F-35 price tag holding steady..........

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 3,396

same amount of internal fuel as F-22 but no supercruise. 50% of structure made of composites.

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 12,109

same amount of internal fuel as F-22 but no supercruise.

Yup , no supercruise , Not really needed to supercruise as compared to greater range and loiter time , the F-35 is supplementary to the F-22 so for missions which need supercuise they will work nicely with F-22's . Also if you read into the F-35's Cost/capability tradeoffs by RAND and others they ID'd Supercruise as one feature which will cost a lot and considered that the F-35 doesnt really need high supercruise to be able to be effective as a platform which it is designed to be , ie . Multi role aircraft specialized for fighter-strike which works in tandem with the F-22A . The USAF's dominance is clearly evident here as i am sure the USN would have wanted supercruise (maybe not as much as F-22 but something in the mach 1.2-1.3 range) .

It would still be interesting to see the eventual T2W ration and dT2W ratio and aerodynamic performance when clean (internal weapons) , i am sure its speed when supersonic w/o burners would be double digit % better then Viper and Super hornet etc .

50% of structure made of composites.

Is it something wrong factually ? I ask because i really dont know how much composite they use on the L2.

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 12,109

AA2 , B1 or whatever its called , pictured here testing its swivle nozzle . Check out the dude in the right (lower) aspect and how he says "YEAHHHH" with his head when the thing goes down :) , just thought it was funny!!

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 1,010

Has the amount of internal fuel in the f-22 ever been officially disclosed? I must say it really surprised me that a test pilot would disclose such a piece of info to the public - that the f-35 carries the same amout of fuel as f-22. Could it be it was deliberate misinfomation?

I remember i've seen various figures thrown around for f-22's fuel, ranging from 5 to 9 tons. While 5 seems a bit too little, 9 ton figure doesn't really mesh with the 'same amount of fuel as f.35' statement, as I just can't see how on earth would over 10 cubic meters of fuel fit into a f-35.

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 12,109

Has the amount of internal fuel in the f-22 ever been officially disclosed?

Dont recall it being made public anywhere but then again it might not be public but might not also be classified either .

Do we know for certain the Exact internal fuel of the F35 ? I mean has a FIRM FIGURE been offically released by USAF , LMA ???

i've seen various figures thrown around for f-22's fuel, ranging from 5 to 9 tons. While 5 seems a bit too little, 9 ton figure doesn't really mesh with the 'same amount of fuel as f.35' statement, as I just can't see how on earth would over 10 cubic meters of fuel fit into a f-35.

I think he was talking in general terms not being too specific .

Could it be it was deliberate misinfomation?

Seriously doubt it , Missinformation against who ? A potential enemy in IRAN? The folks that spend the money be it US politicans , bean counters and foreign officials all get classifed breifs on performance , expected performance and target performance so you cant really talk one thing and not be held accountable to it .

Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 3,765

Totoro

The internal fuel of the F-22 has never been officially disclosed, but the numbers for the F-35A/B/C were made public a long time ago.

F-35A - 18480 Lb´s (8,400 ton)
F-35B - 14003 Lb´s (6,365 ton)
F-35C - 20085 Lb´s (9,130 ton)

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA%20Conf%20-%20JSF%20Program%20Brief%20-%2026%20Sept%2006.pdf

Now, that´s what i call "a decent fuel fraction".

Cheers :)

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 1,010

I'm pretty sure it's classified. It is an important figure - lots of things can be deduced from it. Plus the fact there are so many different guesses about the internal fuel load around - that just confirms to me no one out of the loop really knows.

And even though the pilot probably was talking in general terms - when you say 'same amount of fuel' - that can't be 50% or 200%. It should be in general vicinity of the actual figure.

I have been seeing the figure of 18.000 pounds of fuel thrown around a lot - and i must say that coincides well with f-22's size. I've compared lots of planes in f-22's size class - plus some slightly smaller ones and some slightly bigger ones. It does seem that 18.000 is a very realistic figure. Even if the pilot rounded up f-35's fuel to compare it to the Raptor, while in fact it's a bit less - even so it should carry no less than some 15.000 pounds. And that is a HUGE amount, considering smaller, lighter plane with an engine more optimized for slower speeds and smaller fuel consumption.

EDIT: Sintra, thanks a lot! Didn't know about that one! :)

Profile picture for user sferrin

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 9,683

The F-22's is about 20,500lbs. I've got part of an official manual around here somewhere (non-classified of course).

Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

13 years 11 months

Posts: 4,951

Can the F-35A take off with a useful load and that full amount of fuel, or does it have to refuel after takeoff to do so?

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 12,109

Can the F-35A take off with a useful load and that full amount of fuel, or does it have to refuel after takeoff to do so?

I think with FULL load we can only assume that it would take off with 2 X 2000Lb LGB's + 2 Aim-120C's . With the F-135 rated at 40,000+ pounds of thrust i am sure taking off with full fuel load plus these mentioned internal weapons should be much of a problem . I know the raptor can take off with A Full load of 8 A2A missiles plus internal fuel (full) and two 600 gallon fuel tanks .

I also love the way you can simply just touch the area of the intended target that you want to deliver bombs too , its just so much more practical and easy and less time consuming , also i beleive that each pilot can SAVE his prefered CONFIGURATION on a DISK type TAPE and plug it into the computer so that every pilot can have his own unique set up of the MFD's etc . I think i read it in Avionics magazine or something .

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 880

Can the F-35A take off with a useful load and that full amount of fuel, or does it have to refuel after takeoff to do so?

2004 figures -
Quoted MTOW = 27216 kg
Empty = 12020 kg (also as 13170 kg)
Internal Fuel = 8165 kg
Payload/[pilot/consumables, etc = 7031 kg (also given as 7250 kg)

The max hardpoint load is 9843 kg in any case.

Profile picture for user Schorsch

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 3,718

Supersonic performance has nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with the airframe, the F135 engine + lift fan is what I'm talking about, adding weight to create thrust which can only be used for lift, whersas a F135 changed from a 0.2 bypass to a 1.2 bypass using a pegasus style main fan would generate roughly 51000lbs of dry thrust (given the current estimates and released info on the F135 of roughly 28000lbs) with some simple lightweight ducting it could also be used to provide thrust in level flight while maintaining low RCS (actually easier with a low RCS airframe due to the layout) and you can still use the same 3 bearing pivoting tail and afterburners (afterburning 3 nozzle pegasus varients have existed for more than 20 years) giving 56000lbs or so (again using released data from PW on the F135), and the weight penalty for the ststem would probably be much lower than the lift fan, gearbox, ductwork and doors of the current F-35B system.

Get it now?

No.
The concept of having dedicated lift engines has advantages. The high dry thrust cannot be used for anything useful. To produce these amounts of thrust the whole intake system needs to be adapted. In typical cruise the engine typically operates at RPM short above idle which does not make it more efficient (engines work best at 70-90% maximum thrust).
The Harrier is not the end of all wisdom. Limited specs resulting in an useful solution. The Germans tried different designs and had mixed success.

Besides, the F-35B is supposed to be stealthy, which would be quite a challenge with a 1m fan.

2004 figures -
Quoted MTOW = 27216 kg
Empty = 12020 kg (also as 13170 kg)
Internal Fuel = 8165 kg
Payload/[pilot/consumables, etc = 7031 kg (also given as 7250 kg)

Weight increases are if I remember correctly one of the biggest challenge to make the F-35 (especially B) alive, and I look forward for the first solid numbers. Those for the F-22 were never published. That aircraft is given with ~15 tons in public sources, but closer to 20t OEW following some sources.
Profile picture for user Schorsch

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 3,718

Can the F-35A take off with a useful load and that full amount of fuel, or does it have to refuel after takeoff to do so?

The question is: what is the field performance under these conditions?
When you see an F-16C with 2 huge tanks, 2 AMRAAM and 2 IR-AAM, one ECM pod and not to forget 2x 2000lbs bombs as payload, you actually wonder how this little wing can lift it.

Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 3,765

2004 figures -
Quoted MTOW = 27216 kg
Empty = 12020 kg (also as 13170 kg)
Internal Fuel = 8165 kg
Payload/[pilot/consumables, etc = 7031 kg (also given as 7250 kg)

The max hardpoint load is 9843 kg in any case.

The empty weight of the F-35A went to 13200 kg.

Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 3,765

Weight increases are if I remember correctly one of the biggest challenge to make the F-35 (especially B) alive, and I look forward for the first solid numbers. Those for the F-22 were never published. That aircraft is given with ~15 tons in public sources, but closer to 20t OEW following some sources.

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5797/f35weightsu4.jpg

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA%20Conf%20-%20JSF%20Program%20Brief%20-%2026%20Sept%2006.pdf

Member for

12 years 6 months

Posts: 475

I see. But then the problem with the air intake remains. I dont think a supersonic jet is possible without intake. I'm no expert, but I think air needs to be slowed down to subsonic speed so the engine cannot face the air directly.

I'm not actually all that sure what you're driving at with this one, duct size of course would need to increase, but since all jet engines have the same problems with airspeed entering the LP compressor, and it's been solved for every supersonic plane in existance I don't think it'll be that big of a deal

The lift fan adds those 47 inches to the engine which gives you a way bigger bypass ratio than possible with a single engine.

All the lift fan does is add 2 50 inch LP stages to the engine and then directly bypasses that air downwards, it is still being powered by the main engine, so to say that they bypass ratio it gives is impossible from a single engine is to miss the point of the design, it is a sinle engine, it just has an extra 2nd divorced 2 stage LP compressor


The ones you mentioned aren't exactly the benchmark for fighters. And I dont know the bpr of the Harrier or the F-35 with engaged fan. But its probably more than 1:1.

Harrier Bypass ratio is about 1.3:1, from given figures it would seem that F-35Bs F135+ lift fan and roll posts sum total bypass ratio is about 1.38:1, not exactly a different ballpark.

No.
The concept of having dedicated lift engines has advantages. The high dry thrust cannot be used for anything useful. To produce these amounts of thrust the whole intake system needs to be adapted. In typical cruise the engine typically operates at RPM short above idle which does not make it more efficient (engines work best at 70-90% maximum thrust).
The Harrier is not the end of all wisdom. Limited specs resulting in an useful solution. The Germans tried different designs and had mixed success.

Besides, the F-35B is supposed to be stealthy, which would be quite a challenge with a 1m fan.

Uh, you do realise it has a 4ft diameter LP already (check out the pics/vids of engine installation if you don't believe me), like I said, the lift fan is just 2 extra LP divorced from the rest of the engine and run through a gearbox, all of which then becomes dead weight after takeoff, and more complex than just sticking those 2 fans on the front and bypassing the air downwards through swiveling ducts, then ducting the air to the rear in level flight.

You guys seem to be having a hard time getting my point, next time I think I'll come back with illustrations :)

Profile picture for user Schorsch

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 3,718

You guys seem to be having a hard time getting my point, next time I think I'll come back with illustrations :)

So, you think you have seen a "vid" and know you know that Lockheed Martin has build a totally crappy aircraft? Sorry, I think you are overrating your judgment a bit.

Profile picture for user Schorsch

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 3,718


http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA%20Conf%20-%20JSF%20Program%20Brief%20-%2026%20Sept%2006.pdf

Indisputably official numbers on the key parameters, but "solid numbers" are per definition the weight of the first delivered operational aircraft. Nobody knows currently where that stands. All the test aircraft LM currently produces are far away from the figures projected for the final aircraft.

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 12,109

but "solid numbers" are per definition the weight of the first delivered operational aircraft. Nobody knows currently where that stands. All the test aircraft LM currently produces are far away from the figures projected for the final aircraft.

You can have PREDICTED NUMBERS for FULL CONFIG aircraft at this stage made by computer modeling , however REAL no.s will come when the FIRST FULLY REPRESENTATIVE version (the one that just started assembly IIRC) is weighed . That is usually what happens in most weapons programs that i have come across .

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 12,109

2nd F-35 set to fly this month

Sometime in the next few weeks, a test pilot will push the throttle forward, and the second F-35 Lightning II test aircraft will make its maiden flight, a major milestone for the $298 billion fighter-jet development program.

"We're working toward a late May [flight] date," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president over F-35 development and production.

"There's nothing we've identified that would be a barrier to that. At the same time, I've given the team a mid-June target to give them time to recover from any last-minute issues that arise."

Key point

The second aircraft is a significant step forward for the joint strike fighter program. It is the first airplane built after a major redesign launched in mid-2003 to reduce weight. It's also the first F-35B model, a short-takeoff-vertical-landing (STOVL) version like those to be built for the Marines and the armed forces of some foreign countries, notably Britain's Royal Navy.

A British pilot, Graham Tomlinson, who works for BAE Systems, will fly the B-model. The aircraft has undergone engine and flight-control testing on the ground in recent weeks. All test flights will involve conventional takeoffs and landings. STOVL testing won't occur until an improved engine is installed, probably early in 2009.

Flight-test progress

The first test airplane, which first flew in December 2006, has completed 40 test flights, totaling more than 48 hours. The plane has been undergoing mandatory inspections, maintenance and software upgrades since the last flight April 2. It is expected to resume flying in the middle of this month.

Crowley said there have been no significant technical issues or problems found in the 21 flights since testing resumed in December after a seven-month grounding due to a serious problem with flight controls.

Progress picks up

By the end of 2009, Lockheed plans to have built and be testing all 19 aircraft, 13 (including the first) for flight tests and six for ground testing.

Four planes are in various stages of major assembly, and work is under way at Lockheed and other firms on components and assemblies for the rest. Crowley said major structural components for all the remaining aircraft should be delivered within the next 60 to 90 days.

http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/621512.html

Lockheed looks to partners to give F-35 sales a big lift

Lockheed Martin officials are working out a plan to get key allies to place firm, early orders for hundreds of F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighters.

Much work remains to be done, but Lockheed hopes to submit a detailed proposal outlining cost, order and delivery schedules to government and military officials by early next year.

The plans calls for a consortium of the eight countries that have invested in development of the F-35 to commit to buy 368 fighter jets, with production beginning as soon as 2012-2013.

U.S. taxpayers and military services would be major beneficiaries of the consortium proposal. The sooner foreign countries place orders for F-35s and production begins to increase, the faster the cost of the aircraft should come down.

"The importance is stability," said Dan Crowley, the Lockheed executive vice president who oversees F-35 development and production in Fort Worth. "Stability of production, stability of cost."

Lockheed and the Pentagon have been working since mid-2007 to encourage the eight partner countries to place early orders.

Without foreign orders, the U.S. military would have to bear the brunt of the high early costs of buying tools, training workers and working out the kinks in the production lines.

Pentagon budget documents show that the Air Force anticipates ordering 42 F-35s in 2013 at an average price of about $91 million, the lowest cost of the three versions. Navy and Marine Corps planes would cost much more. Early foreign orders could bring those costs down significantly.

At the same time, Lockheed hopes the plan will help persuade the Pentagon to step up its planned F-35 purchases as the armed services seek to replace older, costly-to-maintain fighter jets now being heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other missions.

Tom Burbage, Lockheed's executive vice president who oversees the political and marketing aspects of the F-35, briefed officials of the partner countries at a conference last month. He will present the concept to senior government and military officials this month.

If they approve, Burbage said Lockheed and the other contractors will begin extensive discussions with suppliers to try and project cost and production schedules so that firm pricing commitments could be made to the partner countries.

"Nobody has bought into it yet," said Burbage, adding that Lockheed would have to invest a great deal of time and effort to pull together accurate cost data.

Unlike the U.S., which funds weapons-system purchases on a year-to-year basis, most of the F-35 partner countries will make multiyear buying decisions and appropriate the money upfront. Much like Boeing does with commercial airline buyers, Lockheed and the U.S. will have to commit to selling F-35s at firm, fixed prices for the life of a contract.

Burbage said that under such an arrangement, Lockheed and the other prime contractors, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman, will take on some financial risk, as will the U.S. and foreign governments.

Great Britain and the Netherlands are expected to buy three test airplanes between them, along with 16 for the U.S. government in the 2009 fiscal year.

So far, the U.S. and Lockheed have been able to keep the partner countries on the F-35 team despite the best efforts of European fighter-jet manufacturers.

"They've kept all eight partner nations in, they've kept them funding it, which is a major accomplishment," said Richard Aboulafia, aerospace-industry analyst with the Teal Group.

Burbage just returned from a 10-day trip to Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands to meet with government and military leaders. Norway and Denmark have not yet committed to buy the F-35 and are holding competitions, mainly with Sweden's Saab Gripen fighter.

Burbage submitted Lockheed's formal bid to Norwegian officials Monday. In his remarks, Burbage told Norwegian officials that the F-35 represents a "quantum leap" in combat capabilities at 20 percent lower operational cost than the F-16s and other aircraft they are now flying.

"We made a strong proposal," Burbage said. "We're competitive on price, and we're a much more capable airplane."

Norway is expected to decide which fighter to purchase by year's end, but Burbage said a formal decision to order planes is probably several years away.

Other countries are also considering how soon to commit to F-35 orders. Italy, Burbage said, might decide to buy its own test airplane in 2009. Australian government officials have hedged at times about their commitment and have announced plans to order 24 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets.

But Burbage said all indications are that Australia will reaffirm its intent to purchase F-35s at some point.

Israel, meanwhile, has adopted military budget plans that call for buying 25 F-35s around 2012.

As Lockheed and the U.S. seek to firm up foreign support for the F-35, one selling point has been that partner countries, which won F-35 work by upgrading their technology and manufacturing capabilities, are beginning to win additional work from the commercial aircraft industry.

"All of the benefits [from other countries' investments] have gone into their local, high-tech industries," Burbage said, something political leaders are beginning to notice.

Planned U.S. F-35 spending

Fiscal 2008

Procurement

12 planes $2.65 billion

Research, development and testing

$3.5 billion

Fiscal 2009

Procurement

16 planes

Research, development and testing

$3.9 billion

http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/621516.html