Hinweis: Sie befinden sich im Archiv des alten Forums von DOPPELADLER.COM. Dieses Forum wird nicht länger betrieben. Es ist nur mehr Lesezugriff möglich.
Sie erreichen das DOPPELADLER.COM FORUM nun unter ...

https://www.doppeladler.com/da/forum/index.php



F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Wehrtechnik & Rüstung, Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik
theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 13. Mär 2014, 14:54

Pentagon F-35 chief suggests unit cost of $80-85 million

The price of the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) may have dropped by as much as 12.5% in just over a year, according to figures quoted by Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, head of the Pentagon's JSF programme office.

Speaking to reporters in Canberra on 12 March, Gen Bogdan cited a price of USD 80-85 million per aircraft in 2019 dollars, inclusive of engine, manufacturer's profit and inflation.

"We're pretty confident we are going to get there", he said, noting that this figure could fall should further orders be received but could also rise if any existing customers cancelled or deferred planned acquisitions.

Speaking in February 2013 at the Avalon air show near Melbourne, Gen Bogdan said that Australia could expect to pay about USD90 million each (in 2020 dollars) for the F-35A variant, rather than the USD67 million suggested by manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

Gen Bogdan said that beyond 2016, the JSF development schedule became "a little fuzzy".

"The development programme is supposed to end in October 2017 but I can tell you that if I don't do anything, if I just let the programme proceed on due course, that it would be four to six months late," he said. "I'll be doing everything I can with industry and our stakeholders to move that schedule back in, but the number one problem that is causing that delay is software".

F-35s can currently exchange information with other F-35s but by 2016 and beyond the aim was to allow the aircraft to receive and disseminate data to a wider audience from satellites, airborne warning aircraft, ground radar and other aircraft. "That's a really hard thing to do with software and there's some risk there", he said.


Ich weiß nicht, was ich von dieser Meldung halten soll. Der Stückpreis lag beim LRIP 7 -Vertrag bei 98 Mio. $ für die F-35A, 104 Mio. $ für die F-35B und 116 Mio. $ für die F-35C. Und das alles ohne die Kosten der in den Flugzeugen verbauten Triebwerke!

theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 27. Mär 2014, 09:03

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter:

Slower Than Expected Progress in Software Testing May Limit Initial Warfighting Capabilities


GAO-14-468T: Published: Mar 26, 2014. Publicly Released: Mar 26, 2014.

According to current plans, the U.S. portion of the program will require annual acquisition funding of more than $12 billion on average through 2037 to complete development and procure a total of 2,457 aircraft. In addition, the F-35 fleet is estimated to cost around $1 trillion to operate and support over its lifetime.

The new F-35 acquisition program baseline was finalized in March 2012, and since that time, costs have remained relatively stable.

At the time the new F-35 acquisition program baseline was finalized, it did not identify new initial operational capability (IOC) dates for the three military services. The following year DOD issued a memorandum noting that Marine Corps and Air Force were planning to field initial operational capabilities in July 2015 and August 2016, respectively, and that the Navy planned to field its initial capability in August 2018. The memorandum emphasized that the Marine Corps and Air Force initial operational capabilities would be achieved with aircraft that possess initial combat capabilities, and noted that those aircraft would need additional lethality and survivability enhancements to meet the full spectrum of warfighter requirements in the future. These new parameters represented a delay of 5 to 6 years from the program’s initial 2001 baseline and a reduction in the capabilities expected at IOC.


For our March 2014 report, we reviewed and analyzed program briefings, management reports, program test results, and internal DOD program analyses. We discussed key aspects of F-35 performance with both military and private contractor test pilots. We interviewed F-35 program and aircraft prime contractor officials to discuss developmental testing. We also collected developmental test plans, and data on test achievements to assess program progress through December 2013. We obtained current program acquisition and life-cycle sustainment cost estimates, reviewed the supporting documentation and discussed the development of those estimates with DOD and prime contractor officials instrumental in producing them. We toured F-35 manufacturing and test facilities and obtained and analyzed production and supply chain data as of December 2013. We assessed the reliability of DOD and contractor data by reviewing existing information about the data, and interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also discussed ongoing manufacturing process improvements with prime contractor and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) officials. Further details about the scope and methodology can be found in our March 2014 report.


In summary, delays in developmental flight testing of the F-35’s critical software may hinder delivery of expected warfighting capabilities to the military services. F-35 developmental flight testing comprises two key areas: mission systems and flight sciences. Mission systems testing verifies that the software-intensive systems that provide critical warfighting capabilities function properly and meet requirements, while flight sciences testing verifies the aircraft’s basic flying capabilities. Challenges in development and testing of mission systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in software delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered, and the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation predicts delivery of warfighting capabilities could be delayed by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude will likely limit the warfighting capabilities that are delivered to support the military services’ initial operational capabilities—the first of which is scheduled for July 2015—and at this time it is not clear what those specific capabilities will be because testing is still ongoing. In addition, delays could increase the already significant concurrency between testing and aircraft procurement and result in additional cost growth.


To execute the program as planned, the DOD will have to increase funds steeply over the next 5 years and sustain an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037; for several years, funding requirements will peak at around $15 billion (see figure 1).

Annual funding of this magnitude clearly poses long-term affordability risks given the current fiscal environment. The program has been directed to reduce unit costs to meet established affordability targets before full-rate production begins in 2019, but meeting those targets will be challenging as significant cost reductions are needed. Additionally, the most recent cost estimate for operating and supporting the F-35 fleet is more than $1 trillion, which DOD officials have deemed unaffordable. This estimate reflects assumptions about key cost drivers the program can control, like aircraft reliability, and those it cannot control, including fuel costs, labor costs, and inflation rates. Reliability is lower than expected for two variants, and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation reports that the F-35 program has limited additional opportunities to improve reliability.


At this point, we believe the most pressing issue is the effect software testing delays are likely to have on the capabilities of the initial operational aircraft that each military service will receive. In order to make informed decisions about weapon system investments and future force structure, it is important that Congress and the services have a clear understanding of the capabilities that the initial operational F-35 aircraft will possess. Thus, in our March 2014 report we recommended that DOD assess the specific capabilities that realistically can be delivered and those that will not likely be delivered to each of the military services by their established initial operational capability dates, and share the results of that assessment with the Congress and military services as soon as possible but no later than July 2015.



F-35 Joint Strike Fighter:

Problems Completing Software Testing May Hinder Delivery of Expected Warfighting Capabilities


GAO-14-322: Published: Mar 24, 2014. Publicly Released: Mar 24, 2014.



Military Technology 3/2014, p. 47 hat geschrieben:Dutch Nuclear Role for F-3S

The JSF may be used to carry nuclear weapons in the tuture, according to Detence Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert and Foreign Aftairs Minister Frans Timmermans. Last year a majority of MPs supported a motion stating the F-35 jet tighter should have no nuclear role. However, Hennis and Timmermans have now decided tc set the motion aside because ot the Netherlands' role within NATO.

The ministers say they wiii continue to support nuciear disarmament but say the Netherlands does have a nuciear roie tor the time being.

The government made its decision to go ahead with the purchase of the controversiai JSF fighters in September 2013. They will replace the ageing fleet of F-16s. The decision brought to an end 18 years of political dithering. The Netherlands will buy 37 FSF jets to keep the cost within the €4.5 biiiion special budget. They will cost an additional €270 million a year to keep in the air.

theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 07. Mai 2014, 11:48

Türkei will seine ersten beiden F-35A bestellen [Seit wann heißt es "der Türkei"?]

Bild

Die zuständige Abteilung im Verteidigungsministerium (SSM - Savunma Sanayii Müsteşarlığı) wurde beauftragt, den Auftrag für Flugzeuge des Block-3F-Standards aus der Vorserientranche 10 (LRIP 10) zu erteilen. Ihre Lieferung dürfte 2018 erfolgen.



    PRESS RELEASE

    Tarih : 06.05.2014

    Konu : Joint Strike Fighter(JSF)


    After the evaluation of the current situation in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, which Turkey joined as a consortium partner since Concept Demonstration Phase in 1999 in order to meet the Next Generation fighter requirement of Turkish Air Force and has been attending utilizing Turkish industry’s production and assembly capabilities to the maximum extent, The Undersecretariat for Defence Industries (SSM) has been tasked to order the first two F-35A aircraft with Blok-3F configuration under Low Rate Initial Production-10 (LRIP-10).

    SSM has been tasked to perform necessary activities for the establishment of the Final Assembly and Check-Out line and Depot Level Maintenance Center for F135 engine within Turkish local industry and Turkish Air Force structure. Turkey aims to provide service to all F-35 users around the region via these facilities to be established.

    Turkey continues her forecast of the acquisition of 100 F-35A aircraft as planned and declared previously.


theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 27. Mai 2014, 12:38

Norway discloses JSM cost increase ahead of vote

Norway is set to shoulder the full costs of development and integration activities for the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) programme after failing to secure a partner to share weapon integration on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

Announcing the presentation of a bill to the national parliament - the Storting - to sanction investment of nearly NOK 3.7 billion (USD 620 million) for a third and final phase of development running to 2017, the county's coalition government acknowledged that the overall cost of the nationally funded JSM effort was now expected to rise above NOK 8 billion.

A vote on the bill is planned before the Storting begins its summer recess at the end of June.

Phase 2 development of JSM, taking engineering development through to a Critical Design Review and raising design maturity up to Technology Readiness Level 6, was completed in mid-2013. In late November last year Kongsberg was awarded a NOK48 million bridging contract by the Norwegian Ministry of Defence (MoD) to continue work on the JSM programme ahead of parliamentary approval for Phase 3 full development.

The Norwegian government put forward its bill to the Storting on 23 May. In a supporting document, the MoD said that an independent evaluation of the technical design of JSM conducted during late 2013/early 2014 confirmed that JSM had achieved the required technical maturity, but added that an audit of Phase 3 requirements had determined that Kongsberg would have to complete more work than previously anticipated to prepare the missile for testing, produce a larger number of pre-production missiles to comply with test requirements, and generate considerably more documentation than earlier expected. "All in all, this leads to a cost increase for Phase 3 development of just over NOK1 billion," said the MoD.

Norway will also be required to cover a greater share of the cost related to integrating the JSM on the F-35 having been unable to bring another JSF partner into the programme. "As a consequence, until such time as another partner joins the integration process, Norway's cost of integrating the JSM on F-35 increases by about NOK1.15 billion," said the MoD, adding: "Previous total cost estimates for the development, integration, and acquisition of the JSM on the F-35 amounted to approximately NOK6 billion. The updated cost estimate for the total programme, including Phase 3 changes in development and integration costs, is now estimated as NOK8.2 billion."

According to Kongsberg, the Phase 3 programme is planned to complete missile development, finalise F-35 integration, and pave the way for series production. A number of pre-production all-up-rounds will be produced to support flight testing.

Norway plans to purchase 52 F-35A aircraft to meet the Royal Norwegian Air Force's (RNoAF) Future Combat Aircraft programme requirement. Integration of JSM into JSF is planned as part of the Block 4A/4B update programme, with introduction into RNoAF service anticipated in the 2022-24 timeframe.

Although JSM re-uses a number of existing NSM subsystems - including the dual-band imaging infrared seeker, autonomous target recognition, multi-sensor precision navigation package, and warhead - the weapon is substantially re-engineered to meet requirements for air launch and internal integration in the JSF weapons bay. Changes include a re-profiled airframe, a new turbojet engine, a revised intake arrangement, and new shoulder-mounted wing surfaces.

Another feature new to JSM is a two-way datalink to support in-flight target updates, retargeting, mission abort, and battle damage assessment. Kongsberg has also been working on the integration of a second seeker channel in the form of a passive electronic support measures receiver.



Kongsberg’s New NSM/JSM Anti-Ship & Strike Missile

May 23/14: Phase 3 & Costs. A bill in Norway’s Storting would finance JSM Phase 3 final development, but the cost has expanded by NOK 1 billion to NOK 3.7 billion (about $622 million). Overall cost increases have pushed the overall project from NOK 6 billion (about $1 billion) to NOK 8.2 billion (about $1.38 billion), and most of this 37% increase will be covered by the government. At the same time, however, Kongsberg will be investing more on their own side. They see a clear opportunity for JSM/NSM, but elements like NSM Vertical Launch System compatibility etc. will take added work if they want to capitalize.

The good news is that a recent independent evaluation confirmed that JSM has the technological maturity required at this stage of development. Phase 3′s problem is the variety of different systems, rules, control regimes and operational requirements involved in a globally exportable missile. Norway hasn’t done that since the smaller and simpler Penguin missile was developed decades ago, and integration is harder now because the missile and platforms are both more complex. So the final phase involves more testing, integration, and documentation than the firm had expected. On the bright side, Kongsberg has sold over 1,000 Penguin missiles since the 1970s, and the current Mk3 remains relevant and on the market. They’re hoping for similar success, despite an early disappointment:

    “The goal has been, and remains, to bring in other F-35 partner countries to help cover the cost of integrating the JSM on the F-35. However, in spite of extensive efforts by Norwegian authorities and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, this goal has yet to be achieved. This is partly due to the financial situation in a number of partner countries and partly due to varying status of partner country decision making processes. The partner nations showing most interest in the JSM have been, and continue to be, Australia and Canada, and to some degree, Italy and the United States, all of which have expressed an operational requirement for a future airborne maritime strike capability. As a consequence, until such time as another partner joins the integration process, Norway’s cost of integrating the JSM on F-35 increases by about NOK 1.15 billion (USD 193 million).”

Norway remains committed, partly because of the potential market, and partly because it’s important to them to maintain their aerospace/ missile industrial cluster. JSM Phase 3 development is expected to finish by the end of 2017, in plenty of time for inclusion in F-35A Block 4 during 2022-2024. Or full integration with existing fighters like the Super Hornet etc. (q.v. Nov 6/13).

Sources: Norwegian Ministry of Defence, “Joint Strike Missile (JSM) – A Considerably Strengthened Norwegian Threshold Against War and Conflict” | Kongsberg Defence, “The Norwegian Government today presented a bill to the Parliament to further development of the Joint Strike Missile (JSM)” | Reuters, “Cost of Kongsberg’s JSM missile rises by 37 pct”.



22. Mai 2014

Zuletzt geändert von theoderich am 28. Mai 2014, 14:13, insgesamt 1-mal geändert.

theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 28. Mai 2014, 11:10

Mit der F-35B gibt es weiterhin (wenn auch seit längerem bekannte) Probleme:

    Opinion: F-35B Vertical Landings In Doubt For U.K.

    U.S. Marine Corps aviation boss Brig. Gen. Matthew Glavy has said there are no plans for the F-35B to perform VLs in the U.K., because the program staff has not finished testing the matting that is needed to protect the runway from exhaust heat. (The program office, Marines and Lockheed Martin did not return emails about any part of this story.) It may sound like a simple issue, but it pops the lids off two cans of worms: the program’s relationship with the truth, and the operational utility of VL.

    In December 2009, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Navfac) issued specifications for contractors bidding on JSF construction work. The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. “Spalling” occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface.

    Lockheed Martin was dismissive. The specifications were out of date and based on worst-case assessments, the company said, and tests in January 2010 showed that “the difference between F‑35B exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant Conops [concept of operations] changes.”

    Navfac ignored Lockheed Martin and commissioned high-temperature-concrete VL pads at four sites. At the Navy’s Patuxent River, Md., flight-test center, F-35Bs perform VLs on a pad of AM-2 aluminum matting, protecting the concrete from heat and blast. Why didn’t the January 2010 tests result in a change to the specifications? How were those tests performed? The Navy has referred those questions to Lockheed Martin, which has repeatedly failed to answer them.

    The bigger issue is that the Pentagon bought the F-35B for two reasons: it can land on an LHA/LHD-class amphibious warfare ship, and it can operate from an improvised forward operating location (FOL), created around a 3,000-ft. runway. The capabilities are complementary. Without an FOL, the amphibious force is limited to six fighters per LHA (unless essential helicopters are off-loaded). But a short runway is of little value unless you can use it twice.

    And what Navfac calls “standard airfield concrete” is military-grade, made with aggregate and Portland cement. Many runways are built with asphaltic concrete—aggregate in a bitumen binder—which softens and melts under heat.

    The Marines could use AM-2 landing pads. But AM-2 is not a friend to the agility that justifies the F-35B over other forms of expeditionary airpower. An Air Force study calls it “slow to install, difficult to repair, [with] very poor air-transport-ability characteristics.” A single 100 X 100-ft. VL pad weighs around 30 tons and comprises 400 pieces, each individually installed by two people.

    Rolling or creeping vertical landings can spread the heat load over a greater area. But there is no sign that they have been tested on concrete, asphalt or AM-2 over asphalt. What about multiple, close-together landings? Will hot asphalt debris stay off the fighter’s low-observable skin?

    Nobody seems willing to say when such tests will be conducted—which is odd, because we conduct flight tests to prove an aircraft can meet requirements. How was the requirement for the F-35B to VL on a non-standard runway framed? Indeed, was that requirement formally defined at all?

    At least $21 billion of the JSF’s research and development bill—including the F135 engine and the crash weight-reduction program of 2004 as well as the powered-lift system—is directly attributable to the F-35B, which also has the highest unit cost of any military aircraft in production. The design compromises in the F-35B have added weight, drag and cost to the F-35A and F-35C. It would be nice to know that—air shows aside—it will deliver some of its promised operational utility.


Hier findet man zwei Fotos von AM-2 Matten:


About AM-2 Matting

Expeditionary Airfields (EAFs) are mobile systems that enable the United States military to project airpowers worldwide. EAFs offer more flexibility in staging grounds, operations bases and campaign strategy. EAFs are composed of three integral systems - AM-2 Aluminum Matting, Portable Aircraft Arresting Gear and Marking (lighting) Systems. AM-2 matting is the base upon which the entire EAF system rests.

AM-2 matting consists of 1 1/2" x 2' steel rectangles coated with a epoxy nonskid material, available in both 6 and 12 foot lengths, and are assembled in a brickwork pattern to form runways, taxiways, parking and other areas required for aircraft operations and maintenance. Thirty ISO containers can be constructed to form a 1,500 square foot vertical, short landing and take off airfield and can accommodate up to a total of eleven CH53, UH1, AH1 and AV8B aircraft. AM-2 matting forms the foundation that allows military commanders to configure an airfield to ever-changing front line conditions.


Da frage ich mich: Wie will die Royal Navy die F-35B von ihren neuen Flugzeugträgern der Queen Elizabeth-Klasse einsetzen, wenn deren Verwendung schwere Beschädigungen am Schiff zur Folge hat?

Hmmwv
Beiträge: 274
Registriert: 20. Apr 2010, 13:10
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von Hmmwv » 29. Mai 2014, 20:55

Sind Trägerdecks asphaltbeschichtet?

Wenn ich das richtig aufgenommen habe werden Betonpisten benötigt und Asphaltdecken aufgeschmolzen.
Als Lösung dafür werden teure und schwere (30t) Aluplatten vorgeschlagen die schwer zu transportieren und installieren sind.
Die Matten verteilen die Hitze schnell auf eine große Fläche.
Wenn Trägerdecks aus Stahl unbeschichtet sind könnten sie es aushalten bzw. ist es ja möglich sie von unten zu kühlen und somit die Hitze abzuführen.

theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 29. Mai 2014, 22:51

Die Beschichtung nennt sich Non-Skid Coating, eine Art "Rutschfrei-Oberfläche" (Es dürfte dasselbe Material sein, mit dem die AM-2 Matten überzogen sind.):

    Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION

    Maritime aircraft operations present a unique hazard from foreign object debris coming off the deck of an aircraft carrier during aircraft arrested landings (Figures 3 and 4). This foreign object debris source consists of pieces of “non-skid” (a carrier deck-surfacing material similar to asphalt), and the steel shot used to clean the deck when repairs are required. The steel shot can become imbedded in nearby non-skid material, and can be knocked loose by the fast moving arresting cable during aircraft landings (Figure 5).



    Tough-Grip Non-Skid

    Features and Attributes:

      ◾ A 2-component epoxy, part A is white, part B is black to facilitate complete mixing prior to application

      ◾ MIL-PRF-24667A compliant

      ◾ Available in “G” and “L” formulation

      ◾ Contains no volatile organic components (VOCs)

      ◾ Contains no toxic or cancer causing components

      ◾ At 14lbs/gal Tough-Grip™ Non-Skid Coating is 11% lighter than current QPL products

      ◾ Primers and topcoats each have multiple toughners to enhance resistance to impact and abrasion

      ◾ ASTM D1002 lap-shear tests designed to measure adhesion produced the following results:

        In addition to demonstrating superior strength in lap-shear tests, TRI Tough-Grip™ Non-Skid Coating withstood more than double the elongation prior to break than current QPL product, further demonstrating its advanced ability to withstand impact.

        Tough-Grip™ Non-Skid Coating proved to be superior to current QPL Non-Skid products when subjected to impact resistance tests with no breakout between points of impact and little or no evidence of damage at the points of impact.

        In parallel tests with the Navy evaluation, Tough-Grip™ Non-Skid Coating is undergoing sea-trials on a fleet of tug boats in the Houston Harbor and is being considered for use on off-shore oil rigs and other hazardous locations where safety of personnel and equipment is crucial.



    Amercoat® 136G

    Typical Uses

      Aircraft carrier decks

      Vehicular ramps and decks

      Offshore decks

      Other very heavy-duty service areas where non-slip properties are required

    Mixing

    Amercoat 136G non-skid coating is a two-component product supplied in five gallon kits which contain the proper ratio of ingredients. Add the entire cure to the resin component while slowly mixing.



    PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION

    COATING SYSTEM, NON-SKID,
    FOR ROLL, SPRAY, OR SELF-ADHERING APPLICATION
    [inklusive Informationen zur chemischen Zusammensetzung]



    Truman Flight Deck Receives New Non-Skid
    Story Number: NNS100220-11Release Date: 2/20/2010 11:31:00 AM

    Bild

    Although non-skid is found on the exterior deck of every Navy warship, the operations that take place on the surface of a carrier flight deck are unique and require a particular type of non-skid.

    "Other ships use 'G'-skid, a general purpose non-skid," said Chief Aviation Boatswain's Mate (Handling) (AW/SW) Donovan Mahiai, flight deck crash chief. "Carriers use 'L'-skid, which is non-abrasive and specifically designed for the landing area."

    Special attention is required to ensure that the non-skid is properly cured and treated. The existing non-skid surface is removed via high-pressure water jet and pumped to an Environmental Protection Agency approved storage tank on the pier. After the flight deck is stripped to bare metal, it is treated and primed under the protection of a climate-controlled tent.

    The tent is heated to approximately 70 degrees and safeguards the area being worked on from rain, snow and ice-elements which could induce rust and expedite non-skid erosion. The temperature also helps with the adhesion of the material and results in a faster drying time.

    According to Sanford, most carrier flight decks undergo resurfacing after 8,000-10,000 arrested landings and prior to each deployment.




Die Grundstruktur besteht aus Stahl des Typs HSLA-115 (Der Schmelzpunkt von Stahl liegt bei 1300 - 1450 °C.):



Die folgenden Vorgaben sind in diesem Zusammenhang auch nicht uninteressant (Das sind die im Artikel von Aviation Week erwähnten Spezifikationen des NAVFAC.):

    AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGARS: TYPE I, TYPE II AND TYPE III F-35B or C SUPPLEMENT

    Runways, Taxiways, and Parking Aprons

    F-35B versions of the JSF have integrated power packages (IPP) that point down towards the pavement (the F-35C IPP points upwards and is of no concern for the pavements). The current version of the IPP in those two aircraft generates an exhaust under Burn mode which results in pavement surface temperatures in excess of those generated by the F/A-18 (and B-1) auxiliary power unit (APU). The IPP is always on, and in the Burn mode whenever the aircraft is stopped. This IPP exhaust will result in accelerated decay of both asphalt and concrete: for asphalt it could result in very quick rutting and accelerated oxidation, and for concrete it could result in scaling after a few months or years, depending on exposure time, exposure cycles, wind, precipitation, ambient temperature, etc. Therefore, for F-35B aircraft:

      - The runway ends shall be concrete

      - Holdshorts on taxiways shall be concrete

      - Parking aprons be shall be concrete

      - The concrete shall be heat resistant to an exhaust similar to that of an F/A-18 APU, per UFGS 32 13 13.03 (Airfields and Heavy-Duty Concrete Pavement Less Than 10000 Cubic Yards) or Air Force Engineering Technical Letter ETL 02-7.

    VTOL Pads

    The F-35B, or short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL), version of the JSF is capable of both vertical take-off (VTO) and VL, although take-off will typically be via STO. For landing, VL (or VTOL) pads will be used. This pads will be exposed to 1700ºF and high velocity (Mach #1) exhaust. This exhaust will melt the top surface of asphalt pavements, and is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL. Therefore high heat resistant materials are required for the pavement and for the joint sealants. At the present time there are no identified sealants that can survive a significant number of VLs, and the pads shall be constructed using continuously reinforced concrete (CRC). The pads shall have a minimum 96-ft by 96-ft (or 100-ft by 100-ft) CRC center, with continuous reinforcement in both directions to insure that all cracks and joints remain closed (the center is surrounded by a 50-ft wide paved area). High heat resistant materials for the pavement have been identified but are still being tested. For the latest information on those materials, contact the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NAVFAC ESC) or the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA).”



    1700ºF sind etwa 926 °C. Und CRC entspricht dem Stahlbeton, der beim Bau von Autobahnen Verwendung findet:

    Bild
Zuletzt geändert von theoderich am 05. Jul 2014, 10:21, insgesamt 1-mal geändert.

theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 12. Jun 2014, 15:04

UK to construct heat-resistant landing pads for F-35B

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is to build three concrete pads capable of withstanding high-temperatures in order to accommodate vertical landings (VLs) of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Minister for Defence, Equipment, Support, and Technology Philip Dunne revealed on 11 June.

Answering questions in the House of Commons from Angus Robertson, defence spokesperson for the Scottish National Party, Dunne disclosed that the three pads would be built at Royal Air Force (RAF) Marham for an estimated GBP7.5 million, though this figure will be refined as planning progresses.

The recent disclosure that the three F-35B short-take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft set to display in the UK will be limited to conventional landings for fear of damaging the runways at RAF Fairford (site of the Royal International Air Tattoo - RIAT) and Farnborough has brought the issue of surface preparation into focus.


theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 03. Jul 2014, 10:40

Kongsberg To Complete JSM Development

Kongsberg has signed a deal with the Norwegian Defence Logistics Organisation to complete development of its Joint Strike Missile (JSM) and prepare the weapon for integration on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning 11 aircraft.

The Norwegian company said in a statement released Wednesday that the contract for the third phase of the development work will involve aircraft tests, production of a number of test missiles and integration on the F-35.

Kongsberg said the contract value of Phase III was NOK 1.1 billion (US $179 million).

The work follows the signing of a bridging contract between Phase II and Phase III last November valued at NOK 480 million. That deal allowed work to continue ahead of approval of the latest development phase.

Development work on the long-range naval and land strike missile is scheduled for completion in 2017.


theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 09. Jul 2014, 17:06

Foreign Policy hat geschrieben:The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

The next-generation F-35, the most expensive plane ever built, may be too dangerous to fly. Why is Congress keeping it alive?

BY Kate Brannen

JULY 8, 2014 Kate.Brannen @K8brannen

Burying bad news before a long holiday weekend, the Pentagon announced just before 9 p.m. on July 3 that the entire F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet was being grounded after a June 23 runway fire at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

The grounding could not have come at a worse time, especially for the Marine Corps, which had lots of splashy events planned this month for its variant of the next-generation plane, whose costs have soared to an estimated $112 million per aircraft.

Effectively saying that the most expensive warplane in American history is too dangerous to fly is a huge public relations blow for the Pentagon, which has been under fire for years for allowing the plane's costs to increase even as its delivery time continued to slide right. The plane's prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, could also take a hit to its bottom line if the F-35 isn't cleared to fly to the United Kingdom for a pair of high-profile international air shows packed with potential customers. One thing the grounding won't do, however, is derail the F-35, a juggernaut of a program that apparently has enough political top cover to withstand any storm.

Part of that protection comes from the jaw-dropping amounts of money at stake. The Pentagon intends to spend roughly $399 billion to develop and buy 2,443 of the planes. However, over the course of the aircrafts' lifetimes, operating costs are expected to exceed $1 trillion. Lockheed has carefully hired suppliers and subcontractors in almost every state to ensure that virtually all senators and members of Congress have a stake in keeping the program -- and the jobs it has created -- in place.

"An upfront question with any program now is: How many congressional districts is it in?" said Thomas Christie, a former senior Pentagon acquisitions official.

In the case of the F-35, the short answer is: a lot. Counting all of its suppliers and subcontractors, parts of the program are spread out across at least 45 states. That's why there's no doubt lawmakers will continue to fund the program even though this is the third time in 17 months that the entire fleet has been grounded due to engine problems. In fact, in the version of the defense appropriations bill passed by the House, lawmakers agreed to purchase 38 planes in 2015, four more than the Pentagon requested.

The Pentagon has offered little information about the cause of the fire or whether the Marine Corps' version of the plane, the F-35B, had been cleared to participate in the Royal International Air Tattoo and the Farnborough International Airshow in the U.K. next week.

"Nobody wants to rush these aircraft back into the air before we know exactly what happened and investigators have a chance to do their work," Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters Tuesday.

In addition to the Marines, the F-35 is also being built for the Navy and the Air Force. Each service is getting its own unique version of the aircraft, though the most important part -- the engine -- is being shared across all three models.

But the armed services are not the only customers. Eight international partners have signed on to help build and buy the planes: the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway. While not involved in the development of the plane, Israel and Japan are buying it through the foreign military sales process, and South Korea recently indicated that it would buy at least 40 of the aircraft.

It's crucial for the Pentagon that each of these countries sticks with their planned buys to prevent the unit price of each aircraft from increasing even further. Lockheed, in turn, sees those foreign sales as an important part of its strategy to diversify away from the shrinking U.S. defense market in favor of expanding overseas ones.

Unfortunately for the Pentagon -- and for Lockheed -- the Pentagon's decision to ground the planes has already caused the aircraft to miss its scheduled July 4 international debut: flying over the naming ceremony for the British Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier -- the HMS Queen Elizabeth -- in Scotland.

"This government has sold this turkey and is still selling it," Christie said.

None of the countries involved in the program have indicated their commitment to it has changed since the planes were grounded.

Its future really isn't in doubt, but the F-35 is facing some criticism at home. On Capitol Hill, the F-35's biggest critic is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He's famous for his F-35 tirades against the plane, bemoaning the program's cost and the fact that the United States is buying the fighter jet before its testing is even complete. But so far his rhetorical bark is worse than his legislative bite when it comes to the annual defense authorization bill.

On Tuesday, McCain told Defense News that the F-35 is the worst example "of the military-industrial-congressional complex," but other senators, including Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), were mostly confident that its problems would be fixed.

Meanwhile, Lockheed's rival Boeing, which builds EA-18G Growlers and F/A-18 Super Hornets, criticizes the F-35's capabilities in the press and vies with it for money on Capitol Hill. But even Boeing is careful about how far it will go with its criticism, because at the end of the day, the company doesn't want to burn its relationship with its government customers, said Winslow Wheeler, a former congressional staffer who closely tracks the program's ups and downs.

"The political armor of the F-35 is as thick as the heads of the people who designed the airplane and its acquisition plan," he said.

Wheeler is one of the F-35's biggest critics, but his view of the program's political protections is widely shared, and it's one of the reasons that the program appears to be here to stay despite a growing record of problems.

In September 2013, the Pentagon's F-35 program office announced that the tires on the Marine Corps model were wearing out way too fast. This February, the entire fleet was grounded for a whole week after a crack was discovered in a test aircraft's engine turbine blade. As recently as June 9, the Pentagon had to ground the entire fleet after an oil leak occurred midflight, causing a Marine pilot to emergency-land the plane at a base in Arizona.

But the program office and Lockheed have worked hard to solve these problems as they crop up. And Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manager, has brought new focus to the program's price tag, pressuring Lockheed to bring down its costs.

Still, the problems continue. According to congressional and defense sources, the June 23 incident happened right before the F-35A -- the Air Force variant -- lifted off the ground. The pilot was able to abort the takeoff and get out of the plane in time.

"The root cause of the incident remains under investigation," the Pentagon said in its July 3 statement. More than two weeks since the event, there has been little official news. The companies, meanwhile, are staying mum.

"Lockheed Martin is working closely with the F-35 Joint Program Office and industry partners in supporting the Air Force investigation," said Lockheed spokeswoman Laura Siebert. "Safety is our team's top priority."

The plane's engine maker, Pratt & Whitney, also said it's standing ready to assist the investigation, but it wouldn't offer any more details.

Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, attributed the F-35 grounding to the growing pains inherent in any complicated new weapons program. "It absolutely doesn't do anything to shake our confidence in the F-35 program and the progress that has been made both from an engineering and from a financial perspective," he said.

While no one is predicting any drastic changes to the program, defense and congressional sources said the F-35's current engine problems could lead to a revival of the battle over whether General Electric and Rolls Royce should build a second engine for the plane. The effort had been deeply controversial within the Pentagon, where senior leaders like then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates derided it as a waste of taxpayer money. The effort was finally killed by Congress in 2011.

If it turns out that there is a serious problem with the Pratt & Whitney engine, though, you can expect to see an explosion of advertisements from GE-Rolls Royce in the Pentagon's metro station, one former defense official said. "There will be a lot of I-told-you-sos," he said.


Für den kompletten Artikel braucht man an sich ein Abonnement, deshalb habe ich ihn komplett herauskopiert. Über die reguläre Website ist er nicht zugänglich.

theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 31. Jul 2014, 10:32

Air Force Plans Shift to Obtain High-Tech Weapon Systems

In an acknowledgment that the military may be pricing itself out of business, the Air Force on Wednesday called for a shift away from big-ticket weapon systems that take decades to develop and a move toward high-technology armaments that can be quickly adapted to meet a range of emerging threats.

An Air Force strategic forecast, looking 20 years into the future and spurred in part by looming budget constraints, also calls for a faster pace, with lower price tags, in developing both airmen and the technology they use, warning that the current way of acquiring warplanes and weapons is too plodding.

The report, described as a “call to action” by Secretary Deborah Lee James of the Air Force, limits itself to how the country’s most tech-heavy military service can adapt to looming threats and budget constraints. But it is also a warning to and an admission from the entire Defense Department that with military compensation and retirement costs rising sharply, the country may soon be unable to afford the military it has without making significant changes to the way it does business.

From 1998 to 2014, annual compensation costs per active-duty service member increased by 76 percent, to $123,000, while the overall defense budget increased by 42 percent — yet, since 2010, the base Defense Department budget, not including spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been declining, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. So far, the military has dealt with the sharp increase in personnel costs by cutting the number of service members, and has managed to keep expensive weapons acquisition and technology at the same percentage of the overall budget — around 30 percent — as personnel and maintenance and training.

But with the Army, the largest branch in the military, now headed to its lowest personnel numbers since before the World War II buildup, Defense Department officials, particularly in the Army, warn that more cuts could bring increased risks to deployed service members. While the Air Force and Navy, with historic reliance on technology, are widely viewed as more willing to make personnel cuts than their Marine and Army counterparts, even officials in those services say there is a limit to how much more they are willing to reduce personnel.

But a potential gap between good intentions and spending reality remains, and it is unclear how serious the Air Force is about its call to move away from its focus on big, expensive weaponry, in particular advanced fighters and bombers. After all, the report is a long-range forecast that looks to change the culture of weapons development two decades or more down the road, so expensive weapons already in the pipeline remain relatively safe.

Over past decades, similar talk of streamlining the military has crashed into opposition from members of Congress, defense contractors and the military itself, which often work to protect bases, weapons systems and other budget pets. And calls for saving money by adopting new technologies are not new; Donald H. Rumsfeld, a former defense secretary, announced a goal of imposing “transformation” on the military to create a smaller, lighter, more agile — and cheaper — force, but his ideas were forced aside by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For example, nowhere in the report is there mention of scaling back on the trouble-plagued F-35 jet fighter — in development for 14 years so far — which was temporarily grounded last month after another in a series of problems. Nor is there talk of getting rid the next generation long-range bomber, which the Air Force is working on for around $550 million per plane and which is expected to debut somewhere around the mid-2020s.

“They’re still going to buy the Joint Strike Fighter,” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, referring to the F-35 warplane. “They’re getting squeezed, but they’re still going to buy the next generation bomber and the KC-46 tanker” for aerial refueling.

In fact, introducing the report on Wednesday, both Secretary James and Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, the service’s chief of staff, made a point of saying that the F-35, the next-generation long-range bomber and the KC-46 refueling tanker are all high-priority items for purchase. General Welsh offered a vigorous defense of the F-35, the world’s most expensive weapons project, and called the recent failure of an F-35 engine at a Florida air base a fixable problem.

“The F-35 is the answer, the only answer, that ensures that future fights won’t be fair fights,” he said. “I’m confident that the program will remain on track.”

Officials said Air Force weapons systems that could be targeted in the new shift — the Air Force is calling it “strategic agility” — is the next-generation replacement for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, or J-Stars, a surveillance airplane that provides information on ground forces to commanders in the air and on the ground, as well as the replacement training aircraft — called TX — used to train pilots.

Space and information programs could also see their spending cut in this new approach, military analysts said, with a view to building them in a more piecemeal way that would allow for quick adaptation as new technology emerges.

“The notion is, we can’t afford the big bang programs anymore, so what if we approached it differently, looking at adding capability in smaller chunks?” said Beth McGrath, a director at Deloitte Consulting and former deputy chief management officer for the Defense Department. “We say, ‘This is the big thing we want,’ and then we go buy the big thing. But there’s a better way to do this.”

Air Force officials said they also believed they could incorporate this new system into some existing programs — the service has been retrofitting its aging B-52 bomber fleet for decades to meet changing needs. A senior Air Force official said Wednesday that engineers were looking into whether they could integrate some of the newest advances in aircraft engines, including the latest in propulsion technology for fuel savings, and put them into existing systems, instead of simply starting from scratch all over again with new planes.

General Allvin, who worked on the report, said in an interview that the service also must look for how to make airmen more adaptable to new technology, and seek ways to harness advances underway at American tech giants like Google. He suggested that the Air Force might restructure pension and retirement programs so airmen could still qualify for military retirement benefits even if they spend their careers switching back and forth between the service and high-tech firms in the private sector.

“What if you entered the Air Force knowing you could serve for a few years, then go to work for an innovative tech company, and then return to the Air Force?” he said. “We could enter into partnerships with cutting-edge companies and allow our work force the opportunity of a more flexible retirement system that allows you to do two different jobs and still get to a 20-year retirement. It might take 35 years, but you would get here.”


theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 25. Sep 2014, 18:21

F-35 Sustainment:
Need for Affordable Strategy, Greater Attention to Risks, and Improved Cost Estimates


GAO-14-778: Published: Sep 23, 2014. Publicly Released: Sep 23, 2014.

Bild

The program is currently in low-rate initial production, and the contractor is assembling the next lot of 36 aircraft with a scheduled delivery by the end of 2015. As of June 2014, 78 aircraft have been fielded, are flying, and are being maintained at Eglin Air Force Base, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Edwards Air Force Base, Nellis Air Force Base, and Luke Air Force Base. The program had achieved about 18,250 cumulative flight hours for the fleet of aircraft; a total of 200,000 flight hours are required in order for the fleet to reach R+M maturity, as outlined in the program’s Operational Requirements Document. In March 2014, we found that the program had progressed in its developmental flight testing, but it continued to lag in testing of critical mission-systems software, delaying the delivery of expected warfighting capabilities.

By full-rate production, planned for fiscal year 2019, DOD would generally be required to establish adequate sustainment and support systems for the F-35. Per DOD guidance for all weapon systems acquisitions, these sustainment and support systems should be defined in a support concept that is incorporated into a sustainment strategy. For the F-35, this concept should comprise the necessary plans to conduct operations, maintenance, and sustainment throughout the system’s life cycle, with the F-35 Life Cycle Sustainment Plan serving as the principle document governing F-35 sustainment. According to the F-35 Operational Requirements Document, this concept must provide warfighting and peacetime capability with the lowest cost of ownership, and all variants must be able to deploy rapidly, sustain high mission reliability, and sustain a high sortie-generation rate.

In developing this strategy, the program has made affordability its top priority, and the F-35 Program Executive Officer reiterated this priority in his April 2014 testimony. In this testimony, the Program Executive Officer also identified areas in which the program is focusing on driving down sustainment costs and identifying improvements to meet long-term sustainment needs in order to “produce a mutually beneficial sustainment enterprise that operates, manages, and supports the global system with relevant metrics and incentives, while meeting warfighter-defined readiness and cost objectives.” However, the department has stated that it has a long history of starting programs that proved to be unaffordable, and the result of this practice has been costly program cancellations and dramatic reductions in inventory objectives. Recently updated DOD acquisition policy has placed more emphasis on including sustainment considerations as early as possible in the acquisition process. According to the policy, a successful program meets the sustainment performance requirements, remains affordable, and continues to seek cost reductions throughout the Operations and Support Phase that begins after the full-rate production decision.

However, the current sustainment strategy that DOD is developing may not be affordable. The program has continued to experience cost overruns, and the recent SAR estimated the O&S cost to sustain the system for 56 years to be approximately $1 trillion. Additionally, according to DOD officials, including officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the current sustainment strategy is not affordable. According to CAPE analysis, the combined O&S costs of several legacy aircraft—the F-15C/D, F-16C/D, AV-8B, and F-18A-D fleets—in 2010 exceeded $11 billion. Comparatively, based on CAPE’s 2013 O&S cost estimate, the annual cost to sustain the F-35 will be about $19.9 billion (in base year 2012 dollars) in 2040—the end of its steady-state years. This $8.8 billion difference represents an increase of more than 79 percent in annual O&S costs for the F-35 as compared with several legacy aircraft (see fig. 3). Moreover, the Program Executive Officer has continued to express concerns over the affordability of the program’s sustainment approach, stating that “F-35 sustainment costs remain a concern” and that affordability continues to be a top priority for the program.

In 2012, DOD established affordability targets for the program, stating that the cost per flying hour for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy F-35 variants could not exceed $35,200, $38,400, and $36,300 respectively. However, DOD officials, including some at OSD, stated that they believe that based on this threshold, the program is not affordable.

Reliability and Maintainability

DOD officials have continued to express concerns with the reliability and maintainability (R+M) of the aircraft. In his April 2014 testimony, the Program Executive Officer stated that R+M remains an area for needed improvement. In that same month, the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), stated that the growth rates and improvement programs that would be necessary to meet R+M requirements when the aircraft reaches maturity (200,000 flight hours) are what they termed “ambitious.” Additionally, DOT&E stated that future efforts to improve R+M may be hampered by higher failure rates as the aircraft begins to fly with more aggressive maneuvering and more extensive use of mission systems.

To measure the R+M of the aircraft, testers collect data on (1) the number of flight hours achieved before a failure occurs (reliability) and (2) the amount of time it takes to repair those failures (maintainability). These two primary measures are supported by various metrics and tracked along planned growth curves to measure progress in meeting requirements. Based on recent growth curves and reports for some of DOD’s R+M metrics, some metrics have progressed, some continued to lag, and some have worsened. For example:

    Mean Flight Hours between Failures (Design Controllable) is the average amount of flight hours achieved before a design-controllable failure occurs. As of March 2014, this metric was progressing in that the number of flight hours before a failure occurs was increasing for all three variants. For example, the average flight hours between failures for the F-35A—the variant with the most flight hours to date—was 5.2 in March 2014, surpassing the expectation at its current flight hours by about 1.2 and growing toward its requirement at maturity of 6.0. Moreover, this was an increase of about 1.8 average flight hours between failures since September 2013, as reported by GAO.

    Mean Flight Hours between Critical Failures is the average amount of flight hours achieved before a failure occurs that results in the loss of a capability to perform a mission-essential function.

    Mean Time to Repair is the average time it takes a maintainer to repair a failed component or device. Currently, this metric is not improving in that as flight hours increase, it is taking maintainers longer to repair failed components for the F-35A and F-35C, and the amount of time it takes to repair failed components for the F-35B remains unchanged. Specifically, GAO reviewed R+M growth curves provided by DOD showing the historical growth of this metric from 2009 for the F-35B and 2010 for the F-35A and F-35C to March 2014, and we observed that the metric is trending in the opposite direction of its predicted path for the F-35A and F-35C, and the metric is remaining steady, without improvement, for the F-35B. As of March 2014, this metric was lagging well below its requirements at maturity, meeting an average of 42 percent of those requirements across all three variants.


theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 28. Okt 2014, 19:32

First batch of F-35B operational aircraft to be ordered

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has announced that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has reached an agreement in principle on an order for the first production batch of four Lightning II stealth combat aircraft.

The aircraft will operate from both the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers and RAF land bases.

It is expected that a formal contract for the F-35B aircraft will be in place within weeks. The contract will form part of the MOD’s investment in Lightning II over the next 5 years to procure an initial 14 of these multi-role fifth generation aircraft, together with the necessary support arrangements and infrastructure.

The UK has already taken delivery of three Lightning II aircraft, with another one due to be delivered in 2016. These are being used for testing and evaluation and are currently in the US. The UK’s first operational Squadron in the UK will be based at RAF Marham in Norfolk in 2018, which will become their Main Operating Base.

It is anticipated that the contract will be finalised in the coming weeks, which will allow deliveries of the aircraft, within the contract, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, to commence from mid 2016.

Bernard Gray, the MOD’s Chief of Defence Materiel, said:

    “I am delighted that this agreement prepares the way for the first batch of operational combat aircraft. It ensures the MOD remains on target for achieving both operational capability from land bases and the start of flying trials aboard the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2018.”


theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 12. Nov 2014, 10:36

Ich habe auf der Website des Defense Technical Information Center eine sehr detaillierte Präsentation zur Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile gefunden, wie sie für die norwegischen F-35 eingeführt werden soll:


theoderich
Beiträge: 20984
Registriert: 09. Sep 2008, 22:29
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: F-35 Lightning II in Europa (Joint Strike Fighter)

Beitrag von theoderich » 23. Nov 2014, 09:16

Eine interessante Präsentation, v.a. was das STOVL-Konzept der F-35B betrifft:


Und ein Bericht mit einer detaillierten Aufstellung zu den Kerntechnologien des JAST/JSF-Programms sowie eine Präsentation zum Konzept des Helmdisplays des JSF:


Auf der Website der Research and Innovative Technology Administration findet man übrigens ein paar Dokumente zum ASTOVL-Programm:



Bild

Bild

Bild

Bild

Bild

Antworten
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable