Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.211.222.91 (talk) at 00:58, 3 February 2006 (→Other). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a joint venture between the USA, United Kingdom and several partner countries, to replace the current generation of strike fighters, particularly the VSTOL AV-8 Harrier II (US), Harrier GR7/9 (UK), the Sea Harrier (UK) and the conventional A-10 Thunderbolt II, F/A-18 Hornet and the F-16 Fighting Falcon. It is to be a multirole 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) currently in development by Lockheed Martin with partners Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.

Three JSF variants are envisioned: the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the RAF; the Advanced Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) F-35B for the US Marine Corps (USMC) and the Royal Navy (RN); and the carrier-based (CV) F-35C for the U.S. Navy (USN). The USAF is considering the F-35B. The Royal Navy is considering ordering the F-35C variant for its large CVF Future Carrier program.

The F-35, expected to be ready for service in 2008, is scheduled to begin replacing Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier and F/A-18s in 2009, and the USAF A-10 Thunderbolt II and F-16 in 2010.

International participation

The primary customers are the United States armed forces (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 $2b. Level II partners are Italy and the Netherlands, contributing $1b and $800m respectively. At level III are Turkey ($175m), Australia ($144m), Norway ($122m), Denmark ($110m), and Canada ($100m). 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.

Israeli involvement in the project was suspended in April 2005 due to a dispute with the United States over the now-canceled upgrades to Harpy UAVs sold to China. With the UAV dispute resolved, as of November 6, 2005 Israel has stated that it has been re-admitted to the program .

The biggest international partner, the United Kingdom has invested two 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 due the U.K.'s lax laws on transferring the technology to third countries, among other concerns.

The CEO of BAE Systems, the British contractor on the plane, has complained that the US 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 consider this unlikely . On 21st December 2005 an article was published in the Glasgow Herald saying that MPs viewed as "unacceptable" the US 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." Earlier, trouble was brewing with British threats of pulling out of the program in favor of making a Eurofighter Typhoon carrier variant.

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.

Program history

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 US and UK aircraft with a common family of aircraft, of which the JSF is one example.

The JSF is a multi-role attack and fighter aircraft designed to replace the aging F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet, A-10 Thunderbolt II, Sea Harrier, Harrier GR7/GR9, and AV-8B Harrier jets. 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. This dominance can only have been achieved by Lockheed's method of STOVL flight, in fact the decision is said to have clinched the contract.

The Boeing X-32 adopted the relatively elegant Direct Lift System, where the exhaust gases were redirected to thrust vectoring nozzles to achieve lift during a STOVL landing. However, the X-35 utilized the far more complex Remote Shaft-Driven Fan concept, where extra LP turbine expansion developed additional power which was diverted, via a clutch and bevel gearbox, to a vertically mounted, contra-rotating, remote fan. The airstreams of both the remote fan and the normal fan were exhausted through thrust vectoring nozzles, to provide lift during the STOVL landing phase. This method has the additional benefit of lowering environmental effects during (primarily) landing, where the thermal effects on for example a carrier deck are greatly reduced. In effect, the X-35 power plant acted as a flow multiplier and consequently had more than sufficient thrust for lift operations. The same cannot be said for the X-32 power plant, where even though the fan was oversized and throttle-pushed, frankly had insufficient thrust for lift. Because of the large engine airflow, the X-32 required a huge front air intake, compromising the aesthetics of the aircraft's aerodynamics. According to critics, Boeing designed an airplane "only its mother would love", in direct violation of the wisdom "if it looks good, it flies good". Both the X-32 and X-35 power plants were derived from P&W F119, with the STOVL variant of the latter incorporating Rolls Royce Lift Fan module.

Note also that elements of the JSF 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.

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 over-runs; 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 US 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 US 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 aren't 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.

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 make for some interesting weapons certification work. The JSF has yet to drop a bomb, fire a missile, or fire a gun airborne - no demonstrations of weapons delivery capability were done during the 'winner take all' fly off prior to contract award.

USAF STOVL purchase

The JSF program is not immune from inter-service 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 US military's experience in Afghanistan has highlighted the importance of more flexible assets in the close air support role.

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.

Advanced weapons

The direct lift fan assembly, when not installed, provides approximately 100 ft of space , along with more than 27,000HP (20MW) available for electrical power production . 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 .

Possible reduction to two primary variants

Experts predicted in 2005 that the JSF program's Conventional Take-off and Landing F-35A variant may be canceled by Acting U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. This would not immediately save money in the program as the pre-production 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.

Australian Participation

The Australian Government and defense establishment has remained solidly behind the project; however, in May 2005 the government did announce 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). The media release also noted some preliminary consideration was being given to changing some of the purchase to the STOVL version, as well as modifying some Navy landing craft to in effect turn them into mini aircraft carriers. However, 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.

Some Australian observers have criticized the planned purchase on the basis of its capabilities and value for money. They believe that, given the increasing sophistication of neighboring air forces, it may have inadequate dog fighting capability, a short range and are concerned that it is not able to supercruise like the F-22, thus limiting the number of sorties it can conduct compared to that aircraft. They also claim that the cost of purchasing mature F-22's (after the US government has purchased its quota and thus any additional sales are "money for jam" for the manufacturers) may not be that much greater than the JSF. As such they question whether it will be suitable to replace both the F-18 and F-111, particularly if it does not fully meet its design goals. (Refer related discussions and analyzes on Air Power Australia web site).

It should be noted on this claim that Jane’s Defence weekly recently (in 2005) put the value of an F-22 at $151 million dollars US, rising to $200 million if upgrades to approach the F-35's air to ground targeting performance were included. At a projected price of $45 million US (2003 dollars), the F-35 is three to four times cheaper than the F-22. Therefore, there would have to be a very significant cost blow-out in the F-35 program for the F-22 to become better value for money.

Also, the claims made by Australian observer Carlo Kopp (see the above reference) that supercruise will dramatically increase the sortie rate of the F-22, fail to consider the fact that higher speed is only one variable impacting on sortie rate. Maintainability (a particular emphasis in the newer F-35 design), the time needed to re-arm and refuel, loiter time over the combat area and the need to brief and rest crew are other important variables. Additionally where external stores are carried (which will probably be the vast majority of air to ground missions), the F-22 will not be able to supercruise for at least half the mission. Finally, at least one retired US air force officer has claimed that the supercruise feature is overrated as a means of traversing long distances at high speed, as flying at supersonic speed without using afterburners still does not allow for optimal fuel consumption, hence range.

Additionally, in a recent paper to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, in his role as the Chief of the Australian Air Force, Air Marshall Angus Houston (now Chief of the Defence Force), sought to allay these concerns. He maintains that he is quietly confident that the aircraft will have adequate range, especially when combined with the RAAF's new Airbus A330 MRTT air to air refueling tankers. He also stated that he believes that the aircraft will have adequate maneuverability to avoid missiles, which is all it will require. With modern air combat being conducted mainly at beyond visual ranges and with short-range missiles that can be aimed by a sight mounted on the pilot's helmet in those instances that an aircraft has to fight within-visual ranges, he believes that the exceptional maneuverability of aircraft like the F-22 is no longer necessary. The Australian Government also argues that the RAAF's new AEW&C aircraft (Boeing Wedge tail) will increase the capabilities of the JSF beyond that of any other potentially hostile aircraft. It is worth noting that the debate on the importance of maneuverability goes well beyond Australia; see the article on Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft. Finally, he said that the level of stealth that the Australian aircraft will receive is classified, but is being monitored by a team of Defence Science and Technology Organization scientists and that all efforts will be made to ensure that the aircraft has adequate capability for Australia, prior to the final purchase agreement.

Specifications (F-35 Joint Strike Fighter)

Some information is estimated.

General characteristics

• Crew: One
• Length: 50 ft 6 in (15.37 m)
• Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m)
• Height: 17 ft 4 in (5.28 m)
• Wing area: 459.6 ft² (42.7 m²)
• Empty: 26,455 lb (12,000 kg)
• Loaded: 41,900 lb (19,000 kg)
• Maximum takeoff: 50,000 lb (22,680 kg)
• Powerplant:
  • Primary: 1x Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan 165 kN thrust
  • Secondary (High Performance): 1x General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 afterburning turbofan 178 kN thrust
  • Lift fan (STOVL): 1x Rolls-Royce Lift System in conjunction with either F135 or F136 power plant 18,000 lbf (80 kN) thrust

Performance

• Maximum speed: 2000 km/h (1243 mph) Mach 1.8
• Range: 620 miles (1000 km) without drop tanks
• Service ceiling: 48,000 ft (15,000 m)
• Rate of climb: (Classified) - estimated at 12, 000 m per minute
• Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
• Thrust/weight: 6.2 N/kg

Armament

• 1x GAU-12/U 25 mm cannon. Mounted internally with 180 rounds in the F-35A, fitted as an external pod with 220 rounds in the F-35B/C
• In two bomb bays (current planned weapons for integration) - One AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder or AIM-132 ASRAAM internally on the inside of the bomb bay door and one air-to-air or air-to-ground weapon in each bomb bay. These could be AMRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) - up to 2,000 lb (910 kg), the Joint Stand off Weapon (JSOW), Small Diameter Bombs (SDB)- a maximum of 4 in each bay, the Brimstone anti-armor missiles, Cluster Munitions (WCMD) and High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM). The MBDA Meteor air to air missile is currently being adapted to fit internally in the missile spots and may be integrated into the F-35.
• At the expense of being more detectable by radar, more missiles, bombs and fuel tanks can be attached on four wing pylons and two wingtip positions. The latter can only take short-range air to air missiles, while the Storm Shadow and Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) cruise missiles can be carried in addition to the stores already integrated.

Other

• Cost: (in millions US$):
  • F-35A: 45
  • F-35B: 60
  • Costing as per Asia Pacific Defence Reporter, September 2005.
  • F-35C: 55
• 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.

Design

Design requirements for the JSF include: SURVIVABILITY, LETHALITY, SUSTAINABILITY and AFFORDABILITY.

• Stealth technology
• 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

Manufacturing responsibilities

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

• 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)

Trivia

The F-35 is featured in many video games:

• Jet Fighter V
• Ace Combat 5 (F-35C Carrier Variant).
• Lethal Skies 2 (F-35B V/STOL Variant).
• Battlefield 2 (F-35B V/STOL Variant).
• Act of War : Direct Action (FA-35, for the Task Force Talon faction).
• Airforce Delta Strike (called the F/A-35B in the game).

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

Notes and References

1. Joint Strike Fighter Aquisition: Observations on the Supplier Base. (May 2004) United States General Accounting Office.
3. Spiegel, Peter (Nov. 23, 2005) UK denied waiver on US arms technology. Financial Times (MSNBC reprint)
4. Fletcher,Matthew; Katz,Alan (June 16, 2005). U.K. May Miss Out on Technology From U.S. Fighter. Bloomberg.com.
6. ITAR Fallout: Britain to Pull Out of F-35 JSF Program?
7. Fulghum, David A.; Wall, Robert (Sept.19, 2004). USAF Plans for Fighters Change. Aviation Week and Space Technology
8. Selinger, Marc (Nov. 21, 2005). [U.S. Air Force's JSF Variant May Be Killed, Expert Says. Aviation Week and Space Technology
9. Morris, Jefferson (Sept. 26, 2002). Keeping Cool A Big Challenge For JSF Laser, Lockheed Martin Says. Aerospace Daily.
10. Fulghum, David A. (July 8, 2002). Lasers Being Developed for F-35 and AC-130. Aviation Week and Space Technology
11. Fulghum, David A. (July 22, 2002). Lasers, HPM Weapons Near Operational Status. Aviation Week and Space Technology

Related content

• Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft
• Royal Navy in the 21st century
• Future Offensive Air System
• X-plane

Related development

• X-32

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era

• X-32

Related lists

• List of fighter aircraft
• List of experimental aircraft
• List of military aircraft of the United States

• Carrier-based aircraft
• Stealth aircraft
• U.S. attack aircraft 2000-2009
• U.S. fighter aircraft 2000-2009
• VTOL aircraft
• Fleet Air Arm