maus92o 26,664 lbs/29,996= .89 or ~11%
o we do know that the F-135 is rated at 43k(and possibly higher)
o the F-136 is 40k lb class
o the TF-30 isn’t what we’re discussing. If you want to discuss more recent P&W products, then the F-100 series(especially) the -220/229 models have been more reliable than the GE F-110.
o using F-35 funds to develop the F-136 will cut the buy, and create a death spiral, as well as increasing costs by having a more complex supply chain. If GE/RR can get funding that won’t adversely impact the F-35, get a mature product, and demonstrate that it should be considered then fine.
– Weight numbers: Your numbers were part of a powerpoint presentation given at a UAVs & Range Operations Symposium in October, 2007, briefing about JSF Range and Airspace Requirements. It is not a JSF program office document, and the numbers are over 2.5 years old. Lockheed Martin’s 2010 numbers are more recent and from the manufacturer – thus more accurate until a newer credible source contraindicates / updates them.
“We do know that the F-135 is rated at 43k (and possibly higher)”
– Granted.
“The F-136 is 40k lb class”
– And likely higher if GE wants to compete.
– I am discussing the TF-30 because it was an inferior powerplant manufactured the the same company who makes the F135. Pratt has been having problems with the F135 as well – enough to cost 2b in overruns thus far. Competition has a funny way of improving products, and operating without the real threat leads to an inferior product. And choice would be a selling point to our partners.
“If you want to discuss more recent P&W products, then the F-100 series(especially) the -220/229 models have been more reliable than the GE F-110.”
– Curious. Source please.
Note that my source confirmed my assertion that the F110 powers 75% of the F-16 (C/D) fleet. Competition enabled that.
“Using F-35 funds to develop the F-136 will cut the buy, and create a death spiral, as well as increasing costs by having a more complex supply chain.”
– Possibly. But I want the best performing aircraft that I can get within the current parameters of the program, and it is worth spending the money now so GE can prove they can build a better engine. The recent (3/2010) GAO JSF report says “We have previously testified on our assessment that, based on past defense competitions (including a fighter engine competition started in the 1980s between these same manufacturers) and making certain assumptions about relative quantities purchased from each, competition could be expected to yield enough savings to offset the additional investments required to sustain a second source. Prior studies also indicate a number of nonfinancial benefits from competition, including better performance, increased reliability, and improved contractor responsiveness.”
maus92The F-136 doesn’t promise more thrust though, and the F-135 has a lot room for growth, in both thrust and efficiency, and the C model is only ~12.4% heavier.
29300/34800= .841, which is ~16% (Empty weights:LM 2010)
We don’t know the final thrust specs yet on either engine (nor do we know the final weights either,) but this is where GE needs to compete to win, and would be a coup de grace for Pratt if the F135 could definitively show more power now.
As for alleged “straw-man arguments:”
I do find it interesting that some F-35 supporters want to cease development on an engine that could help the program survive by potential cost savings in the out years and increased performance – but we will never know unless we develop an alternative engine. Engine competition has been part of aircraft development process since the beginning of aviation, and the reason why engines are GFE. It’s an observation, not an argument.
The TF30 was unsuccessful in naval fighter service , and was phased out in F-14 series development. Compressor stalls and engine management problems killed aviators. Pretty much a fact.
Pertaining to a “sweetheart deal” – what else could you call an non-competetive award? And point of fact: the F135 program is at least 2b over budget.
If you want to know more about the F110 and the aircraft it powers, refer to:
http://www.geae.com/engines/military/f110/index.html
The F-135 is based upon a proven design, and there are hundred of thousands of hours of operation to verify performance, reliability, durability vs. hundreds to a few thousand hours tops on the F-136. The F-135 already is in the 43k lb thrust class(and there’ve even been the occasional brief showing it at 48k lb). Additionally, it demonstrated over 52k lb of thrust in earlier testing.
Here I agree with much of what you say, but in reference to claims of demonstrated thrusts of 52K, and in your words, “Let’s see some sources for that claim.”
maus92I think it makes sense depending on how one looks at it.
If USN is wedded to the idea of fielding JSF and believe the summary given of the differences between F-135 and F-136 then they would be bonkers to cancel it.
If USN wants a divorce from JSF then killing the better engine and then saying that JSF with the worse engine is not up to the job makes sense.
+1
maus92This paragraph makes no sense. Apparently the Navy doesn’t share your opinions about the F-135(or the F-136 for that matter).
About the Navy: it is abundantly clear that this admiral was towing the DoD line – anything else would be career suicide – and no fat industry job post-Navy. The DoD wants to kill it not because it’s a bad engine, or a bad idea to have an alternative – it needs to save money on the JSF, and this is the easiest place to start.
The point is this: you have the F-35C which is at least 15% heavier than the F-35A – already a heavy single engine fighter. You power both versions with an engine that produces the same amount of thrust. But you have an alternative engine that promises more thrust for your (the Navy’s) heavier aircraft – why cancel that option? Why would you want another F-105? Or another Brewster Buffalo (aptly named.)
I find it interesting that F-35 supporters would want to deny an option that has the promise to make the aircraft a better performer. Pratt had a sweetheart deal with this program, and they have returned the favor with a 2b overage. Pratt also has a history of delivering engines that the customers were dying (sometimes literally) to get rid of: the TF30 comes to mind. The services recognize that engine competition is good: hence the development of the GE F110 alternative fighter engine to supplement the P&W F100. Incidentally, the F110 powers over 3/4 of the F-16 fleet, and replaced the TF30 in the F-14 series.
I take your point about the current development status of the F136 – there are 7 F136’s in development, but that phase is nearly complete. It would be prudent to complete testing and see where the engine stands vis a vis the F135.
But there is also an defense industrial base issue at play. If the DoD kills the F136, the decision will make it difficult for GE to remain in the fighter engine business. This is why Pratt is lobbying so hard to kill it, and this week, GE will pull out all the stops (and call in favors) to save it.
maus92US Navy believes F-35C will deploy on CV’s by 2017
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/05/dn_navy_fightergap_052410/
——–
My take:
The interesting part of the article talks about the still looming strike fighter gap and the mix of F-35 types purchased (B/C).
The Navy is still plans SLEPing some F/A-18A-D to mitigate the gap – which is not inexpensive. Each airframe needs an individual assessment, and repair costs could amount to 20m for the ones in the worst shape. The metric is that you could purchase a new E/F for less than triple that figure, and get a 6/7000+ hour airframe, a better performing aircraft with the latest avionics fit – vs. 2000+ hour boost for a SLEPed legacy Hornet. I think that in the end, the Navy will buy additional Supers beyond the 132 (the Navy said it wanted no more than 124) newly budgeted ships, and SLEP fewer legacy Hornets.
The Navy would not commit to how many B vs. C’s will be purchased – something that I find interesting. Hopefully very few C’s.
The Navy also says it favors killing the F136 engine. The F135 is 2b over budget, and has pretty much maxed out in thrust. There is hope that the F136 will offer additional thrust over the F135 – something that the Charlie needs – since it is 15% heavier than the A model.
All of this theater is in response to the growing rumors in Washington that the Navy is ready to bail on the program. The timing today’s press conference is key: after all the bad news last week and earlier, including votes by some european allies to pull of the program – plus the budget vote on the floor this week, somebody persuaded the Navy to stand up. But nothing really new about what was said – basically the Navy’s official spokesman is towing the official DoD line.
maus92Naval Facilities Engineering Command design guidelines for aircraft maintenance hangers list the empty weight of the F-35C as 34,986 lbs. – 16% heavier than the 2007 USAF figures quoted elsewhere in this thread, and much more in line with Lockheed Martin’s 2010 figure of 34,800 lbs.
Source: UFC 4-211-01N Supplement for F35 B or C 16 December 2009
maus92Perhaps follow the example of the Danes and consider the Super Hornet.
Source: Radio Denmark (15MAR2010)
maus92The Dutch parliament votes to cancel JSF
The Dutch parliament voted last night by 79 votes against 71 to cancel the order for the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to end Dutch participation in the program’s Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase.
Source: ARES
This decision is subject to referendum.
maus92The Navy brings a circus where ever we go, speaking from the present.
maus92The operational systems in your list are not invincible, and the F/A-18E/F – EA-18G package can deal with any of those threats now. The Navy as well as the USAF uses escort jammers as a matter of doctrine. Incidentally, when the F-35 performs a mission in contested airspace, it will have EA-18G EW support as well.
I understand what you are saying about the value of a inherently stealthily airframe. It would be nice to have an affordable stealth aircraft.
But the F-35C is marginal solution for a naval aircraft. It is too expensive in terms of initial procurement and projected operational costs – and lacks the redundancy of 2 engines for overwater ops and tactical survivability, and the 2nd crew member vital for the strike role.
maus92The F/A-18E/F is a formidable weapons system and will be for some time to come. The F-35C will not add much to the fleet that the Rhino cannot perform today, not withstanding the obvious. It simply is not worth the money that Navair has in short supply. The C should be terminated now, and he Navy should prioritize the F/A-XX / NGAD program . If we lose a CAG or two permanently (to the budget ax,) – not an unlikely scenario – multirole naval aircraft will need a significant long range capability.
The F-35B is a niche aircraft. I expect it to survive relatively unscathed, but it will be expensive to operate and the Marines don’t have much money either.
The F-35A will be a decent airplane, but it will not be either super fast or particularly agile. But it doesn’t need to be – it is primarily a strike aircraft. It’s avionics and weapons systems will be more than adequate to take care of airborne threats. A-A missiles will be shot at supersonic speeds and medium ranges. The days of knife-fights are gone. The AF will buy a good number of these.
The ANG is question mark. Clearly we cannot afford to equip the Guard with F-35’s. But they have a huge need for new (or rebuilt) aircraft. Some have suggested that F/A-18E/F’s should be procured for the Guard – that might make sense – probably too much sense for the AF to swallow. So they will get rebuilds.
maus92Report: Nunn-McCurdy notification
From the Marine Corps Times:
The F-35 Lightning II strike fighter program will breach the Nunn-McCurdy limits with a cost growth of more than 50 percent from the original 2001 program baseline, said a top Pentagon program evaluator.
Christine Fox, director of the Defense Department’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office, told lawmakers that the formal declaration of the breach will occur April 1.
In 2001, the Defense Department pegged the cost per Joint Strike Fighter at $50.2 million apiece for 2,852 jets. The Pentagon updated that estimate to $69.2 million in 2007 for a planned order of 2,443 jets.
The Defense Department’s latest estimates predict that each of the jets slated to be purchased will carry a price tag of between $80 million and $95 million in 2002 dollars. That’s $95 million and $113 million in 2009 dollars, respectively.
Source: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/03/defense_jsf_breach_031110w/
From Inside Defense:
In a March 25, 2010, letter to the heads of the congressional defense committees, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley notifies them that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program “has exceeded the Nunn-McCurdy critical unit cost breach threshold (more than 50 percent) for Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) and Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) over the original baseline estimate.”
Apparently the formal declaration happened earlier than April 1.
A formal notification that the program has breached Nunn-McCurdy by no means that the F-35 will be killed – in fact this is the 2nd breach for the program. I expect that The Pentagon will certify the program to be critical to national defense, thus allowing it to proceed. That should happen no later than June 1.
maus92HASC adds 8 more F/A-18E/F to Appropriations Bill
The HASC authorizes 8 more Rhinos – paid for by the savings in MYP plan. It looks like Congress is taking the strike fighter gap more seriously than the administration.
Source:http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/05/20/in-surprise-hasc-adds-8-f-18s/
The Navy is playing this well – they can’t say publicly that they desperately need more aircraft – better to let Boeing make the case. And the wise should suspect that naval aviation community has its hand in the mix. With the F-35C IOC now at 2016, and the uncertainty surrounding the aircraft (the Charlie model has yet to fly,) it is a prudent move – whether or not the F-35C is actually produced.
maus92F-35 costs expected to exceed F-22 costs at the end of FY 2011
“By the end of Fiscal 2011, if the Department of Defense’s latest budget request is approved, the F-35 program will have received $67.9 billion since the October 2001 contract award.” This is for 101 production, and 14 flight test aircraft.
“I compared that amount to the F-22 program. By the end of Fiscal 2011, the DOD is budgeted to spend $66.7 billion, with 188 aircraft on contract and nearly that amount delivered.”
Do the math.
Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/benchmark-contest-f-35-cost-vs.html
maus92empty weight: 29,996 lbs
internal fuel capacity: 19,145 lbs
thrust: 28,000 lbs dry/military & 43,000 lbs wet/afterburnerT/W ratio with four AMRAAM + two AIM-9X + 50% fuel (9,573 lbs): 1.04
The F-35C empty weight is higher than 29,996, at least according to Lockheed Martin, the aircraft manufacturer. Here are their specs:
Length 51.5 ft
Height 14.9 ft
Wingspan 43 ft
Wing area 668sq ft
Horizontal tail span 26 ft
Weight empty 34,800 lb
Maximum weight 70,000 lb class
Internal fuel 19,000 + lbs
Speed Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)
Range ~1,400 n. mi
Combat radius 640 n. mi
Power plant One P&W F135 or GE F136
Engine thrust 40,000 lb (with after burner)
Source: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35c-cv-specifications.html
Note that the empty weight is 34,800 lbs., which is 16% more than 29,300 lbs., which is the weight that they currently publish for the F-35A.
P&W currently specs the F135 at 43,000 lbs. GE specs the F136in the 40,000 lbs. “range.”
The loadout that you use as an example seems to be for an air superiority role. The Navy will primarily use F-35C in a strike role. A typical strike loadout might be: 2x GBU-31 JDAM’s, 2x AIM-120C/D’s, and 2x AIM-9X’s.
Weps weights:
GBU-31: ~2025 lbs.
AIM-120C/D: ~350 lbs.
AIM-9X: ~190 lbs.
So, 34,800(ew) + 9,500(.5fuel) + 5,130(weps) = 49,430 lbs.
T/W (43,000/49,430) ratio at max thrust: .86
Sign In
