F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions.

[Indus Falcon]

Check out these slides.

F 35 Production

@Munir @MastanKhan @dexter @Manticore @Aeronaut You gentlemen need to see this!!

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

@Munir @MastanKhan @dexter @Manticore @Aeronaut You gentlemen need to see this!!

2008 doc. Chaining F35's across borders for one big NATO radar picture? Or the affordable part?

 

[dexter]

@Munir @MastanKhan @dexter @Manticore @Aeronaut You gentlemen need to see this!!

this link got error its not opening

 

[Indus Falcon]

this link got error its not opening

Try this link:

F 35 Production

 

[dexter]

Try this link:

F 35 Production

Awesome man nice share
f-35 is truly a 5th gen aircraft

 

[gambit]

Excellent article on the F-35's engine nozzle...

Code One Magazine: History Of The F-35B Swivel Duct

 

[Indus Falcon]

Excellent article on the F-35's engine nozzle...

Code One Magazine: History Of The F-35B Swivel Duct

Good article appreciate it!!

 

[Indus Falcon]

BAE Working F-35 and Typhoon Interoperability
Jul. 14, 2014 - By AARON MEHTA

BAE hopes to link the training systems of the F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon programs. (Copyright Eurofighter-Geoffrey Lee)

FARNBOROUGH, ENGLAND— The F-35 joint strike fighter may well come to rule the skies of the future, but for decades to come it will need to work with existing “fourth-generation” fleets. Finding ways to make that work is an early topic being discussed at this year’s Farnborough International Airshow.

BAE, a major partner on both the F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon programs, is undergoing tests to find ways to link the training systems for the two planes together in order to determine best tactics for operations, according to a company spokesman.

The spokesman said the firm is currently underdoing the third round of trials for the system, which have “done well.”

The firm is also exploring the question of “fourth-to-fifth” and “fifth-to-fourth” communication. Key to the F-35 is the ability to gather and share massive amounts of data automatically through its MADL system, but making sure that data can be received and processed by fourth-gen fighters is a major undertaking and focus by the corporate partners.

One method being eyed by BAE is the Link 16 system, which is used across a number of Pentagon systems. Northrop Grumman, another F-35 corporate partner, recently tested using the Link 16 system to communicate between an F-35 and F-22.

Ensuring information can be passed from the F-35 back to fourth-gen aircraft is the “best investment for us in the future,” said Billie Flynn, a senior experimental test pilot for Lockheed Martin who has flown both the Typhoon and F-35.

Tactically, Flynn said the capabilities of the JSF allow it to move ahead of older aircraft that may be more vulnerable to ground-based defenses.

“We come and go with impunity, and we gather situational awareness no one else can have,” Flynn said of piloting the F-35. “We get to go to places, gather information and bring that information back. So as an attack vehicle we get to go out in front, we get to neutralize the surface to air threats, we get to make it safe for a fourth generation plane to get in.”

Flynn, who commanded a CF-18 wing that took out Serbian defenses during operations in the 1990s, said tactically, fifth-generation planes will not operate in large formations going forward, a contrast to the way fourth-generation systems will work.

“Gone are the days that we will fly in some tactical formation like we remember from every movie that was around in the fourth generation,” Flynn said. “We’re many miles away in elaborate formations that allow us to cover vast amounts of sky. Evolving our tactics to fly as a proper fifth-generation airplane, that’s our future.

BAE Working F-35 and Typhoon Interoperability | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[Indus Falcon]

Experts: Don't Bet on Revival of 2nd F-35 Engine
Jul. 20, 2014 -By MARCUS WEISGERBER and AARON MEHTA

A US Senate panel is calling on Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to reassess the value of an alternate power plant, such as the General Electric-Rolls-Royce F136 pictured here, for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. (US Air Force)

WASHINGTON AND FARNBOROUGH, ENGLAND— The revival of the Pentagon’s storied F-35 alternative engine program is unlikely despite a US Senate panel raising that possibility, experts say.

Finding billions of dollars for such an effort within the Pentagon’s already capped budget would prove a herculean task, particularly if sequestration caps return in 2016, these experts say. And even if the caps are removed through a long- or short-term congressional budget deal, the alternate F-35 power plant could threaten funding of another Defense Department engine program.

“This may be one time when sequestration imposes a needed discipline on the budgeting process,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute and a consultant to defense firms. “To restart the alternate engine program, legislators would have to find billions of dollars.”

The Obama administration, led by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, lobbied hard to kill the second engine program in 2011, so it would not support legislation to revive the program, Thompson said.

DoD said the F-35 prime engine, built by Pratt & Whitney, would suffice and save DoD billions of dollars needed to field a second engine. Advocates of the alternate power plant, built by a GE and Rolls-Royce team, said a second engine is necessary to generate competition and drive down the price.

These advocates also say it is necessary should a major problem arise with one of the engines, thus grounding the fleet of thousands of planned F-35s.

A June 23 engine fire on an Air Force F-35 attempting to take off subsequently grounded all F-35s for more than two weeks. The jets were cleared for restricted flight operations last week, but Pentagon officials opted not to send the aircraft to its scheduled European debut at the Farnborough International Airshow in England.

In a report issued last week, the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee “recommends” senior Pentagon officials “reassess the value of an alternate engine program creating competition to improve price, quality and operational availability.”

The panel’s report on the Pentagon 2015 spending bill states that members believe “that had the alternate engine program continued, competition would have incentivized [Pratt & Whitney] to find creative methods to drive down prices and ensure timely delivery of a high-quality product, which is consistent with current department preference for competition in acquisitions.”

The GE-Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team had no comment on the Senate recommendation.

One possible bill payer, should the second engine program return, could be the Air force’s Adaptive Engine Technology Development program, in which the Pentagon plans to invest $1 billion between 2016 and 2019, some experts say. That effort is focused on developing a “sixth-generation” fighter engine that could provide better fuel-burn rates. But the high-performance engine program is already at risk, as DoD officials have said they would cancel the effort if sequestration returns in 2016.

But even if the program is revived in 2015 or 2016, generating competition would be difficult considering the GE-Rolls-Royce F136 program has been stalled since 2011.

“The prospects for having an engine competition anytime soon are zero,” Thompson said.

Frank Kendall, Pentagon acquisition executive, said on July 14 he had no desire to reopen the competition.

“Overall we’re confident in the design,” he said. “We’re still in development, we still have work to do, [largely] on the margins, but overall we’re confident. We’re not interested ... in going back several years and opening up to another competitor.”

Bennett Crosswell, who heads Pratt’s military division, said he wasn’t worried about the Senate report language.

“I’ll let others decide how they want to treat this,” he said. “I don’t even think about it. I just think about meeting the requirements of our customers. I know it sounds kind of corny, but truly, that’s what we’re focused on.”

The largest reason a new engine may not rise to challenge Pratt? Spending caps that would require something else within the Pentagon’s annual budget to be cut. Without an obvious offset, this competition may just be a dream.

“The debate about the alternate fighter engine had little to do with rigorous analysis and technical assessments, and more to do with partisan and regional politics,” Richard Aboulafia, a Teal Group analyst, wrote in an email. “Thus, even though this incident would seem to help make the argument for a second engine as an insurance policy for the program, it won’t matter very much if all the politicians involved continue to follow a rigid ideological or local script.”

The culprit behind the fire, which claimed the fighter designated AF-27, was a part of the engine known as the integrally bladed rotor (IBR). There are multiple IBRs in each F135 engine, but this particular one was located in the fan section of the engine.

The blade is designed to rub against the shell of the engine as part of normal operation, but this part rubbed too much — Kendall described it as “excessive” rubbing — leading to the fire.

“I don’t think the engine fire is a sign of a problem that will derail the program, especially since it was the first such incident in 25,000 hours of time on its engines,” said Mark Gunzinger, a former DoD official and now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

Although Pentagon officials indicated they believe the issue is a one-off and not a fleetwide issue, they are not taking chances. As part of the return to flight issued on July 15, F-35 engines must be inspected after every three hours of use.

Crosswell said his company is ready to assist the government in sections of the engines going forward.

This is the second IBR-related engine issue to crop up in the past eight months. A test engine was heavily damaged in December after an IBR blew after 2,200 hours of testing, a significant amount roughly equivalent to nine years of service

Experts: Don't Bet on Revival of 2nd F-35 Engine | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[500]

Wet airfield takeoff/landing test:

3 together:

Australian F-35:

 

[SQ8]

Cant wait for the Israeli one, that one is going to be unique and packed with the usual Israeli gadgets.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Cant wait for the Israeli one, that one is going to be unique and packed with the usual Israeli gadgets.

Rear-view mirror IN the helmet.

 

[Aepsilons]

Excellent article on the F-35's engine nozzle...

Code One Magazine: History Of The F-35B Swivel Duct

Thanks for the share, Sir.

It was a good read.

-------------

I so cannot wait till JMSDF, JASDF, JGSDF acquires these babies...soon!

 

[betonamujin1902]

those babies so beautiful

 

[gambit]

That's your opinion, but other opinions exist, and then there are facts. I provided sources with a US Navy admiral and Pentagon official saying that concurrency was a mistake due to unnecessary and huge costs. Anyone with basic intelligence could find a lot more articles about the lousy, nonessential, and expensive concurrency of the F-35 JSF.

Your straw man argument is a failure like the concurrency of the F-35 JSF. I never said the F-35, F-16, or F/A-18 is a failure; that's your insecurity leaking out. I never mentioned the F-16 and F/A-18 at all in this discussion, but you brought them into the discussion about the F-35.

There is a huge difference between the incredibly stupid concurrency of the F-35 JSF (which is allegedly the most expensive weapons program of all time, but far from being the most capable) and the F-16 and F/A-18.

The F-16 and F/A-18 had traditional sequences in which they completed their R&D stage with a few prototype parts and a few prototype aircrafts, and then they were mass produced. Because R&D is imperfect, the mass produced F-16 and F/A-18 had relatively minor problems in regard to the cost of repair, ease of repair, and dangers of the problems.

That's the major difference between concurrency versus a software patch or a product recall. Concurrency increases the probability and significance of problems, while the traditional sequence decreases the probability and significance of problems.

I distrust your personal opinions and other similar opinions, because you have a history of cherry picking information to promote your propaganda and stupidity.

It's obvious for anyone intelligent that you should finish the R&D on the component or the entire device, and then build the component or the entire device. You should not mass produce a part or an entire device while the R&D is in process, then the R&D demands a major or a difficult change to the mass produced parts or entire devices, then you make the changes to the mass produced parts or entire devices, and then you keep repeating this process. The re-manufacturing process or the constant fixes on the incompletely designed and mass produced parts or entire devices increase the problems and costs of the entire program. It gets worse when you put the unfinished parts together, then take them apart, then fix them, then put them back together, and then repeat this mess.

The highlighted shows your ignorance in the concept of engineering/manufacturing concurrency. Simply put...What you believe about the concept and its execution is wrong.

As for the generals and admirals you cited, with all due respect to their yrs of service, they are not omniscient. Generals and admirals have been proven wrong -- grossly wrong -- before, especially when it comes to technology. Among the most famous of these errors and lack of innovative thinking is the potential of air power vis-a-vis General Billy Mitchell and the sinking of ships as demonstrators of what air power can do back in 1921. It is interesting that you extolled the F-16 when that aircraft was practically hated by all the men who wore stars and bars on their shoulders at the Pentagon. And look at the F-16 today. Spectacularly successful in terms of innovation, popularity, and production.

Do you really think that engineering/manufacturing concurrency is something new in industries ? As an avionics specialist, any of us can tell you that engineering/manufacturing concurrency is common. Ask any automotive designer/engineer and he/she will tell you the same thing as General Motors with its many subdivisions and their cars sharing the same common platforms for cars and trucks. Same for Ford or Chrysler.

But just in case you object that electronics components and cars are not applicable to support engineering/manufacturing concurrency in aviation, let us see what Boeing and Airbus may have something to say about that, shall we ?

Case Study IBM Airbus PLM Implementation Engineering Concepts | TechDrummer

Business Benefits

* Improved collaboration with suppliers eliminated data re-entry, saving €18 million on collaboration with suppliers
* Improved concurrent engineering reduced lead time on wing by 41 weeks (36 percent reduction)
* First flight of world’s largest passenger aircraft completed on time
* Program kept on schedule
* Innovative practices introduced for concurrent engineering and collaborative working.

Boeing 777 Case Study Abstract

Concurrent engineering, the concept of Working Together, was an integral part of the new philosophy and nearly 240 Design/Build teams were used through-out the process. The teams included design, manufacturing, customer and supplier personnel from the start. Designing and building a new commercial jet airliner is a long, five to ten years, and infrequent, one or two per decade, process. As such, it is crucial to document the design/build process for future projects, especially one that had so many firsts.

What else can we find about the concept of engineering/manufacturing concurrency ?

Concurrent Engineering - organization, levels, examples, definition, school, company, business

...beginning in the early 1990s this traditional formula radically changed as time-to-market became a vital component of commercial success. Studies have demonstrated that being a few months late to market is much worse than having a 50 percent cost overrun when these overruns are related to financial performance over the lifecycle of a new product or service. In other words, time has become a key driver of competitive success, from design and development to the actual launch of a new product or service.

Because time has become a competitive weapon, time pressures have become central to the project-based new product development organization. These pressures have led to the explicit understanding that time compression is a driver of project (and subsequent business) performance. As a consequence, methods, techniques, and organizational approaches have been designed and developed that allow for time compression needs to be handled in a proper manner. All time-centered approaches have one principle in common: they attempt to maximize the number of major design or development tasks that are performed concurrently, thus the concept of concurrent engineering.

Lockheed may not have the market time constraints for the F-35 as GM do for its vehicles, but LM is pressured by the US military because of the aging fleets of its aircrafts and the progress of combat technologies from US adversaries.

But...Basically, YOU, an anonymous face on this little corner of the Internet, knows more about the concept of engineering/manufacturing concurrency than the tens of thousands of engineers, managers, technologists, and corporate chiefs put together. If Lockheed is stupid, then so are General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Boeing, and Airbus, right ?