrust regime too..

Marketing specs. Operational experience from users is a tad different...

The AL-31F has a reputation for having a tremendous tolerance to severely disturbed air flow. In the twin-engined Flanker, the engines are interchangeable between left and right.

They are sett to operate at much harsher clima than many of the vestern counterparts.[/quote]

And yet their MTBF is disgraceful for a so-called "modern" engines. It works out at roughly 30% of equivalent "Western" (aka American) engines.

The AL-31F can operate in a wide range of reliably altitudes and flight speeds. The engine works reliably in conditions of deep surge of the air intake with M=2 as well as in flat, straight and inverted spins. The engine ensures unique aircraft maneuverability including super dynamic aerobatics in negative speeds up to 200 km/h.

Sounds like a brochure to me...

The engine itself has nothing to do with maneuverability. It simply pushes masses of hot air backwards...

The AL-31F provides high gas dynamic stability and strength which maintain engine reliable performance in extreme condition of inlet distortion.
The AL-31F can be manufactured both in standard and tropic version.

And yet it can't even match the reliability and performance of an F-414 over the long term. F-414 is hardly the "leading edge" of Western engine development.

I wouldn go claiming P&W for the WORLD best millitary aviation manufactors..

How about the best WESTERN best millitary aviation manufactor?

It's a debatable point, but when you've been selected as the primary engine designer for the F-15, F-16, F-22 F-35, C-17 you've pretty much got the Western "military" market sown up.

Then add - 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 and A300, A310, A320, A330 and it's got a fine argument on it's side...

 

[energo]

My guess is Mach 1.3 without afterburner and fuel internal combat load. Anyone wanna place bets?

According to a USAF interview in a norwegian newspaper last year the F-35 is expected to do Mach 1.05 in MIL under certain weight and altitude conditions. Flight testing might change that.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[Feanor]

Mid last year the USG determined that the F-16 had the highest availability and safety rate of any single engined jet fighter in the world - based against total production. Guess which engine dominates F-16 production?

up time, turn around, catastrophic failures etc measured against total production.

What Havarlaa is implying is that the term best if subjective and depends on your criteria. Given a different set of criteria for the engine, a different engine maker might have come out on top. Hence why he is suggesting that we limit this assessment to western engines.

 

[Haavarla]

Aussie Digger;170288]Marketing specs. Operational experience from users is a tad different...

The AL-31F has a reputation for having a tremendous tolerance to severely disturbed air flow. In the twin-engined Flanker, the engines are interchangeable between left and right.

They are sett to operate at much harsher clima than many of the vestern counterparts.

And yet their MTBF is disgraceful for a so-called "modern" engines. It works out at roughly 30% of equivalent "Western" (aka American) engines.

A bold claim..
Source plz?

Sounds like a brochure to me...

What do you want, crunching numbers..
BTW, all manufactors comes with brochure

The engine itself has nothing to do with maneuverability. It simply pushes masses of hot air backwards...

True, but try putting F-414's on a Flanker
You would find that the performance drop.
Why is that?

And yet it can't even match the reliability and performance of an F-414 over the long term. F-414 is hardly the "leading edge" of Western engine development.

Source plz?
Service & maintanance performance in their respective airforces do not belong in this debate...

But developing & engineering do!
One more exsample.
Saturn AL-31F is a high temperature engine with afterburner of modular design, flow mixing after the turbine. It is high reliable and demonstrates stable operation under extreme conditions for inlet irregularities and fluctuations levels.Under operation a modular design of Saturn AL-31F allows replacement of a nozzle, afterburner, mixer, reduction gear and other components; repair and replacement of the 1st stage blades of LP compressor and all stages of HP compressor.

Pretty clever..

It's a debatable point, but when you've been selected as the primary engine designer for the F-15, F-16, F-22 F-35, C-17 you've pretty much got the Western "military" market sown up.

Then add - 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 and A300, A310, A320, A330 and it's got a fine argument on it's side

Like i said P&W are the biggest in the west.
Like Feanor say, different design, market, needs and goals.

 

[Vivendi]

Mid last year the USG determined that the F-16 had the highest availability and safety rate of any single engined jet fighter in the world - based against total production. Guess which engine dominates F-16 production?

up time, turn around, catastrophic failures etc measured against total production.

Are you sure about P&W dominating? Perhaps in ROW but on in the US it seems.

"Altogether, of the 1,446 F-16C/Ds ordered by the USAF, 556 were fitted with F100-series engines and 890 with F110s.[29] The United Arab Emirates’ Block 60 is powered by the General Electric F110-GE-132 turbofan, which is rated at a maximum thrust of 32,500 lbf (144.6 kN), the highest ever developed for the F-16 aircraft.[55][62][65]"

Source: wiki

I am not an expert, but the fact that the US is mainly relying on GE engines for their F-16 is perhaps an indication that the GE engines are also pretty good? Are they considered better than the F100 series? or cheaper?

V

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are you sure about P&W dominating? Perhaps in ROW but on in the US it seems.

"Altogether, of the 1,446 F-16C/Ds ordered by the USAF, 556 were fitted with F100-series engines and 890 with F110s.[29] The United Arab Emirates’ Block 60 is powered by the General Electric F110-GE-132 turbofan, which is rated at a maximum thrust of 32,500 lbf (144.6 kN), the highest ever developed for the F-16 aircraft.[55][62][65]"

Source: wiki

I am not an expert, but the fact that the US is mainly relying on GE engines for their F-16 is perhaps an indication that the GE engines are also pretty good? Are they considered better than the F100 series? or cheaper?

V

I'm hunting it down to confirm the details. It was via a non vendor press release. so I'd consider it to be more reliable per se.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I am not an expert, but the fact that the US is mainly relying on GE engines for their F-16 is perhaps an indication that the GE engines are also pretty good? Are they considered better than the F100 series? or cheaper?

There is a lot of history in relation to the P&W F100 vs GE F110. The first engine into service was the F100 and subsequently it has the majority of overall F-15 and F-16 engine orders. But engine reliability was pretty poor and when the GE F110 was ready it rapidly won lots of orders and P&W were forced to invest in improving quality of the F100.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A bold claim..
Source plz?

RAAF have had persistent claims from the Malays that they were rolling over russian components (principally engines) at close to 300% over their Hornets. It effected their availability on exercises.

Early indian results were the same, until they elected to try and source components elsewhere to their own requirements. I can personally vouch for some of that as I worked as a contractor for an australian military cable an connector company - we regularly had orders from indian middlemen asking us to build harnesses to alcatel or US Mil-Spec tolerances to get around cable and connection failures. Having seen the harness of a Mig29 I can tell you that it was an absolute POS compared to what the Israelis, Germans, French, Swedes and Americans put out.

The Germans also had lower availability rates when they forcibly adopted theur Mig29's.

The Israelis and French make a nice little earner churning out specialist components for NATO impressed russian gear.

Finally, when the Russians offered the RAAF Su-27's, our own prelim data showed that they were cheaper to buy but ended up more to support. Hence why the Indians and Chinese are now tougher on quality control. The Chinese russian supplied Su-27's were a bit ordinary - their copy is alleged to be far superior.

There's more than enough info coming from a number of sources to show that its more than a bold claim.

Finally, in the early 90's I interviewed some Russian Flanker and Fulcrum AME's when they emigrated to Australia. Part of the debrief was to talk about their job. I ended up getting one a job in the US as a support mechanic for BAE to support some "red air" assets. Without going into specifics, he loved the bird (27) but said that he felt like a farm mechanic. I interviewed him again 3 years later and he was certainly no longer feeling like a farm mechanic. He was also earning literally 80 times what he earnt in russia looking after basically the same gear.

 

[Feanor]

Some interesting info. Apparently Israeli systems are being integrated into the F-35. Scroll down to the green portion and read the latest update.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/israel-plans-to-buy-over-100-f35s-02381/#more-2381

March 19/09: The Jerusalem Post relays word from Israel’s Ministry of Defense, who said that Israeli systems “have already been installed in the F-35…. We are holding further discussions to install further systems.”

US-built models of the jet would incorporate Israeli-made data links, radios and other command and control equipment, but would exclude an Israeli-made electronic warfare suite due to the high cost of integrating the system into the plane.

 

[FutureTank]

Do you HONESTLY think both engines DON'T have the same requirement to meet? Do you not think the manufacturers are in competition?

Both have stated a 40% reduction in part numbers from previous engines. I agree. You somehow equated this to mean "100 parts" and I've already pointed this out in previous quotes of YOUR earlier statements.

Then be more careful in what you type and what you comprehend in future before posting, because that IS what you posted.

Again with the percentages. No wonder you were never an engineer...

Keep back pedalling brother. It does a debate the world of good...

Don't forget the multiple fan blade failures on F135 test engines in 2007 along with the lift fan shaft snapping...

I'm sure these issues didn't contribute any significant delay...

Aussie Digger, you are not here to have a discussion. You have decided that because I don't have "professional/analyst" in my profile, I am not worth talking to and can be ridiculed, misinterpreted, intimidated, berated, insulted (in words and of intelligence), intimidated and dismissed out of hand if anything I say can at all be taken out of context, misinterpreted, or just deleted from the conversation if at all inconvenient. Above all you are always right and nothing you copy from manufacturer's websites is subject to question.

These are not the terms of forum participation I agreed to.

So what if the program had "multiple fan blade failures on F135 test engines in 2007"? As a matter of fact I missed that. Big deal. Probably they were doing some sort of stress testing, or the quality control messed up. Maybe the creep caught up with them because they were still using the 1986 parts

I can't remember which, but one of the 1960s UK jets had five or six testbed engines completely burnt out before they got it right.
From memory the F135 program started (in 1994) with over a dozen testbed engines. Such program events part of the usual engineering process when the engineers ask, "ok, lets see what happens if we try to break this thing". Maybe GE distributed that bit of information That's how they find out what to write in the WARNING! sections of the manuals, fully knowing that in combat pilots don't have manuals or time to read them, and will push their aircraft to those breaking limits. P&W is not the only company that does this. They all do. And not just for engines, every nut and bolt is stress tested to specifications. I once had to buy 2km of new wiring for a facility because the APU there had a faulty capacitor and the whole thing melted. The capacitor was only worth $50.

My point is the F-35 should have been in squadron service by 2007.

There is no competition winner where there are two selected suppliers. Ever seen a draw at the grand final Its just the DoD hedging its bets. Given the GFC, I'd say they did that right (unintentionally). If auto manufacturers can go to Washington asking for money, than aircraft manufacturers are not immune either.

I'm not an engineer because I never wanted to be an engineer. I'm not intimidated by what I don't know though. To me its an opportunity to learn. I haven't learned much from you in this one sided discussion so far.

 

[Sea Toby]

Frankly, the air force would have been very happy with one supplier for jet engines. Its the Congress, CBO, and GAO who wanted two suppliers, thinking that two suppliers will bid lower than what one supplier will. I believe its called competition.

While it may be more expensive now to have two suppliers developing the engine, there is no doubt that ten or twenty years in the future the price will be less with competition. Or in other words its better to pay the piper now than pay far more later.

 

[Marc 1]

So what if the program had "multiple fan blade failures on F135 test engines in 2007"? As a matter of fact I missed that. Big deal.

Actually Future Tank, that is a big deal. And not one that is simply fixed by welding on some reinforcing metal. That's like finding out that the pistons you have fitted to the brand new engine you are developing are not up to the task - and you are already using unobtainium and cutting edge tech in the ones fitted that failed. It is a big deal (perhaps significant redesign of the core of the engine to fix).

That said, I too have crossed swords with some miltary/procurement specialists on another forum, and I can understand your frustration. I think the fundamental problem is that as these guys work with this stuff all the time, and forget that laymen like you and me know very little on some subjects yet the answer they give may be dependent upon the questioner having a basic level of understanding. When their answer is questioned they get a little heated as they cannot understand why it would be questioned. Either that or the questioner is just told they are wrong, not why they were wrong. Certainly there will be security issues that may preclude some disclosures, but on the whole if you do not tell someone why their answer is wrong it leaves the questioner feeling as though they have been treated like a 3 year old. These are general observations not targeted toward anyone in particular.

 

[cobzz]

That's how they find out what to write in the WARNING! sections of the manuals, fully knowing that in combat pilots don't have manuals or time to read them, and will push their aircraft to those breaking limits. P&W is not the only company that does this

Newer engines should be FADEC thus the pilot should be abled to do pretty much what he wants as rough as he wants.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's how they find out what to write in the WARNING! sections of the manuals, fully knowing that in combat pilots don't have manuals or time to read them, and will push their aircraft to those breaking limits. P&W is not the only company that does this

Modern aircraft have stress frame alerts, as well as a variety of others that are unmentionable which will stop pilots overstressing or over correcting their platforms.

it's never a perfect world, but the chances of harry hotshot throwing his Mach 1.5+ steed all over the proscribed space with gay abandon are pretty negligible.

seat of the pants testing died in the 80's.

 

[Salty Dog]

A nice read on first-hand impressions by one of two F-35 military test pilots. Link to the article below.

Marine One

 

[Firn]

Thanks, Salty. A nice read-up.

BTW for the first time I noticed just how exposed the outlet of the engine is. I wonder how high the infrared signature is compared to the F-22.

 

[the road runner]

I have just seen a story on the ABC(midday report,should also be on 7 pm news tonight)about Chinese "Hackers," who have stolen large amounts of JSF construction imformation.The Report has been un-confirmed by US DOD.

The strory would seem to be very troubling if true.Suposedley the only info that was stolen was on how the structure of the JSF is manufactured.
The report did not state that Avionics,sensors,radar,engine or weapons info was stolen.

If this is true,could China use this information to there advantage and would this info help in dectecting/tracking/engaging the JSF?

Would the Partner nations be informed of what info was stolen?

I have no links for this information,but i did see it on the ABC Midday news, it will be on the 7pm news tonight on ABC,please watch if possible.

All comments welcomed

 

[the road runner]

WALL STREET JOURNAL.....is where the story was first heard

Seems like the hackers got several terabytes of info on the JSF.:nutkick

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/21/Spies-hack-into-US-military-computers/UPI-21801240362088/

Good to know that the most sensitive data on the JSF is kept on PC that are not connected to the Internet.:

Officilas have stated that "the compromised data as NOT highly sensitive data, experts fear the information could be used to make the plane easier to fight or defend against."

http://chattahbox.com/technology/20...enses-of-next-generation-fighter-jet-program/

All comments welcomed thanx in advance

 

[energo]

Officilas have stated that "the compromised data as NOT highly sensitive data, experts fear the information could be used to make the plane easier to fight or defend against."

http://chattahbox.com/technology/20...enses-of-next-generation-fighter-jet-program/

All comments welcomed thanx in advance

From Reuters:

"Lockheed says F-35 classified data not breached"

[..]

Lockheed Martin's chief financial officer, Bruce Tanner, said: "We actually believe the Wall Street Journal was incorrect in its representation of successful cyber attacks on the F-35 program."

"I've not heard of that, and to our knowledge there's never been any classified information breach," he said during a teleconference on the company's latest earnings."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/UK_SMALLCAPSRPT/idUKN2147905220090421


B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[Aussie Digger]

http://chattahbox.com/technology/2009/04/21/hackers-breach-defenses-of-next-generation-fighter-jet-program/

All comments welcomed thanx in advance

The APG-65 radar was compromised entirely by the Russians in the early 90's.
Has it affected the F/A-18A/B/C/D's combat capability?

Nope. Critical systems are modified and developed over time anyway...

Storm in a teacup. It's not great, but it's hardly world-ending for the F-35 program.