Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
I think there was a big misunderstanding. For many of the F-35's customers, the idea of lasting in an intense war was not even considered. Just look at the depth of the ammunition stockpile ordered. In this context, the F-35, despite all its known shortcomings, was largely sufficient.
The problem is that now the "sustainable war" has become a widely plausible hypothesis. What's more, these wars must be fought with equipment that can be given, projected and resilient, and therefore durable and repairable. Moreover, the Russians and the Ukrainians have used a lot of air assets that the current gen4+ can largely engage without the help of the F-35. In this new context, the F-35 is no longer suitable. Resilience is not really its thing, especially if it is asked to work a lot. So we will have the return or the confirmation of mixed air forces.
It seems that "sustainable war" is starting to take hold among military advisors (but not yet among decision makers). The link between maintenance and engagement capability is still only formulated in budgetary terms, but it is clear that the fear (even if it is putaclic) of having aircraft unable to fight effectively is present:
Share
CANBERRA ($1=1.49 Australian Dollars) — Australia is about to build a fourth squadron of US Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighters. Thus, the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] is expected to have a total of 96 fighters.
Australia is not only a buyer but an industrial partner of Lockheed Martin in the F-35 program. Australia’s history with the F-35 began twenty years ago – in 2002. As a Tier 3 partner in the F-35 program, Canberra has committed to spending more than $16 billion to acquire at least 76 fighters. To date, 54 fighters have already been delivered by Lockheed Martin to the RAAF. 2023 is the deadline set by the Australian government to bring all 54 fighters into operational readiness.
However, in Australia, with the euphoria of acquiring the first fighters long gone and their history with the RAAF, operational problems are already emerging.
The government program to build a fourth squadron [96 F-35s in total] by the government in the country was the first to fall under the experts’ radar. Australia’s most respected military expert and the country’s defense analyst since the 1970s, Mr. Brian Toohey disagrees with the government’s intentions. Toohey argued that Australia should demand a refund of the amount given to date for the F-35 purchase.
There are several reasons. First of all – the cost of maintenance. It turns out that each Australian F-35 spent 23% less time in the air than planned. In the next three years, this trend will continue. This means more downtime on the ground than anticipated and increased maintenance and storage costs. BulgarianMilitary.com recalls that Australia must spend $11 billion to maintain its Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fleet until 2053.
This immediately begs the question: if the reason for the fewer flight hours is maintenance issues, how many more billions will the Australian taxpayer have to pay to ensure the aircraft are operational until 2053?
They describe the F-35 in Australia as a complete disaster. One example is that the first two fighter jets purchased in 2013 for $280 million are so old that they cannot be upgraded, according to Lockheed Martin’s current configuration.
Mr. Anthony Galloway, an Australian defense journalist painted an even bleaker picture. According to him, the Australian F-35 does not burden Australia’s needs at all. An example is China. An Australian F-35 cannot reach the South China Sea unless it refuels in flight. I.e. with an operational combat radius of 1,000 km, to reach a maximum of 1,500 km you need to refuel. This means placing tankers in the air, which are easy targets if a conflict with China arises.
Galloway even goes further in his analysis, claiming that the aircraft’s actual range is 500 km during combat, as it would need to throttle, accelerate or decelerate. When forcing and accelerating during combat, much more fuel is spent, which automatically reduces the operational range in km.
Other local military experts say that the advertised “supersonic” option does not correspond to reality, since at such a speed [Mach 1.6] the plane can only travel for 90 seconds. After these 90 seconds, the F-35 pilot must slow down. And all this if there is no military conflict.
There are more problems. For example, Australian analysts write, the Australian F-35 uses Block 3F software. It is a digital electronic system designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin. The maintenance and updating of this operating system are much more extensive and expensive than its competing systems around the world. This opinion is not just the comment of an Australian analyst, but also the comment of a senior American officer.
Last year, Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the USAF’s deputy chief of staff, expressed serious concerns about the Block 3F software, saying, “the block that is coming off the line right now is not a block that I feel good about going up against China and Russia. “ It becomes even more frightening after it became clear that even US fighter jets did not use Block 3F software during the 2018 and 2019 war games.
nce and engagement capability is still only formulated in budgetary terms, but it is clear that the fear (even if it is putaclic) of having aircraft unable to fight effectively is present.
bulgarianmilitary.com
The problem is that now the "sustainable war" has become a widely plausible hypothesis. What's more, these wars must be fought with equipment that can be given, projected and resilient, and therefore durable and repairable. Moreover, the Russians and the Ukrainians have used a lot of air assets that the current gen4+ can largely engage without the help of the F-35. In this new context, the F-35 is no longer suitable. Resilience is not really its thing, especially if it is asked to work a lot. So we will have the return or the confirmation of mixed air forces.
It seems that "sustainable war" is starting to take hold among military advisors (but not yet among decision makers). The link between maintenance and engagement capability is still only formulated in budgetary terms, but it is clear that the fear (even if it is putaclic) of having aircraft unable to fight effectively is present:
RAAF’s F-35 is flawed, not meeting Australia’s defense needs
By Boyko Nikolov On Dec 6, 2022Share
CANBERRA ($1=1.49 Australian Dollars) — Australia is about to build a fourth squadron of US Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighters. Thus, the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] is expected to have a total of 96 fighters.
- Australia is trying to curb the corrosion risk for its fleet of F-35
- Australia equips its Boeing EA-18Gs with AGM-88E2 guided missiles
- Not just British, China may have recruited Australian pilots too
Australia is not only a buyer but an industrial partner of Lockheed Martin in the F-35 program. Australia’s history with the F-35 began twenty years ago – in 2002. As a Tier 3 partner in the F-35 program, Canberra has committed to spending more than $16 billion to acquire at least 76 fighters. To date, 54 fighters have already been delivered by Lockheed Martin to the RAAF. 2023 is the deadline set by the Australian government to bring all 54 fighters into operational readiness.
However, in Australia, with the euphoria of acquiring the first fighters long gone and their history with the RAAF, operational problems are already emerging.
The government program to build a fourth squadron [96 F-35s in total] by the government in the country was the first to fall under the experts’ radar. Australia’s most respected military expert and the country’s defense analyst since the 1970s, Mr. Brian Toohey disagrees with the government’s intentions. Toohey argued that Australia should demand a refund of the amount given to date for the F-35 purchase.
There are several reasons. First of all – the cost of maintenance. It turns out that each Australian F-35 spent 23% less time in the air than planned. In the next three years, this trend will continue. This means more downtime on the ground than anticipated and increased maintenance and storage costs. BulgarianMilitary.com recalls that Australia must spend $11 billion to maintain its Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fleet until 2053.
This immediately begs the question: if the reason for the fewer flight hours is maintenance issues, how many more billions will the Australian taxpayer have to pay to ensure the aircraft are operational until 2053?
They describe the F-35 in Australia as a complete disaster. One example is that the first two fighter jets purchased in 2013 for $280 million are so old that they cannot be upgraded, according to Lockheed Martin’s current configuration.
Mr. Anthony Galloway, an Australian defense journalist painted an even bleaker picture. According to him, the Australian F-35 does not burden Australia’s needs at all. An example is China. An Australian F-35 cannot reach the South China Sea unless it refuels in flight. I.e. with an operational combat radius of 1,000 km, to reach a maximum of 1,500 km you need to refuel. This means placing tankers in the air, which are easy targets if a conflict with China arises.
Galloway even goes further in his analysis, claiming that the aircraft’s actual range is 500 km during combat, as it would need to throttle, accelerate or decelerate. When forcing and accelerating during combat, much more fuel is spent, which automatically reduces the operational range in km.
Other local military experts say that the advertised “supersonic” option does not correspond to reality, since at such a speed [Mach 1.6] the plane can only travel for 90 seconds. After these 90 seconds, the F-35 pilot must slow down. And all this if there is no military conflict.
There are more problems. For example, Australian analysts write, the Australian F-35 uses Block 3F software. It is a digital electronic system designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin. The maintenance and updating of this operating system are much more extensive and expensive than its competing systems around the world. This opinion is not just the comment of an Australian analyst, but also the comment of a senior American officer.
Last year, Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the USAF’s deputy chief of staff, expressed serious concerns about the Block 3F software, saying, “the block that is coming off the line right now is not a block that I feel good about going up against China and Russia. “ It becomes even more frightening after it became clear that even US fighter jets did not use Block 3F software during the 2018 and 2019 war games.
nce and engagement capability is still only formulated in budgetary terms, but it is clear that the fear (even if it is putaclic) of having aircraft unable to fight effectively is present.
RAAF's F-35 is flawed, not meeting Australia's defense needs
However, in Australia, with the euphoria of acquiring the first fighters long gone and their history with the RAAF, operational problems are already emerging.
bulgarianmilitary.com
We probably are getting another squadron, but that's a lot of rubbish about the raaf, isn't it
You mean the RAAF has done a lot of stupid things?
Buying F-35 Fighters ‘Biggest Mistake’ Of Australia; US Jets A ‘Total Disaster’, Can’t ‘Stand Up’ To China — Aussie Critic
ByTanmay Kadam December 6, 2022
Australia’s fifth-generation F-35 stealth fighter jets have again come under the scanner due to concerns related to their cost, capabilities, and viability for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).
A senior Australian journalist, Brian Toohey, who has been writing extensively for Australia’s national security policy since 1973, has criticized the ‘Defense Strategy Review’ of the Australian government that has recommended buying the fourth squadron of F-35 fighter jets.
Australia has committed to buying 72 F-35A fighter jets for three operational squadrons, and adding a fourth squadron will bring the total number of aircraft to 96.
However, Toohey points out the long history of costly problems of the F-35s already acquired while arguing that Australia “should be asking for a refund” and that “the biggest mistake was to buy the plane in the first place.”
In April, Air Vice-Marshal Leon Phillips, head of the Aerospace Systems Division, informed the Australian parliament’s Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Legislation Committee that the government expects to spend a whopping AUD14.6 billion ($10.87 billion) to sustain its Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fleet till 2053.
Before that, in February 2022, budget estimates documents filed by the Australian Department of Defense (DoD) revealed that RAAF’s F-35 Lightning II aircraft would spend less time in the air over the next four years than previously expected, igniting a national debate on the aircraft’s capability and viability.
Flying hours of the F-35 have been revised by 25% in the 2021-22 financial year (FY22) and are slated to be cut down by 17% in FY23, 14% in FY24, and 13% in FY25.
Australian media reports suggested the cause behind the reduction in expected flight hours was supposed to be maintenance issues related to operating the Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs).
The opposition also said that the $16.6 billion fighter jet program was “plagued with issues.” It sought an explanation from the then Defense Minister Peter Dutton about the data in the DoD’s budget estimates documents.
F-35s Cannot Meet Australia’s Security Needs
Australia joined the F-35 JSF program as a Level 3 industrial partner in 2002 and committed to buying 72 planes for approximately $16 billion.So far, the RAAF has received 54 of its planned 72 F-35As, and the service intends to have all of its aircraft operational by the end of 2023.
However, according to defense experts and Australian media reports, the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters supplied to the RAAF have turned out to be a total disaster.
For example, Australia’s two F-35 fighter jets, purchased for more than $280 million in 2013, are probably too old to be updated to the current configuration.
Apart from that, there are also shortcomings in the F-35s capabilities relevant to Australia’s security needs.
As reported earlier by EurAsian Times, the effective combat radius of the F-35A is only about 1,000 kilometers, and with a tanker aircraft, it could be extended to around 1,500 kilometers.
The F-35A cannot reach the South China Sea without aerial refueling. Even then, in the middle of a conflict, the availability of aerial tankers is doubtful over contested airspace.
Furthermore, the Australian defense journalist, Anthony Galloway, has suggested that the actual combat range of the F-35 might only be around 500 kilometers, considering the aircraft will have to accelerate during combat which uses more fuel.
Also, while the F-35 is said to be a supersonic fighter, experts suggest the fighter cannot get to a target, or away, in a hurry if required because it can only fly at its top speed of 1,960 kilometers per hour (1.6 Mach) for 50 seconds after which it has to slow down noticeably.
F-35 Version Not Fit To Go Up Against China
Another major problem of Australia’s latest F-35 aircraft is that they use the Block 3F software, a digital operating system designed by Lockheed Martin. It has also been proving very expensive to keep updated.Worse, the current F-35 version is not even fit to go up against China, according to senior US Air Force officials.
Last year, Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the USAF’s deputy chief of staff, expressed grave concerns about the Block 3F software, saying, “the block that is coming off the line right now is not a block that I feel good about going up against China and Russia.”
Hinote noted that the USAF did not even use the current version of the F-35 during the war games held in 2018 and 2019, focusing on the scenario of a Chinese air attack in Taiwan.
“We wouldn’t even play the current version of the F-35. It wouldn’t be worth it. … Every fighter that rolls off the line today is a fighter we wouldn’t even bother putting into these scenarios,” said Hinote.
The only solution to these problems is a significant upgrade to the Block 4 operating system software, which is being advocated by Lockheed Martin and is reportedly running years late, with delivery expected before 2027. Also, it is going to be very expensive.
More importantly, as EurAsian Times reported earlier, a full Block 4 upgrade will include advanced electronic warfare capabilities, improved target recognition, and the ability to carry more missiles, among other features.
This may require a significant upgrade to the existing Pratt & Whitney F135 Engine, or possibly even a new engine, as the Block 4 upgrades will need more power from the propulsion system and will also make the fighter run hotter, requiring greater cooling capabilities.
Last edited:
108 million dollars / F-35A budgeted in FY23 NDAA. That's 4,093,757, 000 for 39 f-35A ready to flight.
Pages 1800 https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR7776EAS-RCP117-70.pdf
And https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy23_ndaa_agreement_summary.pdf
Or Congress would approve A-10 retirements, more F-35s in defense bill
Pages 1800 https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR7776EAS-RCP117-70.pdf
And https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy23_ndaa_agreement_summary.pdf
Or Congress would approve A-10 retirements, more F-35s in defense bill
A copy paste of herciv. some aussie journalist did a clickbait with false opinion and the world goes mad. A xmas gift for frog trolls
Nothing wrong with the points brought up though. The F-35 is not suitable for a war against China, this is an assessment even the USAF is aware of.
It's inferior to the F-22 in many areas and even the F-22 is no longer suitable, the same as the B-2.
The Chinese have simply done tremendous work catching up with the West. It's why the USAF believes any war with China will see a contested airspace.
As you know ~$80m is the recurring flyaway, there are other costs.
As well as his uninformed opinion. I'll add you to the list.
Good news for F35 are always true, and bad ones always false opinion...
Classical average brained US citizen way of thinking.
Frog Trolls are funny.
He was wrong about the RAAF (stands for Royal Australian Air Force, for those that just troll)
He was wrong about the RAAF (stands for Royal Australian Air Force, for those that just troll)
HERE'S AN INTERESTING DATE: The first EEPs will be delivered from 2029 (against 2030 for AETPs). Everything that will be delivered before then will have to undergo a major upgrade to take advantage of the extra power required for the block4 .... Until then, the F-35 customers will be fighting a lot of war in simulators :chirolp_iei:
With 150 F-35s delivered per year, two thirds of the F-35s will already have been delivered. To think that this subject of upgrade delays had already been discussed when the Belgian F-35 was sold...
Incidentally, the choice of the update has been delayed by one year (FY24 instead of FY23 previously announced)... While it is an absolute emergency ...
Last interesting figure of the EEP is 30% of the basic f-135 which is modified.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
www.defensedaily.com
A formation of Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) F-35A Lighting II's conduct a flyover during the Misawa Air Fest at Misawa Air Base, Japan on Sept. 11 (U.S. Air Force Photo)
Share:
By Frank Wolfe |
1 hour ago |
12/13/2022
highlights
Raytheon Technologies [RTX] said that it is able to outfit 24 F-35 squadrons with an Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) for the company’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine by 2030–seven squadrons in 2029 and 17 in 2030–compared to just two F-35 squadrons that could receive a new engine under the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) in 2030.
The ECU and Raytheon’s proposed Emergency Power and Cooling System (EPACS), which is to achieve Technology Readiness Level 6 next year, are to provide a seven percent increase in performance range and thrust for the Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35 fighter, more than twice the cooling of the F135 to accomodate new weapons in F-35 Block 4, and a more than $40 billion savings in life cycle costs.
DoD’s upcoming fiscal 2024 budget may lay out the future engine path for the F-35–whether that be the Pratt & Whitney proposed F135 ECU or a new power plant, such as General Electric‘s [GE] proposed XA100 Tri-Variant Adaptive (TVA) engine (Defense Daily, Oct. 11).
Raytheon suggested that DoD could not accelerate AETP development and fielding.
“As to why we can’t do XA faster, it has to do with the fact that the ECU is a core upgrade, meaning 70 percent of the material likely will stay common,” Jen Latka, Pratt & Whitney’s vice president for F135 programs, told reporters in a virtual briefing/question and answer session on Dec. 13. “There’s no touching the [engine] fan. We’re not touching the back end of the engine. It [ECU] is limited in scope to the core. We are limiting the technologies that we bring in to what is absolutely necessary.”
“The supply base that we currently have is the supply base that will manufacture ECU,” she said. “They’re already up and established, and there won’t be massive changes…On the other hand, when you look at how historically how long it takes to ramp a brand-new center line engine, let alone one that has never flown before so we’ll have a tremendous amount of learning and we’ll need a very robust flight test program, given it’s only engine on this aircraft, that’s gonna take a lot of time. The test program will take a lot of time, and then standing up the supply chain and the supply base and ramping them to full rate is going to take years.”
Regarding the F135 and the Pratt & Whitney F119 engine for the U.S. Air Force F-22 fighter by Lockheed Martin, “we didn’t get to [a build] rate [of] 150 every year overnight,” Latka said. “It took many years. It [AETP] is a completely new engine with completely new parts to manufacture.”
Raytheon also said that AETP is “significantly heavier” than the 3,750 pound dry weight F135, but declined to disclose how much heavier and referred that question to the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO). Defense Daily will add any response from the F-35 JPO.
The ECU was formerly known as the Engine Enhancement Program but the F-35 JPO changed the name recently.
Pratt & Whitney recently received a more than $115 million contract for ECU work through May next year (Defense Daily, Dec. 5).
Technology Refresh 3 (TR3)–spurred by the L3Harris [LHX] integrated core processor–is the computer backbone for Block 4, which is to have 88 unique features and to integrate 16 new weapons on the F-35. The F-35 program has said that the fighter will need a new or significantly upgraded engine with improved electrical power and cooling capacity to accommodate the 53 new capabilities slated for F-35 Block 4.
In October, 48 representatives urged DoD to invest in next generation, adaptive propulsion for fighters in a letter co-sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio).
In all, 13 of 16 Ohio representatives signed the letter.
General Electric’s GE Aviation subsidiary has its headquarters in Evendale, Ohio outside of Cincinnati.
GE has said that it began working with the F-35 JPO in the fall of last year on evaluating whether GE could alter the proposed XA100 for the U.S. Air Force’s AETP to fit on the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B.
Since 2016, the Air Force has funded the AETP.
The F-35 program has said that while the XA100 TVA is based on the F-35A’s F135 engine, the TVA would require an independent development program.
With 150 F-35s delivered per year, two thirds of the F-35s will already have been delivered. To think that this subject of upgrade delays had already been discussed when the Belgian F-35 was sold...
Incidentally, the choice of the update has been delayed by one year (FY24 instead of FY23 previously announced)... While it is an absolute emergency ...
Last interesting figure of the EEP is 30% of the basic f-135 which is modified.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Raytheon Targets F135 Engine Core Upgrade for 24 F-35 Squadrons by 2030 - Defense Daily
Raytheon Technologies said that it will be able to outfit 24 F-35 squadrons with an Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) for the company's Pratt & Whitney F135
www.defensedaily.com
Raytheon Targets F135 Engine Core Upgrade for 24 F-35 Squadrons by 2030
A formation of Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) F-35A Lighting II's conduct a flyover during the Misawa Air Fest at Misawa Air Base, Japan on Sept. 11 (U.S. Air Force Photo)
Share:
By Frank Wolfe |
1 hour ago |
12/13/2022
highlights
Raytheon Technologies [RTX] said that it is able to outfit 24 F-35 squadrons with an Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) for the company’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine by 2030–seven squadrons in 2029 and 17 in 2030–compared to just two F-35 squadrons that could receive a new engine under the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) in 2030.
The ECU and Raytheon’s proposed Emergency Power and Cooling System (EPACS), which is to achieve Technology Readiness Level 6 next year, are to provide a seven percent increase in performance range and thrust for the Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35 fighter, more than twice the cooling of the F135 to accomodate new weapons in F-35 Block 4, and a more than $40 billion savings in life cycle costs.
DoD’s upcoming fiscal 2024 budget may lay out the future engine path for the F-35–whether that be the Pratt & Whitney proposed F135 ECU or a new power plant, such as General Electric‘s [GE] proposed XA100 Tri-Variant Adaptive (TVA) engine (Defense Daily, Oct. 11).
Raytheon suggested that DoD could not accelerate AETP development and fielding.
“As to why we can’t do XA faster, it has to do with the fact that the ECU is a core upgrade, meaning 70 percent of the material likely will stay common,” Jen Latka, Pratt & Whitney’s vice president for F135 programs, told reporters in a virtual briefing/question and answer session on Dec. 13. “There’s no touching the [engine] fan. We’re not touching the back end of the engine. It [ECU] is limited in scope to the core. We are limiting the technologies that we bring in to what is absolutely necessary.”
“The supply base that we currently have is the supply base that will manufacture ECU,” she said. “They’re already up and established, and there won’t be massive changes…On the other hand, when you look at how historically how long it takes to ramp a brand-new center line engine, let alone one that has never flown before so we’ll have a tremendous amount of learning and we’ll need a very robust flight test program, given it’s only engine on this aircraft, that’s gonna take a lot of time. The test program will take a lot of time, and then standing up the supply chain and the supply base and ramping them to full rate is going to take years.”
Regarding the F135 and the Pratt & Whitney F119 engine for the U.S. Air Force F-22 fighter by Lockheed Martin, “we didn’t get to [a build] rate [of] 150 every year overnight,” Latka said. “It took many years. It [AETP] is a completely new engine with completely new parts to manufacture.”
Raytheon also said that AETP is “significantly heavier” than the 3,750 pound dry weight F135, but declined to disclose how much heavier and referred that question to the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO). Defense Daily will add any response from the F-35 JPO.
The ECU was formerly known as the Engine Enhancement Program but the F-35 JPO changed the name recently.
Pratt & Whitney recently received a more than $115 million contract for ECU work through May next year (Defense Daily, Dec. 5).
Technology Refresh 3 (TR3)–spurred by the L3Harris [LHX] integrated core processor–is the computer backbone for Block 4, which is to have 88 unique features and to integrate 16 new weapons on the F-35. The F-35 program has said that the fighter will need a new or significantly upgraded engine with improved electrical power and cooling capacity to accommodate the 53 new capabilities slated for F-35 Block 4.
In October, 48 representatives urged DoD to invest in next generation, adaptive propulsion for fighters in a letter co-sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio).
In all, 13 of 16 Ohio representatives signed the letter.
General Electric’s GE Aviation subsidiary has its headquarters in Evendale, Ohio outside of Cincinnati.
GE has said that it began working with the F-35 JPO in the fall of last year on evaluating whether GE could alter the proposed XA100 for the U.S. Air Force’s AETP to fit on the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B.
Since 2016, the Air Force has funded the AETP.
The F-35 program has said that while the XA100 TVA is based on the F-35A’s F135 engine, the TVA would require an independent development program.
HERE'S AN INTERESTING DATE: The first EEPs will be delivered from 2029 (against 2030 for AETPs). Everything that will be delivered before then will have to undergo a major upgrade to take advantage of the extra power required for the block4 .... Until then, the F-35 customers will be fighting a lot of war in simulators :chirolp_iei:
With 150 F-35s delivered per year, two thirds of the F-35s will already have been delivered. To think that this subject of upgrade delays had already been discussed when the Belgian F-35 was sold...
Incidentally, the choice of the update has been delayed by one year (FY24 instead of FY23 previously announced)... While it is an absolute emergency ...
Last interesting figure of the EEP is 30% of the basic f-135 which is modified.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Raytheon Targets F135 Engine Core Upgrade for 24 F-35 Squadrons by 2030 - Defense Daily
Raytheon Technologies said that it will be able to outfit 24 F-35 squadrons with an Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) for the company's Pratt & Whitney F135
Raytheon Targets F135 Engine Core Upgrade for 24 F-35 Squadrons by 2030
A formation of Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) F-35A Lighting II's conduct a flyover during the Misawa Air Fest at Misawa Air Base, Japan on Sept. 11 (U.S. Air Force Photo)
Share:
By Frank Wolfe |
1 hour ago |
12/13/2022
highlights
Raytheon Technologies [RTX] said that it is able to outfit 24 F-35 squadrons with an Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) for the company’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine by 2030–seven squadrons in 2029 and 17 in 2030–compared to just two F-35 squadrons that could receive a new engine under the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) in 2030.
The ECU and Raytheon’s proposed Emergency Power and Cooling System (EPACS), which is to achieve Technology Readiness Level 6 next year, are to provide a seven percent increase in performance range and thrust for the Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35 fighter, more than twice the cooling of the F135 to accomodate new weapons in F-35 Block 4, and a more than $40 billion savings in life cycle costs.
DoD’s upcoming fiscal 2024 budget may lay out the future engine path for the F-35–whether that be the Pratt & Whitney proposed F135 ECU or a new power plant, such as General Electric‘s [GE] proposed XA100 Tri-Variant Adaptive (TVA) engine (Defense Daily, Oct. 11).
Raytheon suggested that DoD could not accelerate AETP development and fielding.
“As to why we can’t do XA faster, it has to do with the fact that the ECU is a core upgrade, meaning 70 percent of the material likely will stay common,” Jen Latka, Pratt & Whitney’s vice president for F135 programs, told reporters in a virtual briefing/question and answer session on Dec. 13. “There’s no touching the [engine] fan. We’re not touching the back end of the engine. It [ECU] is limited in scope to the core. We are limiting the technologies that we bring in to what is absolutely necessary.”
“The supply base that we currently have is the supply base that will manufacture ECU,” she said. “They’re already up and established, and there won’t be massive changes…On the other hand, when you look at how historically how long it takes to ramp a brand-new center line engine, let alone one that has never flown before so we’ll have a tremendous amount of learning and we’ll need a very robust flight test program, given it’s only engine on this aircraft, that’s gonna take a lot of time. The test program will take a lot of time, and then standing up the supply chain and the supply base and ramping them to full rate is going to take years.”
Regarding the F135 and the Pratt & Whitney F119 engine for the U.S. Air Force F-22 fighter by Lockheed Martin, “we didn’t get to [a build] rate [of] 150 every year overnight,” Latka said. “It took many years. It [AETP] is a completely new engine with completely new parts to manufacture.”
Raytheon also said that AETP is “significantly heavier” than the 3,750 pound dry weight F135, but declined to disclose how much heavier and referred that question to the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO). Defense Daily will add any response from the F-35 JPO.
The ECU was formerly known as the Engine Enhancement Program but the F-35 JPO changed the name recently.
Pratt & Whitney recently received a more than $115 million contract for ECU work through May next year (Defense Daily, Dec. 5).
Technology Refresh 3 (TR3)–spurred by the L3Harris [LHX] integrated core processor–is the computer backbone for Block 4, which is to have 88 unique features and to integrate 16 new weapons on the F-35. The F-35 program has said that the fighter will need a new or significantly upgraded engine with improved electrical power and cooling capacity to accommodate the 53 new capabilities slated for F-35 Block 4.
In October, 48 representatives urged DoD to invest in next generation, adaptive propulsion for fighters in a letter co-sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio).
In all, 13 of 16 Ohio representatives signed the letter.
General Electric’s GE Aviation subsidiary has its headquarters in Evendale, Ohio outside of Cincinnati.
GE has said that it began working with the F-35 JPO in the fall of last year on evaluating whether GE could alter the proposed XA100 for the U.S. Air Force’s AETP to fit on the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B.
Since 2016, the Air Force has funded the AETP.
The F-35 program has said that while the XA100 TVA is based on the F-35A’s F135 engine, the TVA would require an independent development program.
So the F-35 with full B4 capabilities will finally be ready only in 2030.
YEP. More than 2 third of the total number of F-35 will have to change their engine. Before that none of them will accomodate the TR-3 need of power and more urgent need of cooling.
Which probably explains why they spend practically 99% of their time in hangars with even flight training being conducted on simulators , as recommended by LM & endorsed by USAF / DoD , guaranteed by thunder , while sweetie is busy thinking up a logical coherent non autistic , dyslexic , Down's syndrome borderline condition , explanation for this royal mess .
It also probably explains why sensors & jammers of the Lightnings have a range running into hundreds of kms. Saves flying I guess . Why fly when one can perform all the functions from the comforts of the hangar !
Isn't it ? @Innominate
You do not understand well
All of these new capabilities/weapons/features need TR3 which needs improved electrical power and cooling capacity to be fligh tested, that is to say the ECU and Raytheon’s proposed Emergency Power and Cooling System (EPACS). And this will be available in 2029. So the fligh tests will begin in 2029....