F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

From Free net encyclopedia

Image:JSF logo.jpg

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a military fighter aircraft designed by the United States and the United Kingdom. It is intended to replace the current generation of strike fighters, particularly the vertical take off and landing Harrier jump jets : the AV-8 Harrier II (US), Harrier GR7/9 (UK), and the Sea Harrier (UK), along with the conventional A-10 Thunderbolt II, F/A-18 Hornet and the F-16 Fighting Falcon. It will be a multi-role strike fighter (a plane with a strong emphasis on close air support and tactical bombing as well as being capable of air-to-air combat), and will use stealth technology. It is currently in production with Lockheed Martin, along with partners Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.

Three variants are planned: the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A for the U.S. Air Force (USAF); the Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) F-35B for the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Royal Navy (RN); and the carrier-based (CV) F-35C for the U.S. Navy (USN) and as previously stated the Vertical Take off and Landing [VTOL]. The joint development program is aimed at controlling development and production costs; the three variants have over 80% of their parts in common. The designation "F-35" was chosen at the Department of Defense level; in proper sequence the aircraft should have been designated F-24A, following the YF-23 Black Widow II. The selection of "F-35" for the operational version caused some consternation at Lockheed Martin, who had already printed up promotional material for the aircraft using the "F-24" designation. The "F-24" designation seems politically undesirable for some reason; a previous aircraft that "should have" been designated F-24 was the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

The F-35, expected to be ready for service in 2011, is scheduled to begin replacing USAF A-10 Thunderbolt II's and F-16's in 2011, and Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18s in 2012.

Contents 1 International participation 1.1 United Kingdom participation 1.2 Australian participation 2 Program history 2.1 Concept demonstration 2.2 System development and demonstration 3 Design 3.1 Advanced weapons 4 Possible reduction to two primary variants 5 Analysis of JSF program 5.1 Non-vehicle differentiator 5.2 Cost/weight issues 5.3 USAF STOVL purchase 6 Specifications (F-35 Joint Strike Fighter) 6.1 Other 6.2 Manufacturing responsibilities 7 Media 8 Further reading 9 Notes and references 10 External links 11 Related content

International participation

Image:F-l3 lift fan.jpg The primary customers are the armed forces of the United States (USAF, USN, and USMC) and the United Kingdom (RAF and RN). There are three levels of international participation for the eight countries contributing to the program. The United Kingdom is the sole level I partner, contributing a little over $2 billion. Level II partners are Italy and the Netherlands, contributing $1 billion and $800 million respectively. At level III are Turkey ($175 million), Australia ($144 million), Norway ($122 million), Denmark ($110 million), and Canada ($100 million). The levels generally indicate the financial stake in the program, the level of technology transfer and subcontracts open for bid by national companies, and the general order in which countries can obtain production aircraft. Israel and Singapore have also joined as Security Cooperative Participants. <ref>Katherine V. Schnasi Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Observations on the Supplier Base US Accounts Office. Retrieved Feb. 08, 2006.</ref>

International participants have at various times been cited as considering withdrawing from the JSF Program in favor of other aircraft such as Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale. Perceived inequitable sharing in JSF production is most often cited as the reason for considering withdrawal, rather than cost or performance concerns.

United Kingdom participation

The United Kingdom has invested $2 billion in development funding for the project. Britain has also worked for five years for an ITAR waiver to allow greater technology transfer associated with the project. The effort, backed by the Bush administration, has been repeatedly blocked by U.S. Congressman Henry Hyde because of his concern about potential technology transfer to third countries. <ref>Spiegel, Peter, MSNBC UK denied waiver on US arms technology. Financial Times (MSNBC reprint). Retrieved Feb. 08, 2006.</ref>

The CEO of BAE Systems Mike Turner, the British contractor on the plane, has complained that the U.S. has not given the UK (and his company) access to the crucial source code of the plane's software, thus making it impossible for the UK to maintain and modify the JSF independently. At a news conference at the Paris Air Show, he has even suggested that the UK may withdraw from the program unless additional access is granted, though analysts considered this unlikely <ref>Fletcher, Matthew; Katz, Alan (June 16 2005). U.K. May Miss Out on Technology From U.S. Fighter. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved Feb. 08 , 2006.</ref>. On 21 December 2005 an article was published in the Glasgow Herald saying that MPs viewed as "unacceptable" the U.S. refusal to grant access to the source code. The article quotes the chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee as saying that unless the UK receives assurances of access to the software information, "the UK might have to consider whether to continue in the programme".<ref>UK Defense Committee Statement MoD 'slippage' set to leave forces with reduced capability, says committee UK Parliament. Retrieved Feb. 08, 2006.</ref> Nonetheless, UK production for the SDD aircraft commenced on 2 February 2006.<ref>Helen Jocelyn Lift-Off as production starts on first STOVL F-35 BAE Systems. Retrieved Feb.08, 2006.</ref>

Following on from this Lord Drayson, Minister for Defence Procurement, while on a government visit to Washington to speak to members of Congress, has taken a firmer stance. He has been quoted as saying, "We do expect [the software] technology transfer to take place. But if it does not take place we will not be able to purchase these aircraft", and has mentioned that there is a 'plan B' if the deal falls through. <ref> Matt Chapman Britain warns US over jet software codes vunet.com Retrieved March. 16 2006.</ref> A suggested likely option is the development of a navalised Typhoon. Mike Turner has said it is not what he recommend, but:

"as Lord Drayson has made clear, there needs to be a fall-back in case something goes wrong. Therefore, we would suggest there should be an investigation into navalising Typhoon as very much a fall-back solution." <ref>Turner, Mike (2006). Evidence to UK Defence Select Committee. Retrieved Apr. 1, 2006.</ref>

Australian participation

In May 2005 the Australian government announced that it was delaying a final decision on the JSF from the initial 2006 decision date to 2008 (and thus past the term of the present government). Air Force opinion remains strongly in favour of the JSF. There are some concerns amongst Australian media, lobby groups and politicians, who have raised doubts that the aircraft will be ready in time to replace the aging Australian air force fleet of F-111 ground attack planes and F/A-18 fighters.

Concerns have been raised over cost efficiency, dog fighting capability, short range and lack of supercruise. Some advocates of an F-22 purchase also claim that the cost of purchasing mature F-22s may not be that much greater than the JSF. <ref>Related discussions and analyzes on Air Power Australia web site.</ref> These claims are currently being examined in a parliamentary inquiry <ref>Inquiry into Australian Defence Force Regional Air Superiority, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade, Australian Parliament</ref>

Program history

Image:JSF competitors.JPG

The Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program was created in 1993 as a result of a United States Department of Defense (DoD) Bottom-Up-Review. The major tactical aviation results of the review were to continue the ongoing F-22 and F/A-18E/F programs, cancel the Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) and the A/F-X programs, curtail F-16 and F/A-18C/D procurement, and initiate the JAST Program.

The JAST program office was established on January 27, 1994. It was established to define and develop aircraft, weapon, and sensor technology that would support the future development of tactical aircraft. The final goal was to replace several aging U.S. and UK aircraft with a common family of aircraft, of which the JSF is one example.

It will complement the USAF's high-end F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter and the USN's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as well as Europe's Eurofighter.

Concept demonstration

The contract for development of the prototypes was awarded on 16 November 1996 to Lockheed Martin and Boeing, under which each was to produce two aircraft which were to demonstrate Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), carrier take off and landing (CV version), and Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL).

Also in 1996 the UK Ministry of Defence launched the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft project, a replacement for the Sea Harrier (and later the Harrier GR7), for which the Joint Strike Fighter was selected in January 2001.

System development and demonstration

The construction contract, System Development and Demonstration (SDD), was awarded on 26 October, 2001 to the Lockheed Martin X-35, beating the Boeing X-32. The first planes are expected to enter service in 2008. Announcing the decision, DoD officials and the UK Minister of Defence Procurement said that while both aircraft met or exceeded requirements, the X-35 outperformed the Boeing aircraft consistently.

On February 19, 2006, the first F-35 (USAF version) was rolled out in Fort Worth, Texas by Lockheed Martin. The aircraft will undergo extensive ground testing and then flight tests in the fall.

Design

Image:Harrier.gr7.750pix.jpg

The X-35 powerplant uses the highly complex Remote Shaft-Driven Lift Fan concept. Turbine power is diverted forward via a clutch-and-bevel gearbox, to a vertically mounted, contra-rotating lift fan located forward of the main engine in the center of the aircraft. Bypass air from the turbofan exhausts through a pair of roll post nozzles on either side of the fuselage, while both the lift fan and the LP turbine streams exhaust through thrust vectoring nozzles. In effect, the X-35 power plant acts as a flow multiplier and consequently has more than sufficient thrust for lift operations. This lift concept has the additional benefit of lowering environmental effects during (primarily) landing, where the thermal effects on, for example, a carrier deck are greatly reduced.

The rival Boeing X-32 adopted the Direct Lift System, where the engine exhaust gases were redirected to thrust vectoring nozzles to achieve lift during a STOVL landing. However, even though the fan was oversized and throttle-pushed, it was said to suffer insufficient thrust for lift. Because of the large required engine airflow, the X-32 had a large front air intake, compromising the aesthetics and the aircraft's aerodynamics. According to critics, Boeing designed an airplane "only its mother would love", in violation of the maxim "if it looks good, it flies good".

Both the X-32 and X-35 power plants were derived from Pratt & Whitney F119, with the STOVL variant of the latter incorporating a Rolls Royce Lift Fan module.

Elements of the Lockheed X-35 design were pioneered by the F-22. The airframe appears quite similar to the F-22, albeit somewhat reduced in size, and only has a single engine.

Primary factors in the design included:

• Stealth technology capability
• Integrated avionics and sensor fusion - This allows information from off board sensors to be combined with those on-board the aircraft, to enhance the pilot's situational awareness and improve precision weapon delivery.
• Low construction cost
• Low maintenance cost

The F-35 will be the first combat aircraft in recent history without a heads-up-display, relying completely on the helmet-mounted display. <ref name=NAWCAD>Template:Cite web</ref>

Advanced weapons

The direct lift fan assembly, when not installed, provides approximately 100 ft³ of space <ref>Morris, Jefferson (26 September 2002). Keeping Cool A Big Challenge For JSF Laser, Lockheed Martin Says. Aerospace Daily Retrieved Feb. 08, 2006.</ref>, along with more than 27,000 hp (20 MW) available for electrical power production <ref>Fulghum, David A. (July 8 2002). Lasers Being Developed for F-35 and AC-130. Aviation Week and Space Technology Retrieved Feb. 08, 2006.</ref>. This has made directed-energy weapons possible for the F-35. Some of these designs, including solid state lasers and high-power microwave beams, are thought to be nearing operational status <ref> Fulghum, David A. (July 22 2002). Lasers, HPM Weapons Near Operational Status. Aviation Week and Space Technology Retrieved Feb. 08, 2006.</ref>.

Possible reduction to two primary variants

Experts predicted in 2005 that the JSF program's Conventional Take-off and Landing [CTOL] F-35A variant may be canceled by acting U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. <ref>Selinger, Marc (21 November 2005). U.S. Air Force's JSF Variant May Be Killed, Expert Says. Aviation Week and Space Technology Retrieved Feb. 08, 2006.</ref> This would not immediately save money in the program as the preproduction F-35A prototypes are already under construction, but long term, this cancellation could free up enough money to ensure that the program's F-35B and F-35C variants survive in the United States' tightening defense budget. Since then a flurry of lobbying from the JSF contractors, the Air Force, and representatives from the United Kingdom has convinced Secretary England and the DoD to stick with the 3-variant program.

Had such a cancellation occurred, the United States Air Force would stay in the program by purchasing either the STOVL F-35B for its close air support capabilities, the F-35C for its greater range, or a combination of the two. However, buys of these variants would likely be less than the 1000+ CTOL originally envisioned by the Air Force, as both variants cost more. This would have been a boon for A-10 and F-16 supporters, since those aircraft would probably be retained longer to compensate.

Export partners who were already wary of the JSF's rising costs showed some concern over a potential CTOL cancellation. Even the UK, which has no CTOL JSF requirement, lobbied to preserve that variant in order to keep costs of the others down. In the long run, the F-35B and F-35C should still be appealing to at least some of the international market, being the only fifth-generation program with a STOVL variant for countries in need of Harrier replacements.

Analysis of JSF program

Critics of the program maintain that the JSF suffers from ill-defined design goals; that it has insufficient range to make a capable replacement for dedicated bombing aircraft; that its inability to supercruise limits it as an air defense platform, and that it is almost certain to suffer lengthy development delays and cost overruns; meaning that interim types will have to be purchased to fill the gap between the end of useful life of existing fleets and the introduction of the JSF. However, it is important to note that the multi-role design philosophy has been tested and proven in combat over a period of at least 25 years, with successful types like the F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F-18 Hornet. Several nations, mainly current F-16 and F-18 users, already have sufficient confidence in the design to have committed substantial sums to become minority partners in the JSF manufacturing team.

The program's advocates see the JSF as an opportunity to break out of the decades-old pattern of U.S. military aircraft procurement: instead of a traditional per-service design approach, the JSF is being developed jointly by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. This allows an estimated 80% commonality between the JSF variants for the different services, lowering procurement and service costs. This follows to a degree the philosophy behind the SEPECAT Jaguar and Panavia Tornado international development programs, the latter being called a multi-role combat aircraft (or MRCA) prior to service entry. Additionally, JSF is the first U.S. aircraft program to consider cost as independent variable (CAIV). In earlier programs the aircraft cost has been a dependent variable; additional features have always increased the aircraft cost. Such design changes are not being allowed during the JSF development.

Non-vehicle differentiator

A ground-based information system (the Autonomic Logistic Information System, or ALIS), built by Lockheed Martin Simulation Training and Support, is intended to make the JSF less expensive to operate and maintain.

Cost/weight issues

Through 2004 the JSF's total projected cost had risen 23% to $244 billion. The major technical problem was the F-35B variant's mass, which was reported to be 2,200 pounds, or 8%, over the target, which meant that the STOVL plane was projected to miss performance requirements.

Lockheed Martin eventually solved the weight problem by adding engine thrust and shedding over a ton by thinning the aircraft's skin; shrinking the F-35B weapons bay and vertical tails; redesigning the wing-mate joint, portions of the electrical system, and the portion of the aircraft immediately behind the cockpit; and rerouting some thrust from the roll-post outlets to the main nozzle. <ref>Fulghum, David A.; Wall, Robert (19 September 2004). USAF Plans for Fighters Change. Aviation Week and Space Technology Retrieved Feb. 08, 2006.</ref>

The smaller weapons bay will limit F-35B to 2 x 1000 lb (450 kg) weapons internally (this is as originally planned, for the 2 x 2000 lb requirement was added later). This is not expected to be a hindrance in close air support missions, which are likely to take place after enemy air defenses are down. Still, this may make the B variant different from the other two, boosting costs.

The internal weapons are stored offline to the external air flow, which will complicate weapons certification testing — no demonstrations of weapons delivery capability were done prior to contract award.

USAF STOVL purchase

The JSF program is not immune from interservice politics. A recurring theme has been the potential for a USAF requirement for the F-35B. The STOVL variant had been viewed as the most likely victim of cost-cutting measures; however, a USAF "commitment" seems to guarantee the aircraft that the USMC, RN, and RAF need. It is understood that the U.S. military's experience in Afghanistan has highlighted the importance of more flexible assets in the close air support role.

The USAF has investigated buying up to three wings (representing 216 examples) of the F-35B. For a time it appeared that the hypothetical USAF variant of the F-35B would contain enough changes to constitute a new variant (an F-35D). Changes were to include differences in the propulsion system to increase emphasis on STOL capability over that of VTOL, a larger wing to allow more fuel, an interior cannon (as opposed to the USMC external gun pod), or changes to the in-flight refueling system. However, due to opposition from people involved with the program, and the associated cost of developing a fourth variant, the USAF version would likely be identical to the USMC/RN F-35B specification.

Specifications (F-35 Joint Strike Fighter)

Image:Joint Strike Fighter.jpg Some information is estimated. Template:Airtemp

Other

• Cost: (2002 previsions)
  • F-35A: $45,000,000 USD
  • F-35B: $60,000,000 USD
  • F-35C: $55,000,000 USD
• First flight - X-35 demonstrator: 2000
• Expected first flight F-35A - September 2006
• In-service date: expected to be 2009 through 2012. The reason for this is that the A will be brought into service first followed by the B. The C will be in service in 2012.

Manufacturing responsibilities

• Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (prime contractor)
  • Final assembly
  • Overall system integration
  • Mission system
  • Forward fuselage
  • Wings
  • Flight controls system

• Northrop Grumman
  • Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar
  • Center fuselage
  • Weapons bay
  • Arrestor gear

• BAE Systems
  • Aft fuselage and empennages
  • Horizontal and vertical tails
  • Crew life support and escape
  • Electronic warfare systems
  • Fuel system
  • Flight Control Software (FCS1)

Template:X-planes

Media

Template:Multi-video start Template:Multi-video item Template:Multi-video item Template:Multi-video item Template:Multi-video end

Further reading

• Spick, Mike (2002), The Illustrated Directory of Fighters. Salamander ISBN 1-84065-384-1
• Kopp, Carlo; Goon, Peter, Australian Aviation, JSF related articles.

Notes and references

External links

• Official homepage
• Official Industrial Team homepage
• F-35 Web Page at the Royal Air Force Website
• Data on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) by the Federation of American Scientists
• Global Security on the F-35 JSF Program
• JSF advanced military gas turbine engine Test Stand C-14 (West Palm Beach, Florida)
• PBS NOVA: Battle of the X-Planes (JSF selection)
• F-35 JSF news articles
• F-35 photo gallery
• British threats of disassociation with the program
• Air Power Australia JSF Page
• Britain in clash over US fighter secrets The Times, March 15, 2006

Related content

Template:Commons Template:Aircontent Template:Featured articlear:أف 35 da:F-35 de:Lockheed Martin F-35 fr:Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ko:F-35 it:Lockheed Martin F-35 he:F-35 nl:Joint Strike Fighter ja:F-35 (戦闘機) no:F-35 Joint Strike Fighter