F-35 Spear Cap 3 missile project ‘facing challenges’

Same as I read Nigel. I suppose delivery schedule is irritating more than critical. I just hope we do get our 48 by 2025 and then we get on with it.😏

👍

Yes we have typhoons with airframe life on them and not enough pilots so delivery issues at LM are not on the critical path of the UK project. I imagine with the £ still historically low this could also help the MoD budgets not having to pay for a 1-2 aircraft this year. And that’s the reality for the UK its the difference of 1-2 aircraft.

The most worrying is the delays caused by problems the UK end Ten years we’ve been getting \ready and we’re still not there

I been wondering if the big US defence companies just pump out the bare minimum standards to keep the cash rolling in, not fixing known faults until the DOD finds them etc. Between Pratt, Lockheed, Boeing there seems to be a constant steam of problems that have long costly fixes.
The engine alone is north of $38 billion to fix for block 4 and I don’t know if the work has even started.
From June 10th: The GAO yesterday reported that, as of May 2022, the unit cost of the F-35 was $177 million, up 10% since September 2020 ($161m).
This is more than double the $85m unit cost Lockheed claims.
They came from the defence-aerospace.com Twitter feed.

We will certainly need an increase in the defence budget to pay for these increases, which may reduce the number of aircraft we purchase to offset the cost.

The engine fix has been in hand since last year. Every engine, particularly the -600 version that powers the F35B, has had parts of the mid-life upgrade incorporated early.

There are number of recorded issues with the engine, from vibration/resonance to power turbine blade cracking. However, the biggest problem is that Pratt & Whitney (P&W) have not built enough engines. When an engine is due deep servicing or has developed a fault, or has a higher than tolerance particulate count in its oil checks. The engine is removed and sent off for maintenance.

Here there are two main problems, due to a higher than forecasted requirement for deep maintenance, there aren’t enough engines for a 1 vs 1 swap. So some airframes are waiting for a replacement engine. Compounding the problem, is that during inspection, there is higher than expected wear found on certain engine part. Plus, the protective coating on the turbine blades has been flaking off, leading to micro-fractures in the blades.

Instead of replacing the blades with the same part number blade. The Joint Project Office (JPO) instructed P&W to replace the blades with the enhanced ones designed for the mid-life upgrade. These are better design and can run at a much higher temperature for a lot longer. But the problem here is that they are slow to produce, as they have a long lead time. Which exacerbates the lack of engines problem.

What isn’t helping is that the F35 uses compressor bleed air for avionics cooling. As the upgrades and modifications have been added to the aircraft, the demand for more bleed air has shot up higher than predicted. Which means the engine is running hotter for longer to produce the additional bleed air requirement. Again reducing the engine’s predicted life between maintenances.

P&W have said the mid-life upgrade for the engine will allow the engine to generate more bleed air needed for the TR3 and Block 4. But also to make the engine run cooler and increase the time between maintenances. This is separate to the enhanced power growth requirement, that the JPO are asking for.

so it this a basic engine design issue that has been exacerbated by the increased requirments of upgrades etc.
If so how will the increased power growth requirement impact in this.
Also is the B variant also getting the increased power engine or is that just the A & C variants that are getting the latest engine?

From what I’ve read and understand there has been a general resonance issue with fuel delivery to the engine throughout the F135 range. Which was caused I believe due to a mismatch between the high pressure fuel pump and a flow restrictor. That should be an easy fix. This is apparently what caused the engine issues on the USMC F35B that caused the pilot to bang out when in the hover.

The problem with the flaking coating and fracturing on the blades, is possibly a design fault. However, this may be exacerbated due to the engine needing to generate more bleed air for cooling. Which means the engine has to run hotter to compensate for the drop in power. Furthermore, I reckon the -600 variant, has a shorter time between maintenance anyway due to it being used for hover take-offs and landings, which requires more time at full throttle.

There is a planned engine core growth upgrade, which includes new software for the digital engine control unit, compressor and turbine upgrades (new blade designs) along with some other enhancements. Depending on your source. This enhancement is supposed to net a growth of between 10 to 15% in both power and fuel efficiency. It was supposed to coincide with the Block 4 rollout and TR3 upgrade. It is to be rolled out to all variants. The new turbine blades are being used to fix the flaking coating problem.

P&W have also promoted a further power upgrade. This is as a cheaper alternative to the future adaptive engine. That was initially for the F35A and C. Again this is a further development of the F135’s internals. Both P&W and GE have said they could modify their respective adaptive engines for the F35B. Now that they’ve realized how many B variants there’s going to be.

Cheers for the detailed response appreciated.👍
So are you saying there are now two paths for engine upgrades :1st a power upgrade to the current engine (so available to all) ; 2nd a new adaptive engine which may now be made available to the B having previously only been touted for the A & C? Trying to keep up with this plane is a full time job.

Yes. From what I can understand there is currently a bit of abrasion between Lockheed and P&W. Lockheed are saying that even with the F135’s core upgrade, it won’t produce either enough power or cooling air to meet the demands that Block 4, 5 etc will be demanding. Which is why they are favoring the adaptive engine solution.

The JPO apparently sees the F135 upgrade as an interim solution. They are also a bit mifffed with P&W’s slow progress of engine builds and refurbishments of worn engines. There has been a succession of voices in the Senate/Congress on the benefits of the GE adaptive engine. But that’s probably due to the engine and components being made in those respective States.

What is without doubt though is that the GE XA-100 multi-flow adaptive engine was built on the knowledge gained from the F136 engine. In tests with publicly released data, it produced more power than the P&W XA-101 version. The primary requirement for the engine is increased fuel economy (predicted 25%), secondly is cooling air generation and thirdly enhanced power output (predicted >10%). Initially both companies had said these engines wouldn’t fit in the F35B. But have now said that they could be adapted to fit.

The CEO from LM in charge of the F35 program, has been blowing hot and cold in regards to P&W. Which has hacked off P&W. Meanwhile seeing a change in the winds GE jumped in and said their XA-100 engine is ready for production. Plus they were the first to say they could adapt the engine for the F35B. It’s got quite messy with accusations flying etc. so will be interesting to see who the JPO chooses to supply the next engine.

The problem is the DoD / USAF picked the wrong engine design. Probably for nationalistic reasons Pratt being good ol all American boys whereas the GE/RR offering had those horrid English involved. There have been problems with Pratt engine from day one and these will continue. Someone should bite the bullet and get GE/RR contracted it will be cheaper and more reliable in the long run…..But, there’s the bloody British involved agin so it probably won’t happen. Money will be continually poured down the Pratt drain

Isn’t this due to the fact that the US Govt is refusing to take delivery of any more F-35s until the TR-3 combo is part of the delivery aircraft. I understand there is substantial extra cost in updating to it later.

I believe so, I posted this information a while back.

“The joint office of the F-35 programme plans to upgrade the aircraft in April 2024, a one-year delay. Lockheed Martin, on the other hand, promises to have the TR-3 ready in December 2023. Michael Schmidt does not rule out that the upgrade of fifth-generation fighters could start between those two dates.”

Yes its mainly software the jets will be built but not delivered. LM will store TR3 jets ready for delivery. So the situation will correct itself once software is ready. A production stop would be more worrying.

Part of TR 3 sees the majority of the avionics computers getting replaced with ones that have newer components. Crucially the CPUs are being replaced along with an increase in storage.

But its a delivery delay not a production delay, Lockhead will actually build more F35s than it will deliver but store them whilst the software is sign off is my understanding. So once the software is signoff there will more deliveries than from storage. If software was suddenly ready tomorrow then deliveries can resume. I would think if the US really needed the jets the all stops would be pulled to get the software. Frankly I’d me more worried if the lines stopped as that’s a real delay.

“TR-3 is supposed to improve the F-35‘s computer memory capacity and processing power.”

Thats a relief we don’t want it forgetting how to land or who’s side its on…

😂👍

It’s yet another increase in costs and further delays to the software.

F-35 delivery delays to cost Lockheed hundreds of millions in 2023. WASHINGTON — Problems with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s newest upgrades will cause the aircraft’s.

manufacturer to miss its 2023 delivery goal by up to roughly 50 jets, Lockheed Martin officials said Tuesday.5 days ago

LINK

A lot of the increase in computing power requirement is due to the type of weapons being fitted. Even something as humble as the ASRAAM requires a lot of data from the aircraft.

This is to do with the firing solution fidelity. The higher the data fidelity of the target the better the chances of firing the missile with a higher kill percentage.

If we then look at SPEAR-3 then the amount of information it needs on the target jumps up exponentially. Sadly as guided weapons get “cleverer” they place a significant demand of processing and time on the aircraft’s weapon’s aiming computer. Which has a knock effect on the number of targets that can be engaged simultaneously or sequentially.

So why not just base the ‘extras’ on the carriers that were designed for them? Give the Queen Elizabeth a full complement.

😀 They cannot just live on the Carrier. They deploy to the Carrier for operations and exercises. A MOBs facilities, from Ops to Admin to Engineering, cannot be replicated on the same scale aboard.

Regular deployments seems to be the answer? I would assume that the building of accommodation facilities at Marham would have been based on the fact that a good percentage of the fleet was actively deployed on one of our TWO carriers at any one time? So far we’ve only had one major carrier deployment and even then we only had 8 RAF birds on board. The F35B was purchased primarily for carrier ops, but I suspect there are senior RAF officers who like to think of them as an RAF land based asset……..

Hi Paul, the F35’s are firstly a joint RN/RAF asset, and secondly are only based on tha carriers when they deploy. So as now, they are all either at Marham, or deployed with the RAF in smallish numbers. Most of the time they will be sat at Marham, so all the infrastructure needs to be in place as we ramp up the numbers – slowly.

We’re not talking about them being on board as a permanent thing – just until the shore facilities are ready. Meanwhile they doing a useful job in training and/or deployment.

Your post is tantamount to a poke in the eye to some on here Rob but I, for one, agree with you. Why not make one of the trained units at least seaborne.

As @DM says, plus they are a joint asset with the RAF, so not at all a palatable course for some I imagine.

What I find curious. I’ve studied our military installations using the likes of GE for decades, is what the hold up Is? Marham had 4 GR4 Sqns once. It has fuel, ammunition sites, it has HAS Complexes. The JFL HQ and maintenance buildings are complete and operational. So what’s the holdup. Aprons? Taxiway? I know of the delay people wise, training and such, just wondering regards the infrastructure.

My understanding on the delay is that construction of phase 2 of Anvil was delayed for budgetary reasons, perhaps partially due to the fact that the MOD knew BLK 4 aircraft were going to be delayed?
Had a mate just finish work up at Marham the other week, they were installing fibre optic cabling in buildings up there, so who knows what the reasons are!

Correct. Project Anvil, for Stand Up of 807.

Believe thats now been pushed back to Dec 23 due to the current issues?

Yes, what I’d read too. 5 months way, no big deal really.

It won’t affect the delivery of another 4 aircraft this year. 3 have already been delivery to Marham this year. 👍

Yes, they’ll be delivered, straight into store if 807 is not ready?

No, they will be flying mate. Actually, when new aircraft are first delivered from the manufacturer the first thing that happens is they are stripped down, and rebuilt to be certified by the RAF. All the aircraft are effectively operated in a pool of aircraft, and are moved around the sqns as required. That’s one reason why we don’t see many unit markings these day’s, not like they used to anyway. Usually the OCU will operate pretty much the same aircraft as the are usually at a different avionic/capability standard to those on the frontline units. T1 Typhoons for example on 29sqn. When the frontline units will have the majority of the T2/3 aircraft. F35 fleet will probably be the same. Combat coded aircraft will be frontline. In a perfect world all aircraft would be at the same standard, but that rarely happens, even for the USAF fast jet fleets.

Thanks mate. Stripped down??? Never knew that.

Yep, like deep maintenance strip down. Put it back together again. Its now formally handed over as a F35 project office/Lockheed Martin product to a UK certified owned RAF/RN F35 combat aircraft. 👍

I presume you are referring to formation and commissioning of 809 NAS? The constraints on this are progress developing the infrastructure for the squadron at RAF Marham (probable completion date of late 2025), the availability of a useful number of aircraft, and the impact on 617 sqd of stripping it of pilots, maintainers and a/c to provide a core for 809. Best off having one full strength operational squadron, rather than two small non-operational squadrons just for the sake of a bit of PR. 617 will surely be expected to provide its full front-line strength of 12 a/c (and may be a couple of spares) for CSG25 as the USMC wont be picking up the slack this time.

I wouldn’t be surprised if 809 NAS doesn’t form until well in to 2024, with a target date to be fully operational of 31 Dec 2025.

Indeed I was.

You would think that since we started this in 2014 and the first aircraft arrived in 2018 we would at least have the base and associated personnel ready. We seem to have lost the ability in this country to get anything done simply or on time and I’m not just talking about the MOD.🙂

You would like to think so wouldn’t you! Along with the issues on the recent threads ref Spear 3/Brimstone 3, we seem to have a issue with enough suitably experienced/qualified people. Now there is a surprise…..

The way we blunder along in this country, my friend, it’s a wonder we get anything done.

Well it’s not like they’ve had about a decade to get Marham ready!

Hard to imagine how much work a base needs when it was consistently housing/running 3 Tornado squadrons until recently.

One can but wonder, as our collective heads drop onto the table – in sheer disbelief!

Yes, just posted similar, didn’t see you’d covered this. Is it an “elf and safety” angle perhaps?

The facilities being built at Marham are US spec facilities. Which basically means, they are awesome.

But they are expensive and it takes time. Bur for once we won’t have 2nd rate facilities compared to our US cousins 👍

This is a good point. Someone here once commented on the facilities he saw when working at Mildenhall.

Operating a new aircraft type, especially a 5th gen fighter requires a new and very different level of base support/engineering/training/stimulator compared to the 80s Tornado. It’s the same at RAF Coningsby. Typhoon facilities are a world away from the Tornado F3 days. F35 is going to be in service for 40+ years. The investment today is making Marham capable of supporting the aircraft for the next 40+ years.

True. However it’ll be approximately 7 years between 617 initially standing up and 809 becoming fully operational (2018 & 2025). Getting any weapons integrated beyond ASRAAM and Paveway IV is taking very long time and it won’t be until the 2030’s until the fleet grows to 70 odd airframes.

The pilot training pipeline seems to be another major constraint to growth as well.

Of course it’s not all the Mod and RAF’s fault. But nevertheless it’s a truly glacial pace of procurement!

All true. AMRAAM is also in service on F35B. But it also took 16 years to deliver the Typhoon fleet. (2003-2019) It had been in RAF service for 15 year’s before StormShadow and Brimstone started to be integrated. It will be in service very close to 30 year’s when ECRS MK2 is declared at initial operating capability. Ascent have announced the RAF pilot training capacity will very soon (this year) increase by 50%. So progress is being made.

It’s not like we haven’t had 20 years to plan for it. What state would we be in if the F-35 programme had actually been anything close to meeting its original timescale.

Project ANVIL 2, the infrastructure for 2nd operational squadron (i.e. 809 NAS) at Marham, has recently moved from Red to Amber, so that is encouraging. But….given the delivery delays of F-35 I don’t think they will be operational, realistically, until 2026. The already existing change in the F-35 delivery profile, without the recent production issues will make sure of that.

Exactly, have begun to believe that the acquisition model for a/c has become so overly hyper-bureaucratic that it unnecessarily and unduly impedes rate of progress, and could/should be reset by participants w/ a different perspective/ mindset. Only data to support this hypothesis is the track record of success of urgently needed requirements. No one would permit a real world test of this hypothesis, unless circumstances dictated this course. 🤔

Is ‘NEWS FROM THE FLIGHT DECK’ an attempt at humour Nigel. Cos it just looks silly.

Well yes and no really. The docks that are slated for the surface ships aren’t the problem as they have not been built yet. The issue is the SM docks, as we can only access them to work on when there is no SM requirement.
Unfortunately this has caught up with us wrt Astute going into deep maintenance. Her DRP has been delayed as the dock isn’t yet ready to take her!! So she is unavailable for deployments when she would have been. Depending on how long she has to wait, will have a ever increasing impact on SSN availability further down the line as subsequent SM DRPs will also have to be delayed.
Still, just to put things into perspective the US has similar issues with it’s maintenance infrastructure inso much as they currently have some 23 SSNs awaiting maintenance. Put it another way, that’s approx 40% of their SSN force. Things aren’t going well for the West at the moment in terms of SSN availability.

So long as the problems happen now rather than later. China’s SSNS are currently not particularly brilliant, but I have heard on the grapevine that they are improving.

If we can sort this out (SSN maintenance queue and all) before their fleet achieves another jump in quality (requiring all our SSNs to be at maximum availability) then we should be ok.

That’s not really the MOD’s fault though.

How is it not the MODs fault. We were a tier 1 partner, we should have required integration as part of the initial batch1 design. It seems we were too eager to be a tier 1 partner that we didn’t push the US into agreeing for our own needs on top of theirs.

In the time scheduled for the upgrade some countries like China could have built a whole new ship. Also T45 was designed to take upgrades. The space to be used is one such area. The are not inserting the missiles into an area not designed for weapons. Also Sea Ceptor is a soft launch system with little impact on the ship. The Sea Ceptor command and control system was derived from Sea Viper the T45s current system.

So the integration is not as difficult as the timeframe NoD/RN warrants. By the time they do the work the T45 will be nearing its out of service date! The RN needs the upgrade now…

The space is there but that’s it. Its a space.
No penetrations. no cable runs. No compliant vent, cabling, firefighting.
Command system integration will take time. New code, new inputs, firing arcs, will all need to be proven.
Nothing is plug and play involving weapon systems.

With T45 deployment and maintenance plans set out for years in advance which also ties into CSG cover, drydock/dockyard availability and the manufacturer actually making the thing it will take years.

Ok MBDA/BAe make 6Ceptor outfits now, cost is not an issue and forget about anything else you are manufacturing such as the army kit. We will cut other projects to fund it.

Dockyards- Screw the planned docking of other vessels do T45 now even at the expense of other projects. Additional cost? yep we will cut other projects to fund it.

CSG Forget your T45 escorts. we are taking T45 down to fit ceptor which may take a year and because we rushed it may not be risk free and have issues when it comes into service.

The T45 crew sea/shore ratio and training cycle yep that will be messed up as well because they are shore side instead of at sea but we can fix the drafting cycle in around 15 years.

Unfortunately, that’s the issue with rushed /UOR upgrades. There are always consequences, mostly unseen during their life of the project. Rush it and get it wrong and you end up with a Nimrod XV230.

Well explained mate. 👍

2032 Rushed?!

It does make you wonder how robust Chinese ships are to not only battle damage but also to fire. If the Chinese can knock out a Type 55 in a 1/4 of the time it takes to build a T26. The question would be how has their manufacture processes achieved this? Yes, labour in China is cheap. But you can only get so many people in a given space doing work that doesn’t interfere with someone else’s that is part of the build sequence. Before anyone says the T26 build program is on a go slow. I appreciate that, but it still doesn’t explain how they can knock out so many ships so quickly?

GB comments on the Chinese landing ship that caught fire and was spewing out clouds of black smoke highlighted that it could be the insulation on the wiring, which wouldn’t happen on royal navy ship

Does make you wonder if China uses an equivalent Defstan. I suspect not as that would push up the price and the required quality.

Or if the part that they use that are to a “def stranded” have been replaced with an alterative. Classic “Can we use Chinese alterative”

The T26 go slow is a farce we are dropping fleet numbers because replacements are not there on time. Also by Spreading out the build the costs go up meaning potentially we can afford fewer ships….

The should increase production speed.

We have overhauled Chinese built commercial ships here in the yard.
Some of the classics we found are as follows.
Transverse “Watertight” bulkheads stich welded to the hull.
Watertight bulkheads welded correctly to the hull but not welded to the deck or deck head.
Electric motors on pumps lasting 6 months before burning out.
“Original SKF (!!!)” Bearings disintegrating after 200 hrs running.
Impellors dissolving inside pumps due to erosion and cathodic corrosion
Stainless Steel valves made from regular steel and corroding out in months when in saltwater.

Basically reputable ship owners avoid China made products, including steel plate as a matter of contract. We are required to provide certificates of conformity that ensure its not from China.

Now I cannot say that its the same in warship production but some of it will have transferred over.

Cheers marra. Does make you think of the corners they must have cut trying to match the USN in numbers in so short a time.

I think possible evidence of this, is their new CATOBAR carrier the Type 003 Fujian. There are images of massive cracks and warping of the flight deck. Though a lot of Chinese media are reporting that these are damage to the painted coating applied to the steel deck. Plus the earlier Type 002 Liaoning allegedly had similar problems.

Being such a secretive and highly policed country, we may never know the truth.

Thats not the experience of Red Flag where 5th Den planes dominate the air and win almost every time. Those who have flown against F35 describe the Experian e a unfair as they cannot see their attacker…

But if you think the French jet is equal or better in some way you just do not know about the F35 in sufficient detail.