• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
I didn't think they had weapons ability until Block 3 software was out?

DARPA just got the X-51 to Mach 5+. The F-35 best before date may not be as far out as previously thought.
 
drunknsubmrnr said:
I didn't think they had weapons ability until Block 3 software was out?


2B software allows for JDAM AMRAAM and I think SDB. It will allow the USMC to undertake its IOC in 2015.
 
drunknsubmrnr said:
DARPA just got the X-51 to Mach 5+. The F-35 best before date may not be as far out as previously thought.

Getting an an unmanned aircraft over Mach 5 for a few minutes does not make it a combat capable aircraft. Granted the F-35 isn't checked off yet, its far further through the process to make an operational jet than the X-51 is.
 
Block 2B is not currently in production.  Thus, today, the F-35 lacks software capable of employing weapons systems.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/military/f35-software-dod-operation-test-evaluation-director-not-impressed

“The first version of Block 2A software was delivered four months late to flight test. In eight subsequent versions released to flight test, only a limited portion of the full, planned Block 2A capability (less than 50 percent) became available and delivered to production. … Block 2B software was planned to be delivered to flight test by the end of 2012, but less than 10 percent of the content was available for integration and testing as of the end of August. A very limited Block 1B software version was delivered to the Cooperative Avionics Test Bed aircraft in early November for integration testing.”
 
For those here who don't frequent the China superthread, here's a quick comparison of the F35 and the F22 to their potential Chinese competitors.

417872_506283686104976_425761179_n.jpg
 
PuckChaser said:
Getting an an unmanned aircraft over Mach 5 for a few minutes does not make it a combat capable aircraft. Granted the F-35 isn't checked off yet, its far further through the process to make an operational jet than the X-51 is.

True, but that technology will be available for new aircraft and weapons. Buying the F-35 now may turn out to be equivalent to a biplane program in 1938.
 
drunknsubmrnr said:
True, but that technology will be available for new aircraft and weapons. Buying the F-35 now may turn out to be equivalent to a biplane program in 1938.

The only way that analogy would make sense is if we were anticipating entering a global war next year. The only way aircraft (or any big technology jump) is going to move that fast in a year is military necessity where the entire weight of a nation's industry is set to R&D military items.
 
S.M.A. said:
For those here who don't frequent the China superthread, here's a quick comparison of the F35 and the F22 to their potential Chinese competitors.

Must be an old graphic as the cost of an F-35A is currently at about $120M, not $150M as outlined.

dapaterson said:
Block 2B is not currently in production.  Thus, today, the F-35 lacks software capable of employing weapons systems.

“The first version of Block 2A software was delivered four months late to flight test. In eight subsequent versions released to flight test, only a limited portion of the full, planned Block 2A capability (less than 50 percent) became available and delivered to production. … Block 2B software was planned to be delivered to flight test by the end of 2012, but less than 10 percent of the content was available for integration and testing as of the end of August. A very limited Block 1B software version was delivered to the Cooperative Avionics Test Bed aircraft in early November for integration testing.”

Some more recent news regarding the software blocks and their expected delivery dates...

Software Target Dates

In his opening remarks, Bogdan told the committee that the program will successfully finalize the Block 2B software by 2015, and has set a target date of 2016 for the Block 3I capabilities.

Block 2B, the initial combat capabilities, should allow the Marine Corps to declare initial operating capability on the F-35B jump-jet variant by 2015.

Bogdan said he was "moderately confident" that the initial war-fighting capability will be delivered in 2015. But "I'm less confident that the final capability of the airplanes, due to be delivered at the end of 2017, will happen with the full capability."

He said the toughest years to predict are 2016, 2017 and 2018. He said he hopes to see Block 3F, which should have full war-fighting capability, by late 2017, but there is "some risk" there.

"What I see for 2013, 2014 and 2015 for 2B, the initial capability, is a software process that is improving," Bogdan said. "That, in part, is what causes me to say I'm moderately confident up to 2015. I can honestly tell you beyond 2015 I don't have a great answer right now, because there's a lot of things that have to happen between now and 2015 to give me a lot of confidence in 2017."

Bogdan expects to have more clarity on the delivery timeline at the end of this summer, after the program office has conducted a critical design review for Block 3 software and completed flight tests for Block 2B.

http://mobile.defensenews.com/article/304250020

At least he's being realistic.  So by the end of this year they'll have completed flight tests for Block 2B and then it'll go operational with the Marines first.  Of course, when Canada takes delivery of the platform, all the tech necessary to fulfill combat roles should be more than ready to go. 

Then there's the whole potential topic of what China did or didn't pick up during their cyber visit to BAE a couple of years back...but that's a whole other thread.
 
So, Block 2B is running how many years late, then?  And what assurances are there that they will make this new timeline?

Given past on-time performance, I'm hoping the USMC is ready to wait beyond 2015 for initial operating capability.
 
The only way aircraft (or any big technology jump) is going to move that fast in a year is military necessity where the entire weight of a nation's industry is set to R&D military items.

The F-35 won't be ready in a year either.

My point is that the F-35 may not be a valid solution for a 30 year planned lifecycle.
 
Delays and cost changes are nothing new in aircraft development; the C-17 is a recent example:

Development difficulties

A static test of the C-17 wing in October 1992 resulted in the wing failing at 128% of design limit load, which was below the 150% requirement. Both wings buckled rear to the front and failures occurred in stringers, spars and ribs. Some $100 million was spent to redesign the wing structure; the wing failed at 145% during a second test in September 1993. A careful review of the test data however, showed that the wing was not loaded correctly and did indeed meet the requirement.[19] The C-17 received the "Globemaster III" name in early 1993. In late 1993, the Department of Defense gave the contractor two years to solve production and cost overrun problems or face termination of the contract after the delivery of the 40th aircraft. By accepting the 1993 terms, McDonnell Douglas incurred a loss of nearly US$1.5 billion on the development phase of the program.
In April 1994, the C-17 program remained over budget, and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range specifications. It also failed several key criteria during tests to evaluate its airworthiness. There were technical problems with mission software, landing gear, and so on. In May 1994, a proposal to cut the aircraft's production to as few as 32 aircraft emerged, but was rescinded. A July 1994 GAO document revealed that Air Force and DoD studies from 1986 and 1991 stated the C-17 could use 6,400 more runways outside the U.S. than the C-5; it was later discovered that this study had only considered the runway dimensions, but not their strength or Load Classification Numbers (LCN). The C-5 has a lower LCN, but the USAF classify both in the same broad Load Classification Group (LCG). When considering runway dimensions and their load ratings, the C-17's worldwide runway advantage over the C-5 shrank from 6,400 to 911 airfields.[26] However, the C-17's ability to use lower quality, austere airfields was not considered.

A January 1995 GAO report revealed that while the original C-17 budget was $41.8 billion for 210 aircraft, the 120 aircraft already ordered at that point had already cost $39.5 billion. In March 1994, the U.S. Army had decided it no longer needed the 60,000 lb (27,000 kg) Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES) delivery with the C-17, feeling that the 42,000 lb (19,000 kg) capability of the C-130 was sufficient; C-17 testing was limited to this lower weight. Issues with airflow prevented the C-17 from meeting its airdrop requirements. A February 1997 GAO report revealed that a C-17 with a full payload could not land on 3,000 ft (910 m) wet runways; simulations suggested 5,000 ft (1,500 m) was required.
The YC-15 was transferred to AMARC to be made flightworthy again for further flight tests for the C-17 program in March 1997. By the mid-1990s, most of the problems had been resolved. The first C-17 squadron was declared operational by the U.S. Air Force in January 1995. In 1996, DoD ordered another 80 aircraft for a total of 120. In 1997 McDonnell Douglas merged with its former competitor, Boeing. In April 1999, Boeing proposed to cut the price of the C-17 if the Air Force bought 60 more, and in August 2002, the order was increased to 180 aircraft.

We were not involved in C-17 development, so it didn't matter to us, but the difficulties did happen.
 
drunknsubmrnr said:
The F-35 won't be ready in a year either.

My point is that the F-35 may not be a valid solution for a 30 year planned lifecycle.

Neither would a Gripen, Eurofighter, Super Hornet or F-15K. Our CF-188s would be rusting hulks on the tarmac while we sit around and wait for Scramjets to be viable.
 
Is it on the list as a solution, as a benchmark or just to determine the practicability?

Regardless of the final solution we should have known how much it cost according to the standards demanded by the OAG and the PBO (or else they should have conformed to current practice.....nothing quite like switching from Rugby Union to Gaelic Football at half time).
 
Exclusive: U.S. Air Force to move forward target date for F-35 use


Andrea Shalal-Esa Reuters

8:33 p.m. CDT, May 20, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force plans to start operational use of Lockheed Martin Corp.-built F-35 fighter jets in mid-2016, a year earlier than planned, using a similar software package as the Marine Corps, two sources familiar with the plans said on Monday.

The Air Force's decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said a final decision had not been made and declined to comment further. A spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office declined to comment.

The decision reflects the military's desire to start using the new warplanes, which are already rolling off the assembly line at Lockheed's sprawling Fort Worth, Texas, plant, even as military officials continue to test the plane.

"This decision gets that (U.S.) fifth-generation capability out on the front lines that much sooner," said one of the sources familiar with the Air Force's plans. "It also sends a message about confidence in the program to Congress and the international partners."

Former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said accelerating operational use of the new warplane would allow the Air Force to learn more about the F-35's integrated battle management system.

"This is not just about replacing aging F-15's or F-16's; it is about changing the order of battle and truly embracing a integrated form of warfare where the F-35 manages the targeting and directs supporting fire at the same time as providing more precise aim points," Wynne told Reuters in an email.

The Air Force, Marines and Navy must report to Congress by June 1 on their target dates for initial operational capability, or IOC, which marks the point when the services have enough planes on hand to go to war if needed. Actual deployments usually lag IOC dates by about a year.

The sources said the services would send Congress a list of target or "objective" dates for declaring initial operational capability and a list of "threshold" dates, or deadlines.

The Marines Corps is sticking to its plan to begin early operational use in mid-2015 of its F-35B jets, which can take off and land like a helicopter. It will be the first of the three U.S. military services to start using the jets.

Its threshold is the end of 2015. The planes will run the F-35's 2B software, which will give the Marines an initial war fighting capability that includes some air-to-air skills, the ability to strike targets on the ground and carry several internal weapons, including laser-guided bombs.

Lockheed on Monday said one of its F-35 B-model planes completed the first-ever vertical takeoff on May 10, demonstrating a capability needed for repositioning jets in areas where they cannot perform a short takeoff.

The Navy has set mid-2018 for starting operational use of its C-model F-35, which is designed for use aboard U.S. aircraft carriers. Its deadline or threshold date is early 2019.

The Air Force decision marks a reversal from its earlier insistence that it needed the final 3F software package and comes after a Pentagon report cited China's development of two new fifth generation fighters over the past year.

The Air Force began studying the possible change several months ago. Lieutenant General Charles Davis told reporters in March that it might make sense to declare initial operating capability earlier than initially planned, given that the weapons on board would be suitable for basic war fighting needs.

The Air Force will have about 100 F-35s by 2016, when it plans to declare the planes ready for operational use.

The Pentagon's program chief, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, told lawmakers last month he was "moderately confident" that the 2B software -- and the associated 3I software being developed for international buyers -- would be completed in time for the planned Marine Corps IOC in mid-2015.

The Air Force jets would use the 3I software, which will include a technology refresh with improved memory processors for some sensors on board.

Bogdan said it was not as clear that work on the final software package would be done in 2017, when the Air Force initially planned to declare IOC.

The final 3F software will support use of the aircraft's full war fighting capability, with additional internal and external weapons, and more advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Dan Grebler and Michael Perry)

Copyright © 2013, Reuters

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-lockheed-fighterbre94j0v0-20130520,0,6064960.story
 
So when are we finally going to commit to a new plane??? I've gotten quite confused as to when this is supposed to happen.
 
estoguy said:
So when are we finally going to commit to a new plane??? I've gotten quite confused as to when this is supposed to happen.


I think the government is committed to A new plane, but not, yet, to any specific plane.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I think the government is committed to A new plane, but not, yet, to any specific plane.

I think the government knows the F-35 is the right plane for the RCAF, knows it screwed the pooch on the first acquisition announcement, knows they dropped their guard and took some  good hits from the Opposition, those afflicted with Harper Derangement Syndrome and the Parliamentary Press Gallery members who love to slam the Harper government they despise.

So what we have going on  now is a nice political kabuki lap dance that will re-pave the road to the F-35 acquisition in the expected time frames.

Meanwhile, some nice F-35 porn for your viewing pleasure.

http://tinyurl.com/pmexfb9









 
Advantage F-35 As Saab Pulls Out of Canadian Fighter Competition
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Article Link



Perhaps sensing an advantage for Lockheed Martin’s F-35, Sweden’s Saab has decided to pull out of Canada’s fighter competition. Saab is the first of the five competitors to pull out, which includes Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F-18E, Dassault Rafale and the F-35.

“Saab followed the discussions in Canada with interest [but] at this time and stage of the evaluation process, Saab has decided not to take part,” the company said in a June 3 e-mail to select media outlets.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 was the original choice but the Canadian government had second thoughts owing to its high price and opened the competition to other vendors.

The main reason for the presumed slant in favour of the F-35 is said to be industrial benefits obtained by the Canadian industry which till May 2013 amount to US$488 million. In addition the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) and the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF)are said to favour the F-35 having had an opportunity to extensively evaluate the U.S.
end
 
Back
Top