Arms Race Update - F-35 Continues to Flounder



It first flew in 2006. After 15 years you might think the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, would have the bugs worked out. Not so much.

The F-35 has always been short on just about everything: range, payload, reliability - in a dogfight it gets its tail waxed by the far older, budget fighter, the F-16. Partly this is the result of choosing to build three much different variants within the same basic airframe. Partly it's the many compromises demanded in building a still unproven technology - a stealth strike fighter/light bomber.

The US Navy has decided to buy more Super Hornet F-18s and reduce its order for F-35s.  The US Air Force it seems will also trim its F-35 order.

One of the complaints about the F-35 is its inadequate engine.  The Pratt & Whitney F135 powerplant is something of a dud.  At times this year up to 15 per cent of the USAF fleet were hangared sans engines.

The current engine has been encountering readiness issues, which are at least partly traceable to the fact that spare parts and maintenance capacity have been underfunded in the F-35 program compared with past tactical-aircraft efforts.

The American air force is working with Pratt & Whitney and its competitor, G.E., to develop a new, 'adaptive engine.'

The USAF’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) is intended to provide a 30% increase in range, an 18% decrease in acceleration time and improved thermal management compared to the P&W F135 engine that is currently fielded in the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter, according to the USAF Materiel Command.

Adaptive engines work by changing the volume of air flow that bypasses the turbine core by opening a third stream when flying in cruise mode. This third flow – in addition to the core flow and bypass turbofan flow – increases efficiency.

Alternatively, in high-thrust mode an adaptive engine directs the majority of air through the engine’s core and bypass turbofan streams, delivering greater thrust for combat manoeuvering. The third flow also has a cooling effect, allowing the core to run hotter, which further increases fuel efficiency.

Faster, farther, cooler and a lot more reliable. Why would customers, potentially Canada, shell out that kind of money for a bird with a wonky engine?  Given that we're told these could be our frontline fighter for the next half century it would seem prudent to buy one with an engine fit for the long haul.


Comments

  1. "Why would customers, potentially Canada, shell out that kind of money "

    Rhetorical question?

    Julian Assange 2010 comment may shed some light on this:
    "the goal in Afghanistan "is to have an endless war not a successful war," in order to "wash money out of the tax bases of the United States...into the hands of the transnational security elite." "
    His accuracy would have been higher had he used 'tax bases of the Five-Eyes/NATO nations'

    The efficacy of the weapons is less important than the economic model supporting it's procurement and production. More money for the rich.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think there are better arguments than one sourced to Assange, NPOV. My question was why customers would shell out that much money for a jet with a faulty engine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cannot remember where I read it but it seems that the USA pressured Canada to join the ill fated Afghanistan episode.
    I would venture to say that they, the USA, do pressure "allies" to submit to their demands to retain access to the huge US marketplace.
    The sharing of lucrative F35 contracts to aviation companies around the world is little more than bribery.
    National interest outside of the USA has become a sick transparent joke where western governments compete to do the willing of US armament companies.

    Yes the F35 is a failure and it's perceived salvation of another engine is as faulty as the original one size fits all concept.
    The proposed new engine could be a yet again universal engine to fit both the F35 and the upcoming B3 bomber!
    What could go wrong outside of LM's share value?

    In this age of income inequality , homelessness and other social and financial /taxation pressures we should put our dollars to better use.

    TB



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TB, you and I will probably remain on opposite sides of the fence on the matter of maintaining a capacity to defend our sovereignty. Lotus Eaters may think that a lingering leftover of the Cold War. It's not.

      From the pinnacles of power to the lowliest morning gathering at Tim Horton's, Canadians are about as ill-informed on things military as I've ever experienced.

      Our world is entering a period of grave instability that could persist for centuries. If we don't prepare to defend our territory we shall lose it. It's naive to think we can give this a pass.

      Delete
  4. Protect our territory, yes.
    Succeed to the USA no.
    Do you have no confidence in a made in Canada foreign policy?
    Canada's foreign ventures have for too long been dictated by the US .
    Time to move on.
    For Canada to intertwine it's military purchases to dovetail with the US is to be subjected by US military contractors wishes.
    Hence, I think, the hesitance of our governments to purchase US hardware designed for conquest not defence.

    TB

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gun We Point at Our Own Heads

Navigating the Minefield of Short-Termism

The Cognoscenti Syndrome