JSF is too heavy for the Royal Navy

London Times
May 17, 2004

Overweight Carrier Fighters Give MoD £10bn Headache

By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

THE Ministry of Defence is facing another procurement disaster after a
minister disclosed that the fighter jet planned for two new large
aircraft carriers is far too heavy. Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces
Minister, has admitted that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also known
as F35, which will replace the Navy’s Sea Harrier from 2012, is
3,300lb overweight, a figure that astonished military aircraft
experts. The JSF, which is being jointly developed by the American
company Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems in Britain, has been designed
for the Royal Navy with the short take-off vertical launch (Stovl)
concept, like the Harriers. However, Lockheed Martin, whose JSF
proposal was chosen in preference to the version offered by Boeing,
has replaced the basic Harrier-style Stovl idea with a new type of
large fan to create the thrust needed for take-off and landing. The
aim was to provide greater power. This has led to the increase in the
engine’s weight. The MoD insisted that although the weight
problem was a concern, the JSF programme was in its early stages and
it was confident that the matter could be resolved. However, some
industrial and Naval experts believe that it is such a challenge that
the MoD may be forced to scrap the Stovl concept and go for a normal
take-off version, even though this would mean extending the carrier
flight deck and adding to the cost of the overall programme, which is
already an estimated £12.9 billion. This might suit the Navy, but the
MoD is committed to the Stovl concept. Rob Hewson, editor of
Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, said he could see no way in which
Lockheed Martin would be able to “shave off” 3,300lb. When
the JSF was originally designed there were fears expressed that the
engine would be too heavy. “But that was more like 1,000lb too
heavy, now it’s suddenly 3,300lb overweight. It looks like
another potential disaster,” Mr Hewson said. If the weight
problem, which would affect the aircraft’s ability to fly
safely, was not resolved without too much extra cost and time, the
Royal Navy might face the calamitous situation of “not having an
aircraft for the carriers”. The other concern for the MoD is
that the Pentagon, its partner in the JSF programme, is planning to
buy the Stovl version of the aircraft for the Marines only — a
few hundred aircraft. The vast bulk of the JSFs for the US will be
bought by the American Air Force and Navy, and they will all be the
standard take-off versions, catapulted off the carriers. Mr Hewson
said: “If Lockheed Martin finds it cannot solve the weight
problem with the Stovl version, I wouldn’t be at all surprised
if the Pentagon doesn’t drop it and cancel the US Marine order
and just go for the normal take-off version. Then Britain really will
be in trouble.” The MoD is planning to buy 150 JSFs, costing £10
billion, for the two large aircraft carriers. The two ships are, on
current estimates, due to cost £2.9 billion, although BAE Systems,
which was appointed prime contractor for the programme, has given
warning for some time that it will actually cost closer to £4 billion
for two 60,000-tonne carriers. If there is any delay in the planned
in-service date of 2012 for the first carrier, this would cause acute
embarrassment for the MoD. The Sea Harriers are being taken out of
service by 2006, partly because of problems they have been having with
operating in hot climates. The Sea Harriers have difficulty taking off
and landing with a full load of weapons and fuel in excessive heat,
such as in the Gulf. The only solution was to fit a bigger engine ino
the Sea Harrier but the MoD decided it would be too expensive. The
first batch of Sea Harriers has already been withdrawn, and when they
are all taken out of service by 2006 there will be a gap in capability
for six years — or more, if the JSF problem is not resolved.

Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting requirements.
Anybody else reminded of the A-12?

--Woody

On 5/17/04 8:19, in article ,
"Mike" wrote:

London Times
May 17, 2004

Overweight Carrier Fighters Give MoD £10bn Headache

By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

THE Ministry of Defence is facing another procurement disaster after a
minister disclosed that the fighter jet planned for two new large
aircraft carriers is far too heavy. Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces
Minister, has admitted that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also known
as F35, which will replace the Navy’s Sea Harrier from 2012, is
3,300lb overweight, a figure that astonished military aircraft
experts. The JSF, which is being jointly developed by the American
company Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems in Britain, has been designed
for the Royal Navy with the short take-off vertical launch (Stovl)
concept, like the Harriers. However, Lockheed Martin, whose JSF
proposal was chosen in preference to the version offered by Boeing,
has replaced the basic Harrier-style Stovl idea with a new type of
large fan to create the thrust needed for take-off and landing. The
aim was to provide greater power. This has led to the increase in the
engine’s weight. The MoD insisted that although the weight
problem was a concern, the JSF programme was in its early stages and
it was confident that the matter could be resolved. However, some
industrial and Naval experts believe that it is such a challenge that
the MoD may be forced to scrap the Stovl concept and go for a normal
take-off version, even though this would mean extending the carrier
flight deck and adding to the cost of the overall programme, which is
already an estimated £12.9 billion. This might suit the Navy, but the
MoD is committed to the Stovl concept. Rob Hewson, editor of
Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, said he could see no way in which
Lockheed Martin would be able to “shave off” 3,300lb. When
the JSF was originally designed there were fears expressed that the
engine would be too heavy. “But that was more like 1,000lb too
heavy, now it’s suddenly 3,300lb overweight. It looks like
another potential disaster,” Mr Hewson said. If the weight
problem, which would affect the aircraft’s ability to fly
safely, was not resolved without too much extra cost and time, the
Royal Navy might face the calamitous situation of “not having an
aircraft for the carriers”. The other concern for the MoD is
that the Pentagon, its partner in the JSF programme, is planning to
buy the Stovl version of the aircraft for the Marines only — a
few hundred aircraft. The vast bulk of the JSFs for the US will be
bought by the American Air Force and Navy, and they will all be the
standard take-off versions, catapulted off the carriers. Mr Hewson
said: “If Lockheed Martin finds it cannot solve the weight
problem with the Stovl version, I wouldn’t be at all surprised
if the Pentagon doesn’t drop it and cancel the US Marine order
and just go for the normal take-off version. Then Britain really will
be in trouble.” The MoD is planning to buy 150 JSFs, costing £10
billion, for the two large aircraft carriers. The two ships are, on
current estimates, due to cost £2.9 billion, although BAE Systems,
which was appointed prime contractor for the programme, has given
warning for some time that it will actually cost closer to £4 billion
for two 60,000-tonne carriers. If there is any delay in the planned
in-service date of 2012 for the first carrier, this would cause acute
embarrassment for the MoD. The Sea Harriers are being taken out of
service by 2006, partly because of problems they have been having with
operating in hot climates. The Sea Harriers have difficulty taking off
and landing with a full load of weapons and fuel in excessive heat,
such as in the Gulf. The only solution was to fit a bigger engine ino
the Sea Harrier but the MoD decided it would be too expensive. The
first batch of Sea Harriers has already been withdrawn, and when they
are all taken out of service by 2006 there will be a gap in capability
for six years — or more, if the JSF problem is not resolved.

A-12?? Nope. They never built more than a full-scale mock-up and few odds
and ends components of that one...

....and of course, that led to the most successful tanker in the history of
the CV Navy -- the F-18E/F.


"Woody Beal" wrote in message
...
Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
requirements.
Anybody else reminded of the A-12?

--Woody

On 5/17/04 8:19, in article
,
"Mike" wrote:

London Times
May 17, 2004

Overweight Carrier Fighters Give MoD £10bn Headache

By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

THE Ministry of Defence is facing another procurement disaster after a
minister disclosed that the fighter jet planned for two new large
aircraft carriers is far too heavy. Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces
Minister, has admitted that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also known
as F35, which will replace the Navy’s Sea Harrier from 2012, is
3,300lb overweight, a figure that astonished military aircraft
experts. The JSF, which is being jointly developed by the American
company Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems in Britain, has been designed
for the Royal Navy with the short take-off vertical launch (Stovl)
concept, like the Harriers. However, Lockheed Martin, whose JSF
proposal was chosen in preference to the version offered by Boeing,
has replaced the basic Harrier-style Stovl idea with a new type of
large fan to create the thrust needed for take-off and landing. The
aim was to provide greater power. This has led to the increase in the
engine’s weight. The MoD insisted that although the weight
problem was a concern, the JSF programme was in its early stages and
it was confident that the matter could be resolved. However, some
industrial and Naval experts believe that it is such a challenge that
the MoD may be forced to scrap the Stovl concept and go for a normal
take-off version, even though this would mean extending the carrier
flight deck and adding to the cost of the overall programme, which is
already an estimated £12.9 billion. This might suit the Navy, but the
MoD is committed to the Stovl concept. Rob Hewson, editor of
Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, said he could see no way in which
Lockheed Martin would be able to “shave off” 3,300lb. When
the JSF was originally designed there were fears expressed that the
engine would be too heavy. “But that was more like 1,000lb too
heavy, now it’s suddenly 3,300lb overweight. It looks like
another potential disaster,” Mr Hewson said. If the weight
problem, which would affect the aircraft’s ability to fly
safely, was not resolved without too much extra cost and time, the
Royal Navy might face the calamitous situation of “not having an
aircraft for the carriers”. The other concern for the MoD is
that the Pentagon, its partner in the JSF programme, is planning to
buy the Stovl version of the aircraft for the Marines only — a
few hundred aircraft. The vast bulk of the JSFs for the US will be
bought by the American Air Force and Navy, and they will all be the
standard take-off versions, catapulted off the carriers. Mr Hewson
said: “If Lockheed Martin finds it cannot solve the weight
problem with the Stovl version, I wouldn’t be at all surprised
if the Pentagon doesn’t drop it and cancel the US Marine order
and just go for the normal take-off version. Then Britain really will
be in trouble.” The MoD is planning to buy 150 JSFs, costing £10
billion, for the two large aircraft carriers. The two ships are, on
current estimates, due to cost £2.9 billion, although BAE Systems,
which was appointed prime contractor for the programme, has given
warning for some time that it will actually cost closer to £4 billion
for two 60,000-tonne carriers. If there is any delay in the planned
in-service date of 2012 for the first carrier, this would cause acute
embarrassment for the MoD. The Sea Harriers are being taken out of
service by 2006, partly because of problems they have been having with
operating in hot climates. The Sea Harriers have difficulty taking off
and landing with a full load of weapons and fuel in excessive heat,
such as in the Gulf. The only solution was to fit a bigger engine ino
the Sea Harrier but the MoD decided it would be too expensive. The
first batch of Sea Harriers has already been withdrawn, and when they
are all taken out of service by 2006 there will be a gap in capability
for six years — or more, if the JSF problem is not resolved.

On 5/18/04 6:30 PM, in article
. net, "Frijoles"
wrote:

A-12?? Nope. They never built more than a full-scale mock-up and few odds
and ends components of that one...


I'm familiar. In fact, I was just showing it to my wife the other day.
Funny, it was overweight just LOOKING at it.

...and of course, that led to the most successful tanker in the history of
the CV Navy -- the F-18E/F.


The E/F was on its way ANYWAY. They just dumped the A-12 money into it.
The A-12 was a failure from the start because the requirements were too
ambitious. One of my buddies put it best after hearing them listed off in a
briefing: "I'll believe it when I see it in the break."

He was right. It was a fairy tail.

My A-12 reference was tongue-in-cheek, but there's a serious side to it.

--Woody

Woody Beal wrote:
Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
requirements. Anybody else reminded of the A-12?

Seems a tad bit to early to be jumping to conclusions here.

All we have as a bunch of people with little or no access to any actual
program data saying that "there's no way" to make up this weight difference.
But none of the pople quoted are actual aerospace engineers, AFAIK. I'm not
going to assume they know better than the engineers designing the plane. Not
at this stage, anyway.

Heck, even if it is overweight and they can't get it all back, there's
actually a pretty simple fix -- revert to the requirement for 2x1000-lb
internal bombs for the STOVL aircraft instead of the 2x2000-lb bombs they
switched to pretty late in the design process. Presto, a 2000-lb weight
savings.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

On 5/18/04 7:50 PM, in article
t, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Woody Beal wrote:
Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
requirements. Anybody else reminded of the A-12?

Seems a tad bit to early to be jumping to conclusions here.

All we have as a bunch of people with little or no access to any actual
program data saying that "there's no way" to make up this weight difference.
But none of the pople quoted are actual aerospace engineers, AFAIK. I'm not
going to assume they know better than the engineers designing the plane. Not
at this stage, anyway.


If you're denying it's overweight, then I think you're in denial. It is...
That comes from folks working in the program. They're trying to deal with
it, but 2,000 lbs (I hadn't heard 3,300 lbs.) is a lot to lose.

Heck, even if it is overweight and they can't get it all back, there's
actually a pretty simple fix -- revert to the requirement for 2x1000-lb
internal bombs for the STOVL aircraft instead of the 2x2000-lb bombs they
switched to pretty late in the design process. Presto, a 2000-lb weight
savings.

Presto! Diminished striking capability for a STOVL aircraft... How novel.

--Woody

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
On 5/18/04 7:50 PM, in article
t, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

If you're denying it's overweight, then I think you're in denial. It
is... That comes from folks working in the program. They're trying
to deal with it, but 2,000 lbs (I hadn't heard 3,300 lbs.) is a lot
to lose.

No, I'm not denying that it's overweight. However, I'm questioning whether
the weight issue is as bad as presented. Planes are *always* overweight at
this point in the design process. I think the reports tend to confuse the
current design weight with the final target weight. If it's 3000 pounds
over now, that does not mean it will be 3000 pounds over at IOC.


Presto, a 2000-lb weight savings.

Presto! Diminished striking capability for a STOVL aircraft... How
novel.

Shrug. That's why STOVL isn't suitable for all users. The Marines don't
necessarily need big bombs; smaller ones are actually more appropriate for
most CAS missions. As long as it can haul the 8 x 250-lb small-diameter
bombs they're talking about, the plane is well-armed for CAS.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

On 5/22/04 12:00 PM, in article
et, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:


No, I'm not denying that it's overweight. However, I'm questioning whether
the weight issue is as bad as presented. Planes are *always* overweight at
this point in the design process. I think the reports tend to confuse the
current design weight with the final target weight. If it's 3000 pounds
over now, that does not mean it will be 3000 pounds over at IOC.


I get snippets from folks in the program quite often. It won't necessarily
be 3000lbs over at IOC. That's what they're working on right now... Trying
to trim the excess.

In fact, the 3000 lbs is mostly due to the lift fan machinery on the
B-model. A and C models aren't suffering as much. I think I may have
mis-spoken on that point earlier.


Presto, a 2000-lb weight savings.

Presto! Diminished striking capability for a STOVL aircraft... How
novel.

Shrug. That's why STOVL isn't suitable for all users. The Marines don't
necessarily need big bombs; smaller ones are actually more appropriate for
most CAS missions. As long as it can haul the 8 x 250-lb small-diameter
bombs they're talking about, the plane is well-armed for CAS.

Talked to some Brits that were in town last week. They made the same case.
It's an obvious solution.

Frankly, what might work better though would be to (here goes the crazy
rant...)

BRING BACK THE INTRUDER!!!

Imagine being able to carry 22 x 500 lb JDAM on smart 1760-compatible MER's
in your very own SWIP Block 1A jet... Doing the work of 5 F-35's with one
airframe (at least in the last conflict).

Sorry about the insanity. Couldn't help it.

--Woody

Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
requirements.
Anybody else reminded of the A-12?

If it is only the STOVL variant that is compromised by the conflicting
requirements, then no great loss there ;-) What I fear is that the CTOL and
plain-vanilla may be suffering as well... we'll see...
_____________
José Herculano

On 5/19/04 8:55 AM, in article ,
"José Herculano" wrote:

Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
requirements.
Anybody else reminded of the A-12?

If it is only the STOVL variant that is compromised by the conflicting
requirements, then no great loss there ;-) What I fear is that the CTOL and
plain-vanilla may be suffering as well... we'll see...

All three versions are equally overweight. The STOVL is just more effected
by it due to takeoff and landing performance requirements.

--Woody

_____________
José Herculano