F-35 Lightning II

[Pathfinder]

Sobre el block 4 y los aviones que serían actualizados, haciendo referencia a UK.

https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839/sta ... 0331908105

"What happens as F-35 evolves to Block 4? How many aircraft will be upgraded?"
Fiscal Year 2022 budget request helps provide an answer. USMC is working on retrofitting all F-35Bs from Lots 7 - 16 to Block V, Lot 17 standard (aka the most advanced configuration devised) [1]
This is good news for the UK as there is a programme of record, well established, that can be followed to retrofit the near totality of british F-35Bs. The UK owns only 3 jets pre-dating Lot 7: BK1 and BK2 (instrumented test aircframes) from Lot 3 and BK3 from Lot 4.
This, by the way, compares extremely favorably (thankfully!) to the Typhoon disaster which is notoriously leading to the whole Tranche 1 of 53 jets disappearing by 2025, and Tranche 2 still not guaranteed a MK2 AESA radar retrofit.
Block IV capability cut-in into production is already happening. Notable among the additions, production Lot 13 (currently in production / delivery) introduces the slight weapon bay mod increasing available volume ahead of new weapon integrations.
USAF and US Navy are adopting a different Retrofit strategy from the USMC, going for a 2-tier (interim?) solution. The USAF plans to upgrade Lot 5 - 10 to Block IV, Lot 15 standard, and 11 - 16 to Lot 17 standard.
US Navy, Lot 4-10 to Lot 15, 11-16 to Lot 17.
To make sense of this, you have to remember that Lot 15 standard is core Block IV infrastructure, introducing new panoramic cockpit display, new Integrated Core Processors and new DAS IR cameras. Additional capability, particularly a massive EW capability boost, follow by Lot 17.
The massive EW boost is predicated on adding 8 new core processors to triplicate processing performance, and increase from 12 to 20 receivers. New apertures will be added in the fuselage, to enable EW in additional bands. Very ambitious stuff, no wonder Block IV is challenging

[14yellow14]

Hablando del tema de generacion de energia del F-35 y comparando con las últimas versiones del F-15E (present load) y el futuro (F-15EX?)



Comparado con el F-35 (y el Saab Gripen)

[champi]

Bonitas fotos en el HMS Queen Elizabeth: https://twitter.com/sensya6gou/status/1 ... 5506045953

[champi]

Están transformando la unidad accidentada en un aterrizaje en 2020 para que el personal de mantenimiento se pueda entrenar con ella: https://twitter.com/clemente3000/status ... 6360156161

[Chema]

Atticus , yo hablaba de laser y la generacion de un motor actual no da para la energia necesaria si no tienes algun metodo de almacenamiento y todavia mas si estas pensando en una cadencia aceptable de minutos.

[14yellow14]

“General Electric has started testing its second XA100 adaptive cycle engine as part of the Air Force’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP). Testing began on Aug. 26 at GE’s Evendale altitude test facility. This is GE’s final planned prototype engine as part of #AETP”

https://twitter.com/GEAviation/status/1 ... 6480879617

[bandua]

Sigue dando vueltas la idea de reducir número de aviones si no bajan los costes (pura lógica que le ha ido tocando a todos):
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense ... nstraints/

Asked about the provision during the Defense News Conference on Wednesday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown indicated he would support the proposed cost constraints.

“The language from Congress is really in line with what we’re trying to get done,” Brown said.

“One of our goals is to actually make this [program] affordable, and to make the sustainment costs affordable,” he said, calling it a “focus” for the service.

Como sabeis actualmente el mantenimiento es el doble de lo previsto y por eso plantean mantener el presupuesto total del programa lo que llevaría a una redución importante de la flota si no se ajustan los costes de mantenimiento.
Yo imagino que al final tiraran de todas partes: ampliaran algo el presupuesto, reduciran algo los costes, la flota total y posiblemente también las horas de vuelo. Veremos.

[Milites]

La ministra suiza les pone en contacto con unos abogados de Zúrich que les hacen un informe, y con el mismo, los costes bajan.

Enviado desde mi SM-J610FN mediante Tapatalk

[Atticus]

Atticus , yo hablaba de laser y la generacion de un motor actual no da para la energia necesaria si no tienes algun metodo de almacenamiento y todavia mas si estas pensando en una cadencia aceptable de minutos.

No, si yo estoy de acuerdo con lo que dices. Por eso recordaba que lo que siempre se ha publicado del F35 era que disponia de un exceso de potencia para las armas de energia dirigida, pero que eso no eran necesariamente laseres. De hecho, de lo que siempre se ha hablado "en serio" era de la capacidad del Radar de generar haces de energia muy potentes para labores de decepcion, etc. Lo del Laser como arma del F35 creo que ha tenido siempre mas de publicitario que de real. En cualquier caso, no es que el F35 no este capacitado para un laser de Star Trek, es que a ese nivel no se ha llegado ni en instalaciones enormes con muchisimas menos limitaciones como las de los buques.

Sigue dando vueltas la idea de reducir número de aviones si no bajan los costes (pura lógica que lebha ido tocando a todos):

Llevan ya algun tiempo "haciendonos el cuerpo" a que el numero de JSF comprados se van a quedar en el millar, o por debajo. De hecho, en la tactica de la rana y el caldero, ya se empieza hasta a hablar que no merece la pena diseñar un caza en el segmento del F16 existiendo el F16 en variantes avanzadas. Yo me iria haciendo el cuerpo a que una "compra interina" de F16 (llamando "interina" al doble de ejemplares de casi cualquier fuerza aerea) va a llegar pronto. A ver como se desarrollan los acontecimientos.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -of-f-35s/

[RMR_22]

Sigue dando vueltas la idea de reducir número de aviones si no bajan los costes (pura lógica que lebha ido tocando a todos):
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense ... nstraints/

Asked about the provision during the Defense News Conference on Wednesday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown indicated he would support the proposed cost constraints.

“The language from Congress is really in line with what we’re trying to get done,” Brown said.

“One of our goals is to actually make this [program] affordable, and to make the sustainment costs affordable,” he said, calling it a “focus” for the service.

Como sabeis actualmente el mantenimiento es el doble de lo previsto y por eso plantean mantener el presupuesto total del programa lo que llevaría a una redución importante de la flota si no se ajustan los costes de mantenimiento.
Yo imagino que al final tiraran de todas partes: ampliaran algo el presupuesto, reduciran algo los costes, la flota total y posiblemente también las horas de vuelo. Veremos.

En el enlace que has puesto se menciona que:

In FY20, it cost the Air Force about $8 million to operate and sustain each F-35A — about twice the target cost per tail per year of $4.1 million.

Y puede parecer razonable , el problema es que la mismisima GAO, en el último informe que publicó a finales de 2020 dice que el coste anual de un F-16 en 2018 fue de 4,33 millones. (https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-101sp.pdf)

Por lo tanto debe ser una broma eso de que cuesta el doble de lo previsto. ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿De verdad tenian previsto que costase unos cientos de miles de dólares menos que un F-16??????????????????

Simplemente parece que todo vale para criticar al F-35...

[meteor]

Para mi el problema está en los objetivos, que eran muy ambiciosos, tanto en coste de adquisición como de vuelo. Respecto prestaciones y plazos de desarrollo también.

No es tanto el avión como lo que se había marcado de objetivo.

Un saludo

[14yellow14]

La propuesta de P&W para actualizar el F135:

Pratt Pushes Alternative to New Adaptive Engine for F-35

https://www.airforcemag.com/pratt-pushe ... -for-f-35/

Jennifer Latka, Pratt & Whitney’s vice president for the F135 engine program, said the AETP technology would work only in Air Force F-35A and Navy F-35C models and could not fit in the Marine Corps’ F-35B. Developing two different alternative engines to the F135—AETP for the Air Force and Navy and another for the Marines—could add up to $40 billion over the 50-year life of the program, she said in an interview with Air Force Magazine.

The House version of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act would require the F-35 Joint Program Office to pursue a strategy to incorporate an AETP engine into the F-35 fleet beginning in 2027. Congressional sources said one of the goals is to drive down the cost of F-35 engines by creating a competitor to Pratt & Whitney. GE, which is hot on the AETP technology, is eager to offer its XA100 as an alternative. Pratt, owned by Raytheon Technologies, has also developed an AETP engine, the XA101....

Pratt & Whitney submitted a pair of proposals for modernizing the F135 engine to the JPO in March. The plans would improve thrust and range by more than 10 percent each and give the F-35B a 5 percent boost in vertical lift and a 50 percent improvement in thermal management, the company said. Heat damage has been a concern with these engines, and less heat could also potentially improve stealth performance.

There would be little industrial impact, as the Enhanced Engine Package, or EEP, could “drop into production as a retrofit … So it relies on the exact same infrastructure, and the same sustainment network, that we currently … rely on.”

Pratt & Whitney is investing millions, meanwhile, to try to drive down sustainment costs for its engine, which is the major contributor to the F-35’s high operating costs. “We get it,” she said. “Affordability is the existential threat to this program.”

She continued: “We’ve taken 50 percent out of the unit cost” of the F135, she said. Improvements would reduce costs further, taking 36 percent out of the cost for the initial shop visit, she added. “That’s where the big bills come,” she added, because parts of the hot section hardware have reached end of life. “We know how to take cost out … Our whole commercial profile is ‘power by the hour,’” Latka noted.

Absent such improvements, the services will need to run the engines hotter to make use of Block 4 capabilities, and while they can handle it, “that means … the engines come in for maintenance” more frequently, increasing sustainment costs.

Latka said Pratt & Whitney’s proposed improvements have nothing to do with achieving the Air Force’s goal of cutting operating costs to $25,000 per hour by 2025. The upgrades are also not specifically intended to create more electrical power for onboard systems, she said.

Latka did not comment on the suitability of Pratt & Whitney’s XA101 for the F-35, except that the engine was “always intended … to be a sixth-generation” powerplant for sixth-generation fighters. The F-35 is a fifth-generation fighter. Pratt & Whitney has been testing the XA101 since the spring; GE began testing its XA100 in August.

“There’s a significant amount of risk that comes with brand-new technology, and that would require a … tremendous amount of validation to be done,” Latka said. “We’re saying, the AETP is not the right fit for the F-35.”

[champi]

Un par de contratos (10/9/2021): https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contra ... e/2771255/

...
NAVY

Raytheon Technologies Corp., Pratt and Whitney Engines, East Hartford, Connecticut, is awarded a $66,481,371 fixed-price-incentive-firm-target modification (P00030) to a previously awarded contract (N0001918C1021). This modification provides increment (2) funding for one Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) and one Conventional Take-Off and Landing Block 4 developmental engines, and procures one STOVL nozzle module, one STOVL three-bearing swivel module, two STOVL initial spare engines, and one initial spare power module in support of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft program for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and non-U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) participants. Work will be performed in East Hartford, Connecticut (56%); North Berwick, Maine (13%); Indianapolis, Indiana (10%); Jupiter, Florida (7%); Windsor Locks, Connecticut (5%); Bristol, United Kingdom (4%); Rockford, Illinois (2%); Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico (2%); and Phoenix, Arizona (1%), and is expected to be completed in December 2022. Fiscal 2021 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $52,067,173, fiscal 2021 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $5,906,118, fiscal 2021 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force) funds in the amount of $5,906,118, and non-U.S. DOD participant funds in the amount of $2,601,962 will be obligated at the time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.
...
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded an $11,911,903 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification (P00018) to a previously issued order (N0001920F0571) against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N0001919G0008). This modification adds scope and exercises options to procure material kits and special test/tooling equipment and provide non-recurring engineering in support of engineering change proposal development to support F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft retrofit and modification efforts for the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, non-U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) participants and the governments of Israel, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in December 2030. Fiscal 2021 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $3,417,745; fiscal 2021 aircraft procurement (Air Force) funds in the amount of $1,276,182; fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Air Force) funds in the amount of $220,104; non-U.S. DOD participants funds in the amount of $814,956; and Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $6,182,916 will be obligated on this award, of which $220,104 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.
...

[Atticus]

Por lo tanto debe ser una broma eso de que cuesta el doble de lo previsto. ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿De verdad tenian previsto que costase unos cientos de miles de dólares menos que un F-16??????????????????

No solo era lo prometido sino que han estado manteniendo eso hasta hace un par de años. De hecho, no te va a costar ningun trabajo encontrar gente en foros que lo siguen dando por cierto. El mantra de "cuando haya mas aviones todo va a ser casi gratis". Lo cierto es que ya hay "mas aviones" desde hace muuuucho tiempo. El programa lleva ya dos decadas y ha superado en numero a flotas como las del F16. Las cifras que no haya alcanzado ya, dificilmente las va a alcanzar.

[RMR_22]

No solo era lo prometido sino que han estado manteniendo eso hasta hace un par de años. De hecho, no te va a costar ningun trabajo encontrar gente en foros que lo siguen dando por cierto. El mantra de "cuando haya mas aviones todo va a ser casi gratis". Lo cierto es que ya hay "mas aviones" desde hace muuuucho tiempo. El programa lleva ya dos decadas y ha superado en numero a flotas como las del F16. Las cifras que no haya alcanzado ya, dificilmente las va a alcanzar.

Con que te informaras un poquito y vieras que hay más F-16 en la USAF que F-35 en el mundo, igual no soltabas semejante mentira.
Y respecto al CPFH, si es tan exigente el requisito que ni un F-16 lo cumple pues igual resulta que no es caro el F-35, sino absurdo el requisito.