What's new

F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions.

Italy, Turkey to service F-35 jet, engine in Europe-Pentagon

The U.S. Defense Department on Thursday said it had chosen Italy to provide initial heavy maintenance of Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet in Europe from 2018, and Turkey to provide initial heavy maintenance for the jet's engines in the region.

Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan said the decision followed months of reviews and discussions. He said Britain would provide backup maintenance for the plane's airframe as needed.

Given the high cost of building test cells for the engines, which are built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), Bogdan said Norway and the Netherlands would provide additional engine maintenance capability over a phased period, he said.


Bogdan told reporters that the U.S. military had already begun to build out sites for servicing the jets and their engines in the United States, and would announce sites for engine and airframe maintenance in Asia next week.

From Italy, Turkey to service F-35 jet, engine in Europe-Pentagon| Reuters

@Sinan @xxxKULxxx @xenon54 - Great news for Turkey!
 
Italy, Turkey to service F-35 jet, engine in Europe-Pentagon

The U.S. Defense Department on Thursday said it had chosen Italy to provide initial heavy maintenance of Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet in Europe from 2018, and Turkey to provide initial heavy maintenance for the jet's engines in the region.

Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan said the decision followed months of reviews and discussions. He said Britain would provide backup maintenance for the plane's airframe as needed.

Given the high cost of building test cells for the engines, which are built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), Bogdan said Norway and the Netherlands would provide additional engine maintenance capability over a phased period, he said.


Bogdan told reporters that the U.S. military had already begun to build out sites for servicing the jets and their engines in the United States, and would announce sites for engine and airframe maintenance in Asia next week.

From Italy, Turkey to service F-35 jet, engine in Europe-Pentagon| Reuters

@Sinan @xxxKULxxx @xenon54 - Great news for Turkey!

Thx...

Turkish company KALE & Pratt & Whitney opened a new factory in İzmir/Türkiye

Press Releases

kaleaero.com
 
Fuel Trucks for the F-35 Painted White to keep the Jet Fuel Cool (and prevent engine shutdowns)

By Jacek Siminski
Air Force fuel trucks repainted to keep temperature within the F-35’s threshold.
According to an Air Force press release, the F-35 jets may face another issue.

The problem is not related to the jet itself, but to the fuel trucks thermal management: the Lightning II has a fuel temperature threshold and may not function properly if the fuel is delivered to the aircraft at high temperature. Should the temperature of the fuel get too high, the F-35 could face engine shutdowns.

Therefore trucks at Luke Air Force Base, in Arizona, where temperature can reach beyond 110° F (43° C) in summer months, were given a new look, by applying a two layer coating, dubbed “solar polyurethane enamel”, that will help prevent fuel stored in the tanks from over-heating.

However, the professionals providing the new coating of the trucks, said that the layer does not necessarily need to be white, since only the “reflective” coating is of white color. Additional green paint may be applied in order to add camouflage. Some of the Luke AFB specialists stated that this is still to be tested.

Nevertheless, the ground crew hope that the green color can be used again, keeping the temperatures down, since the white refueling trucks are visible at long distances.

fuel-truck-706x468.jpg


White color is a definitely an intermediary-short term fix, mainly due to the tactical deficiencies it brings along. Long-term solutions?

The Air Force may change the composition of the fuel used by the Lightnings.

Another option is to refine the software used by the engine. Cost-wise, both these options are more expensive than re-painting the fuel trucks, which, as the Air Force claims, costs $3,900 per truck.

In the light of the more significant problems faced by the F-35 program, the fuel issue might just simply have been overlooked.

Nonetheless, as some analysts pointed out, it may add an overhead in terms of cost, management, procedures etc. meaning that the development of the F-35 would become a bit more expensive (and this would not be a good news).

Image credit: U.S. Air Force

The Aviationist » Fuel Trucks for the F-35 Painted White to keep the Jet Fuel Cool (and prevent engine shutdowns)

 
F-35 jet fighters to take integrated avionics to a whole new level - Military & Aerospace Electronics
Previous aircraft designs incorporated individual boxes for almost every system, linked to a central computer via a MIL-STD-1553 1 megabit-per-second serial avionics databus. The F-22 was the first to have a more fully integrated native architecture, built around a high-speed serial databus, which was able to get the most use of those assets without adding more boxes and electronics. That approach also eased the sharing of assets at a relatively low level of integration.

"Every time you do something that complex, you get a little smarter when you finish. So we brought a lot of experience from the F-22 and incorporated those lessons into the JSF, making it a little more efficient," Jeffreys says. "But it is philosophically very much like the F-22 architecture. And some of those improvements will be back-fit into the F-22 downstream." Lockheed Martin builds the F-35, as well as the F-22.

"We have stood up a very disciplined process to do that — what we call 'proven path'. That takes the best state-of-the-art at the time and moves it to available platforms that can utilize it," Jeffreys says. "The majority of our proven-path activity is trying to commonize the F-22 and the F-35 wherever we can. We believe there is a lot of opportunity there."
For the highlighted, it begs the questions: So what ? What is so significant about 'integrated avionics' ? Are not modern aircrafts, from civilian to military, have 'integrated avionics' ?

The answer to the last question is 'No'.

Let us take the military side of aviation for now.

Prior to the F-22, all the world's most famous and desirable fighters have what is called 'federated avionics'.

Definition of a 'federation': a group of states with a central government but independence in internal affairs.

While that definition is obviously political in context, philosophically it describe precisely the current architecture of avionics, military and civilian.

Visually speaking, it is near impossible to distinguish an avionics bay that contains a federated avionics architecture from an avionics bay that contains an integrated avionics architecture. One must look at the schematics of the two architectures and must be familiar with avionics in the first place in order to be able to discern the two architectures from each other.

f-16_forw_starb_avionics.jpg


The above is from an F-16 starboard avionics forward bays. At best, the bay that contains the integrated avionics architecture would have its components, else called 'boxes', more uniform in appearance, probably less cabling, and probably less numerous are those boxes.

In a federation managed by a central authority figure, each member usually have a specific skill, all members shares one or several common goals, and the central authority figure provides strategic vision for the entire collective. Take the United States of America, for example. Some states specializes in agriculture, some in manufacturing, and states that touches the oceans specializes in shipping. If each box in an avionics bay is called a 'line replaceable unit' (LRU), then the State of California is an LRU. So is New York or Florida or Kansas. All fifty states are governed by the federal government.

A federated avionics architecture is appropriately analogous to the United States of America. Each member inside the organization have a unique skill and specializes in one function. All works togerther to support a goal: flight. This architecture served aviation well since the end of WW II with the dawn of electronics assisted flying. In a federated avionics architecture, there is a seperate box for radio communication, a distinct flight control computer that works with an equally distinct air data computer, the inertial navigation gyro is apart from the navigation computer that receives gyro data, and so on. Although each component will be different in hardware designs and computing language, as long as they work in harmony, flight will be achieved and sustained.

While the federated avionics architecture have served aviation well for many decades, and that service extended into the space program, it does have negatives.

- First and obvious among those negatives is the quantity of discrete components or boxes.

- Second is not as clearly discernable but problematic for those who know the aircraft that they must design and/or maintain: That the manufacturers of those discrete components must be managed. Each manufacturer must have technical competence, preferably a history of and in aviation, and that each hopefully will be in the industry for the expected life of the aircraft.

- Third is long term maintenance and for the military, often in remote locations where manufacturer support will not be available. The manufacturer must be capable of designing the component to be repairable at as low an organizational level as possible.

The federated avionics archictecture is a major reason why it takes an aircraft years to design and developed, and a lot of money to buy and maintain the aircraft over its expected service life.

Avionics Architecture From Then ‘Til Now | Helicopter Maintenance Magazine
On the minus side it has many LRU’s that take up quite a bit of space, requires a large amount of wiring and power, and then there is the weight factor. In helicopters, as in fixed wing aircraft, the Holy Grail for avionics is to do more, with less weight, space and power. Federated systems have been around for a long time. From a maintenance perspective the LRUs generally have their own troubleshooting procedures and specific test equipment. In some instances when a problem is found, the LRU has to be returned to the avionics manufacturer as only they can repair it. This adds to the expense of maintaining the system.

Somewhere between federated and integrated systems, a step was taken from the analog world into the digital world. Some LRUs went from so many millivolts per whatever to a set of one’s and zero’s per whatever. The word “microprocessor” became the word for the day and LRUs became less component intensive and smaller in size.

The next step in the evolution of avionics architecture from then till now was the integrated system. With the advent of microprocessors, specific software, very large scale integration and surface mount technology, it was now possible to take an entire LRU and reduce it in size to a single circuit card assembly (CCA). The function of the LRU did not change as it morphed into a CCA; merely its architecture had changed. Imagine the weight and space savings when LRUs are replaced by circuit cards. Now house multiple CCAs in a single housing and replace four or five LRUs with one LRU!
The F-22 and F-35 are the first in the world to have an operational integrated avionics archictecture. Not the F-117 or the B-2.

F-35 jet fighters to take integrated avionics to a whole new level - Military & Aerospace Electronics
Previous aircraft designs incorporated individual boxes for almost every system, linked to a central computer via a MIL-STD-1553 1 megabit-per-second serial avionics databus. The F-22 was the first to have a more fully integrated native architecture, built around a high-speed serial databus, which was able to get the most use of those assets without adding more boxes and electronics. That approach also eased the sharing of assets at a relatively low level of integration.

"Every time you do something that complex, you get a little smarter when you finish. So we brought a lot of experience from the F-22 and incorporated those lessons into the JSF, making it a little more efficient," Jeffreys says. "But it is philosophically very much like the F-22 architecture. And some of those improvements will be back-fit into the F-22 downstream." Lockheed Martin builds the F-35, as well as the F-22.

"We have stood up a very disciplined process to do that — what we call 'proven path'. That takes the best state-of-the-art at the time and moves it to available platforms that can utilize it," Jeffreys says. "The majority of our proven-path activity is trying to commonize the F-22 and the F-35 wherever we can. We believe there is a lot of opportunity there."

Avionics Magazine :: Integrated Modular Avionics: Less is More
The Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) concept, which replaces numerous separate processors and line replaceable units (LRU) with fewer, more centralized processing units, is promising significant weight reduction and maintenance savings in the new generation of commercial airliners. Boeing said by using the IMA approach it was able to shave 2,000 pounds off the avionics suite of the new 787 Dreamliner, due to fly in August, versus previous comparable aircraft. Airbus said its IMA approach cuts in half the part numbers of processor units for the new A380 avionics suite. "It’s not just the IMA modules themselves, and reducing the number of LRUs. IMA brings a more efficient network for the aircraft," said Bryan Vester, vice president of commercial systems strategy development for Rockwell Collins, a supplier to both Boeing and Airbus. "From an airline standpoint, fewer types and varieties of spares should drive higher reliability, and therefore less maintenance."
For the F-22's and F-35's integrated avionics, the system can reallocate processor and memory resources according to mission parameters and even real time combat demands.

For example, if an F-35 that carried external stores into combat where those external stores increased its radar signature, the avionics system will be able to calculate the best flight profile to keep its radar signature to a minimum. Then once those external stores are expended, the avionics system will recalculate the entire aircraft condition, from weight to drag to radar signature, to have a different flight profile to make maximum use of the new (lowered) radar signature. The avionics system will also be able to reconfigure the radar's operation. If those external stores are bombs, then obviously the mission will be for ground strike. The radar will be reconfigured to optimize beam shaping and data processing for heavy ground clutter to distinguish out targets. Then once those external stores are expended, the radar will be reconfigured to match air to air combat operation in terms of beam shaping, power output, declutter and other factors. The federated archictecture can do the same but will take longer and require more pilot inputs. The integrated archictecture will be faster, more transparent to the pilot in terms of mode switching, and because there are no discrete LRUs where each component contains its own hardware resources, the entire system's hardware resources are always immediately available for any real time and real world situations. In combat, those few milli-seconds advantage can and will mean life or death for one's own forces.

Maintenance wise, the integrated avionics archictecture is superior to the federated approach in terms of remote field support requirements because there are less LRUs per aircraft. Because the system is highly dependent on software, many maintenance tasks can be performed with a ruggedized laptop for troubleshooting. In designing an aircraft with an integrated avionics approach, the designer will deal with far less manufacturers involved. Line Replaceable Units will not go away, there just will be much less of them per aircraft, so instead of Logistics limiting the amount of flight control computers, radar computers, INS computers, COMM computers, etc, per remote site, for the same weight and volume allocation, there will just be more computers of the same design and functions because it will be the software that will run those computers once they are swapped in/out of the aircraft.

The integrated avionics archictecture will be the unofficial requirement for any attempt to make a 'fifth generation' fighter. Or rather an effective and survivable one.
 
Last edited:
As another example, Spectra will reconfigure according to loads... Every subsystem is "virtualized" to EMTI...
 
In post 291 I used a political federation as an analogy to the federated avionics architecture. I suspect some may find it difficult to visualize.

So imagine the US want to build the Hoover Dam.

In the integrated avionics architecture, immediately all the concrete, the concrete specialists, the construction equipment, the engineers, the architects, and the money, in the US are allocated to design and build the Hoover Dam.

Then once the Hoover Dam is done, the US want to build a sea retaining wall for the State of Louisiana. Immediately all the oceanography experts, concrete, steel, engineers, architects, and heavy equipment are routed to Louisiana.

If the US want to build simultaneous projects, large and small, the integrated approach would have all the resources properly allocated according to priority and resource requirement.

Under the federated approach, each state, or LRU, would be responsible for its own resources.

Simply put, the integrated avionics architecture is superior to the federated model.
 
@gambit Doesn't IMA approach increases the risk of single point of failure ? IMA shys away from redundancy of system as more focus is being put on decreasing weight and space, putting fewer but stronger processors and assuming latest technology (processors) would provide a 99.99 percent fault tolerance (which they would but anomalies do occur)
 
@gambit Doesn't IMA approach increases the risk of single point of failure ? IMA shys away from redundancy of system as more focus is being put on decreasing weight and space, putting fewer but stronger processors and assuming latest technology (processors) would provide a 99.99 percent fault tolerance (which they would but anomalies do occur)
Not necessarily. Take the flight controls computer (FLCC), for example.

Under the integrated approach, the FLC system is still quadruple redundant, except instead of a physically discrete computer (FLCC), the four channels processors are now four cards inside a container that also holds the INS, comm, ECM, Central Air Data (CAD), and anything else the designer can think up.

Let me use a smaller example: Inertial Nav Sys.

In the old days, the gyro would be a physically distinct component in the avionics system and bay. The inertial navigation computer would be another physically distinct component.

But today...

Inertial Navigation System (F-16) - SKN-2416 | Astronautics Corporation of America
Inertial Navigation System (INS) for the F-16 consists of three line replaceable units - Inertial Navigation Unit (INU), INU Battery/Mount (INBU), and Fire Control Navigation Panel (FCNP).
The INU contains the gyro assy and the navigation computing processes.

The INU is a self-contained navigator consisting of a gyro-stabilized inertial platform and ten electronics cards packaged in a single line replaceable unit (LRU).
Data collection from sensors like gyros, accelerometers, pitot/static probes, pneudraulics feedback pots, position transducers, antennas, or even simple mechanical switches, are relatively unchanged in their configurations. It is the data processing for tasks like stability augmentation, targeting, navigation, or ECM, that are integrated into two Common Integrated Processors (CIP) in the F-22.

Take memory resources, for another example. Navigation waypoints may be stored in flash memory while the faster DRAM modules are used for flight controls. Not likely these two processes can share their memory resources. But if there are other systems that uses DRAM, then instead of a physically fixed quantity of DRAM for each system that uses DRAM, let the CIPs dynamically allocate DRAM resources as needed by each system as they perform their tasks, which may or may not be simultaneous or concurrent.

Under the currently popular federated architecture, if ECM is not used, as in off or in standby mode, everything inside that system is essentially wasted. Under the integrated approach, if ECM is not needed, the only items in ECM that will not be used will be the antennas and the wiring associated with them, other than those items, if the CIPs need the physical memory that are normally allocated to ECM if it is active, the CIPs will take those allotments for something else.

Under the federated architecture, there is no spare FLCC or ECM computer or INS gyro. Under the integrated architecture, each CIP is powerful enough to run the fighter by itself, but we might have one CIP on one side of the fighter and the other CIP on the other side to reduce the odds of battle damage to one physical area taking out both processors. Am not saying that is how the F-22 is designed, but only that the integrated architecture offers this kind of flexibility without increasing the hardware requirement if we want a spare FLCC or INS under the federated architecture.
 
All this is right, except that F-22 and F-35 aren't predecessors in integrated avionics architecture (used in biz jets before) neither the only ones to use it.

http://www.sbmac.org.br/dincon/2011/files/articles/071.pdf

For example even Mirage 2000-9 uses modular integrated architecture : http://ethesis.inp-toulouse.fr/archive/00001883/01/lauer.pdf

So yes you can define IMA architecture as a 5th Gen, feature, but only from a US point of view. So called Euro '4th gen" already use it.

I would like also to emphasize the synchronization problems generated by this type of architecture. Some specific languages are sometimes used... (Lustre, SpecC, SystemC etc.)
 
Last edited:
TOP OF THE LINE?
12.31.14
New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019
America’s $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is slated to join fighter squadrons next year—but missing software will render its 25mm cannon useless.
The Pentagon’s newest stealth jet, the nearly $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, won’t be able to fire its gun during operational missions until 2019, three to four years after it becomes operational.

Even though the Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is supposed to join frontline U.S. Marine Corps fighter squadrons next year and Air Force units in 2016, the jet’s software does not yet have the ability to shoot its 25mm cannon. But even when the jet will be able to shoot its gun, the F-35 barely carries enough ammunition to make the weapon useful.

The JSF won’t be completely unarmed. It will still carry a pair of Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM long-range air-to-air missiles and a pair of bombs. Initially, it will be able to carry 1,000-pound satellite-guided bombs or 500-pound laser-guided weapons. But those weapons are of limited utility, especially during close-in fights.

“There will be no gun until [the Joint Strike Fighter’s Block] 3F [software], there is no software to support it now or for the next four-ish years,” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “Block 3F is slated for release in 2019, but who knows how much that will slip?”

The tri-service F-35 is crucial to the Pentagon’s plans to modernize America’s tactical fighter fleet. The Defense Department hopes to buy 2,443 of the new stealth jets in three versions—one for the Air Force, one for the Navy, and one for the Marines. Versions of the jet will replace everything from the air arm’s A-10 Warthog ground attack plane and Lockheed F-16 multirole fighter, to the Navy’s Boeing F/A-18 Hornet carrier-based fighter, to the Marines’ Boeing AV-8B Harrier II jump-jet. But the F-35 has been plagued with massive delays and cost overruns—mostly due to design defects and software issues. There have also been problems with the jet’s engine. An F-35 was destroyed on takeoff earlier in the year when a design flaw in its Pratt & Whitney F135 engine sparked a fire.

Another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 confirmed that the jet won’t have the software to fire its gun until the Block 3F software is released to frontline squadrons sometime in 2019. Neither Lockheed nor the F-35 Joint Program Office responded to inquiries about the status of the jet’s gun.

Right now, the F-35’s software doesn’t support the use of the aircraft’s GAU-22/A four-barreled rotary cannon. The weapon was developed from the U.S. Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump-jet’s GAU-12/U cannon, but it has one fewer barrel and weighs less.

It’s also supposed to be more accurate—when it can be fired, that is. The gun can shoot 3,300 rounds per minute, though the Air Force’s F-35A version can carry just 180 rounds for the gun.

“To me, the more disturbing aspect of this delay is that it represents yet another clear indication that the program is in serious trouble.”
The Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 have differing configurations and rely on an external gun pod. The software won’t be ready for those jets for years, either. And while that gun-pod version for the Navy and Marines carries slightly more ammo, with 220 rounds, some in the military are complaining that it’s not enough. “So, about good for one tactical burst,” the first Air Force official said. “Hope you don’t miss.”

The lack of a cannon is a particular problem, as the F-35 is being counted on to help out infantrymen under fire. (This is known as close air support, or CAS, in military jargon.) The F-35 will lack the ability to mark a target or attack enemy forces in “danger close” situations, said one highly experienced Air Force fighter pilot.

“Lack of forward firing ordnance in a CAS supporting aircraft is a major handicap,” he added. “CAS fights are more fluid than air interdiction, friendlies and targets move... Oftentimes quickly. The ability to mark the target with rockets and attack the same target 10 seconds later is crucial.”

Typically, aircraft will work in pairs where the flight lead will make an initial pass to mark a target with rockets. A second aircraft will then attack with its guns. Incidentally, the F-35 won’t be armed with rockets, either, sources told The Daily Beast.

The reason pilots would choose to use guns over a bomb or a missile is simple. Basically, a pilot might not want to drop a bomb near ground troops in situations where the enemy has gotten in very close to those friendly forces. Even a relatively small 250-pound bomb could kill or injure friendly troops who are within 650 feet of the explosion.

By contrast, a gun will allow a pilot to attack hostile forces that are less than 300 feet from friendly ground forces.

Proponents of the F-35 within the Air Force leadership argue that the jet’s sensorsand ability to display information intuitively will allow the stealthy new fighter to do the close air-support mission from high altitudes using satellite-guided weapons. But there are situations where that won’t work.

“GPS-guided munitions with long times of fall are useless when the ground commander doesn’t know exactly where the fire is coming from, or is withdrawing and the enemy is pursuing,” said another Air Force fighter pilot. “GPS munitions are equally useless when dropped from an aircraft when the pilot has near zero ability to track the battle with his own eyes.”

The lack of a gun is not likely to be a major problem for close-in air-to-air dogfights against other jets. Part of the problem is that the F-35—which is less maneuverable than contemporary enemy fighters like the Russian Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker—is not likely to survive such a close-in skirmish. “The jet can’t really turn anyway, so that is a bit of a moot point,” said one Air Force fighter pilot.

“The JSF is so heavy, it won’t accelerate fast enough to get back up to fighting speed,” said another Air Force fighter pilot. “Bottom line is that it will only be a BVR [beyond visual range] airplane.”

That means the F-35 will be almost entirely reliant on long-range air-to-air missiles. It doesn’t carry any short-range, dogfighting missiles like the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder when it’s in a stealthy configuration. One pilot familiar with the F-35 added that “they will not have a large enough air-to-air [missile] load to be on the leading edge” of an air battle in any case.

Another senior Air Force official with stealth fighter experience agreed. “From an air-to-air standpoint, an argument could be made that the F-35A not having a functional gun—or any gun, for that matter—will have little to no impact. Heck, it only has 180 rounds anyway,” he said. “I would be lying if I said there exists any plausible tactical air-to-air scenario where the F-35 will need to employ the gun. Personally, I just don’t see it ever happening and think they should have saved the weight [by getting rid of the gun altogether].”

However, the Air Force official said that very fact the F-35 will not have a functional gun when it becomes operational is symptomatic of a deeply troubled program. “To me, the more disturbing aspect of this delay is that it represents yet another clear indication that the program is in serious trouble,” the official said. F-35 maker “Lockheed Martin is clearly in a situation where they are scrambling to keep their collective noses above the waterline, and they are looking to push non-critical systems to the right in a moment of desperation.”
 
It’s also supposed to be more accurate—when it can be fired, that is. The gun can shoot 3,300 rounds per minute, though the Air Force’s F-35A version can carry just 180 rounds for the gun.

...with 220 rounds, some in the military are complaining that it’s not enough. “So, about good for one tactical burst,” the first Air Force official said. “Hope you don’t miss.”

Just "180" rounds....

Isn't 150 the "usual amount". For instance on a Mig29? Su30?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom