F-35 Lightning II (2) testing and production thread

F-35 test aircraft breaks sound barrier for first time

If you thought you heard a sonic boom Thursday afternoon, you probably did.

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 test aircraft broke the sound barrier for the first time, topping out at Mach 1.05 — about 680 miles per hour — during a test flight.

Lockheed test pilot Jon Beesley was at the controls for the one-hour test flight, which occurred between 2 and 3 p.m. at 30,000 feet over the range between Fort Worth and Wichita Falls. "The airplane performed pretty much like we thought it would," Beesley said in a brief interview afterward.

The sound barrier was broken on the aircraft’s 69th test flight and the second one of the day Thursday.

The first time, in the morning, the plane was taken up to just below the speed of sound to check for handling qualities.

After lunch and a full tank of gas, Beesley returned to the sky and punched through the sound barrier four times, for two to three minutes each, while engineers on the ground monitored the airplane’s handling, systems and structure through telemetry data.

www.star-telegram.com...

'Bout time.

[edit on 14/11/2008 by C0bzz]

69TH flight? Wow, the Mirage 2000 went supersonic on its maiden flight. Wonder why the big difference?

reply to post by waynos


I think the level of new technology in the F-35 warrants a scaled approach when it comes to flight testing, never hurts to be cautious. For comparison, the first EMD F-22 (4001) took nearly 14 months from low speed taxi tests until its first supersonic flight (either test flight 34 or 35). Plus, the french need to overcompensate for their deficiencies with fluff.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by waynos
69TH flight? Wow, the Mirage 2000 went supersonic on its maiden flight. Wonder why the big difference?

Yeah but IOC wasn't still for another 6 years of development. They just took the calculated risk with a airframe based off of the Mirage 3 and "guessed" that its characteristics would be similar?

Maybe they are slightly concerned with the engine blowing up. again. and so are taking a really cautious approach

As far as I can tell the article never mentioned if AA-1 required afterburner to reach Mach 1.05. If not it would be somewhat impressive, AA-1 is the pre redesign model (heavier) and it was carrying a full simulated weapons load and fuel.

www.flightglobal.com...

The US Navy has disclosed it may cut as many as three out of four carrier variant aircraft from next year's batch of orders for Lockheed Martin F-35s.

Any cuts would reduce the overall number of F-35s ordered in the fourth lot of low rate initial production (LRIP-4) from 32 to as low as 29

now this is for the LRIP of the aircraft BUT it reflects upon all of the countries wanting to buy in to test the aircraft - the cost for each will go up for each one not oredred

reply to post by Harlequin


My questions is doesn't the navy need this capability now? The F-35 represents the only close to operational stealth aircraft for the navy and I don't think relying on the super bug is the best bet for them when protecting the fleet. Or projecting air power in a hostile area with any sort of defenses in place.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by Canada_EH
My questions is doesn't the navy need this capability now?

It does need it, but it also may need additional Super Hornets until the F-35C starts hitting full production. The high tempo in operation is wearing out some of the legacy Hornets. Some of the early Super Hornets are also seeing their flight hours rack up and their service life is also being reduced. The Navy can go two ways, purchase more F-35C's once they become available and do nothing now. Or purchase more Super Hornets until the planned F-35C runs it's course. Hard to tell what's going on here by this move.

reply to post by WestPoint23


I guess I can understand the bit of reasoning that more supper bugs while the line is open may be a smart move. I think they still will need the full complement of 35's but the initial order would have to be reduced if they do purchase more 18's

reply to post by WestPoint23


The high tempo is also wearing out the tankers used to fuel all the air assests of the USA - and they need replacing right now , and not waste money buying F22`s.

`great we have 60 new F22`s - but the tankers to refuel them are all grounded`

[edit on 23/12/08 by Harlequin]

With government bailouts being the latest craze, why don't they bail out the USAF? 361 F-22, 1873 F-35, and new tankers.

Well more news on the updated F-35A model.

www.air-attack.com...

Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] rolled out the first weight-optimized conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant of the F-35 Lightning II fighter on Dec. 19. The new F-35A, called AF-1, joins three weight-optimized F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variants currently undergoing testing. The aircraft are structurally identical to the F-35s that will be delivered to armed services beginning in 2010.

Six F-35s are now complete, 17 are in assembly – including the first Low Rate Initial Production aircraft – and F-35 test aircraft have completed 83 flights.

Well things will only continue to pick up speed hopefully. Who knows what 09 will hold for the JSF program as if the 08 year can be anything to go off it could be very turbulent again.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Canada_EH]

The split between the US Navy and Marine orders has finally been figured out. The order breakdown between the USN and USMC has been one of the most closely guarded secrets of the program to date. The Marines have submitted two environmental impact statements, one for each coast.

On the East Coast, they are going to have 10 active squadrons, with one reserve of up to 16 aircraft. There will be two training squadrons of 20 each.

On the West Coast they will have the same number of active squadrons, with one reserve of up to 16 aircraft, along with one operational evaluation unit of 6 aircraft.

Total aircraft for the two coasts will be 216 on the East Coast, and 182 on the West Coast, total of 398 aircraft. That means that the USN will get 282 aircraft. The total order of F-35Bs and Cs is 680 aircraft.

That seems rather reserved for the USN,. Either they're planning on ordering more Super Bugs or someone is just not worrying about the fatigue factor, which will rear its ugly head in the next decade.

woot found it


update:

www.defense-aerospace.com...

Dutch Audit Office Says Information Still Insufficient for JSF Decision


have a read , the netherlands has said (directly pi55ing in norways face) that the real costs arn`t available for the procurement of the F35 , and the only figures ebing used are 4 years odl.



OUCH.

www.defense-aerospace.com...

In 2002 the Dutch cabinet of then Prime Minister Wim Kok signed a contract with the US government, agreeing to participate in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, and paying an investment sum of 858 million dollars for the privilege.

In return the Americans promised Dutch industry would receive substantial orders to help with production of the plane. Dutch companies that agreed to participate in the JSF programme promised they would repay the government 3.5 percent of their turnover once they became involved.

However, seven years on, few of the compensation orders from the US have materialised, say industry leaders.

reality is finally dawning on the `pay per slot` countries - all the promises are nothing more than hot air - and no one other than the USA and the UK are getting work related to this aircraft.

reply to post by Harlequin



Australian companies are building parts, not sure which ones though

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

Unfortunately, Israel’s September 2008 request for its first 75 F-35s would end up costing them an estimated $15 billion – or about $200 million per plane, in return for a fighter with poorer air-to-air performance, and less stealth

also - and this one might even kill any of the foreign buys:

After a long period of obtuse answers about whether foreign customers would be able to put their own systems in F-35 or customize the software themselves, the issue has been clarified.

“No,” says Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, program executive officers of the Joint Strike Fighter program…. They are going to buy aircraft that have basically the same capability as all the others,” Davis says. “They are trying to do a requirements analyses for future missions. Those mission [refinements] would be submitted through Lockheed Martin [and other contractors]. That [customization] is doable through software. It is not doable by Israelis sticking boxes in the airplane. [Elbit and Elta being involved] is not an option…”

no software codes , no intergration of non american equipment or weapons - and no purchases from any countries at this rate.


can the USA even afford them themselves when they are $200 million EACH.
aviation week

[edit on 19/2/09 by Harlequin]

www.defense-aerospace.com...

The Dutch Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence on Feb. 17 formally requested that Secretary of State for Defence Jack de Vries (CDA Christian Democratic party) issue a “formal, legally-binding Request For Proposal to obtain a fixed price” for all three candidates to replace the Dutch air force’s F-16 fighters. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-16 Block 60, and the Saab JAS-39NG Gripen, are competing for the contract

all they want to know is `how much will these cost us` - and lockmart arn`t telling them.

with the IDF quoting $200 million each something smells fishy.