STOVL Version of JSF Flies for First Time

[Mick Smith]

from Defense News

The short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter took to the air for the first time the morning of June 11 with a British pilot at the controls.
The F-35B Lightning II took off from Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Texas, facility at 10:17 a.m. central daylight time. Graham Tomlinson, a test pilot for BAE Systems, took the aircraft through a series of handling tests, engine power variations and subsystem checks at altitudes up to about 15,000 feet during the 44-minute flight.
Tomlinson, a former Royal Air Force Harrier pilot, said the F-35B gave him "a relaxed first flight, with the aircraft handling and performing just as we predicted."
The entire flight was conducted in conventional flight mode, Lockheed said in a press release. Transitions to short takeoffs, hovers and vertical landings are to begin in early 2009.
The STOVL aircraft will be used by the U.S. Marine Corps to replace its AV-8B Harrier II jump jets. Britain's Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and the Italian Navy and Air Force also will operate the aircraft.
Although development of the F-35A conventional-takeoff and -landing version already is under way, the F-35B is to be the first of the three Lightning II variants to enter service when it begins Marine operations in 2012
The first F-35A test plane flew in December 2006 and the first two production aircraft are under construction.
Development of the F-35C, intended to operate from U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, will follow.
The F-35B is billed as the world's first supersonic and stealthy STOVL aircraft. While not stealthy, the Harrier also can attain supersonic speeds in limited regimes. Two European experimental STOVL aircraft in the 1960s, the German Vertical Fighter 101C and French company Dassault's Mirage IIIV, also could attain supersonic speeds.
Lockheed is the prime contractor for the F-35 program, with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems as principal industrial partners.

[BEagle]

While not stealthy, the Harrier also can attain supersonic speeds in limited regimes.


Really? Or is the 'limited regime' a once only plummet?

Anyway, good to see the F-35B airborne at last.

How long before the spotters infest this thread with silly 'Dave' comments?

Hack...

[Double Zero]

Beagle,

You really asked for it this time !

I have my doubts about the Harrier 2 - GR7/9, AV-8B - reckoned around 100 knots slower than an all - tin Harrier 1, but with the big engine better at time to height -but I believe the Sea Harrier ( yes, again ! ) could manage transonic or just supersonic, even with stores carried -probably in a shallow dive but not a " once only plummet " - maybe Mr.Farley or at least someone more knowledgable than me such as Michael Pryce who runs the Harrier website and is very well researched on V/STOL could comment.

I seem to remember the FA2, despite its' looks, was a touch faster than the FRS1 due to the aerodynamics of the larger radome & lengthened fuselage.

I had the honour of working with Graham Tomlinson - G.T.- on development GR5's, and a nicer guy or better pilot is yet to come along - if anyone can make sense of the Dave ( see, I said it and I'm not even a spotter ! ) he can, now John Farley has retired.

I received a recycled press release today regarding the flight, I must say the phrase " one of the most complex aircraft ever built " made me a bit uneasy regarding a single seat fighter, especially after the B-2 debacle...

[WhiteOvies]

I seem to recall you had most chance in a cleaned off T8, I 'm sure someone will know for sure!

Good news on the test flight, at this rate we might actually have the carriers and the aircraft at about the same time. Not holding my breath though.

[LateArmLive]

A clean T10 will go supersonic if you push it. So will a GR, but it really doesn't like it:eek:

Anyway, supersonic flight is for girls :}

[BEagle]

Anyway, supersonic flight is for girls

Such as every single student who graduated from 4FTS when they flew real swept wing aircraft (Gnat and Hunter), rather than the weeny JP Mk 6 aka 'Hawk'.....?

Now that IS a girlie's jet!

[LateArmLive]

Eh, back in my day t'were all better, this were all green fields - oops, think ah've wet meself again. Nurse! :E

[BEagle]

Sorry that the excitement was too much for your bladder, you poor old thing....:ooh:

I can well believe that the GR1/GR3 could manage supersonic flight, as probably could the RN's WetJets also. But GR5/7/9??

Whatever. But damn, that F-35B looks fun! Enjoy, you lucky so-and-sos!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

But when will F35B do the first vertical landing? Or the first deck landing? I didn't read the post above which said 2009 - sorry!

Links to the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) and Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116) threads are apt!

[Greenleader]

Webf - Rtfp. 2009.

[Double Zero]

W.E Branch Fanatic,

Though I suspect we talk the same language, surely you're being fussy about vertical / deck landings - after all the thing's only cost billions !

Beagle - you must be a much more hairy-arsed flyer than me ( not a pilot ) - my trip in G-Hawk with the uprated Adour had me reaching for the bag within 30 minutes - BTW I'd be interested to know what in our inventory, possibly excluding the Typhoon, can pull sustained 'G' for so long and led to a single seat fighter...

[airborne_artist]

I was at Cottesmore very recently and the F-35 came up, not surprisingly. The current expectation is that the UK F-35B will be STOSL, with about 50 kts over the wing on landing, in order to allow a heavier weight to land on than a VL would allow.

[NoHoverstop]

I seem to recall you had most chance in a cleaned off T8, I 'm sure someone will know for sure!

XW175, back when it was a T2, did a bit of envelope expansion after XW174 had an early exit. Peak mach number, according to the FT summary, was sufficiently above M1 to be respectable for a "subsonic" jet. Downhill obviously, but not to an unreasonable extent. That would presumably have been a bare airframe. It doesn't have pylons on it today, but the U/F instrumentation pods aren't really optimised for high M fun. Goes pretty quick at sea-level* though :}

*plus a bit. Well one wouldn't want to scoop up any wave-tops would one?

[nunquamparatus]

Slightly confusing - I thought Shargreaves flew the STOVL version years ago? Certainly saw a video of him hovering one over a pit full of fire-breathing snakes somewhere warm.

Frankly I wish the STOVL version would sod off and die so that we can stop faffing about and buy the (cheaper) F-35C which has longer range, better payload and doesn't suffer with bring-back issues in hot ambient temperatures..................hmmm, didn't we have a jet that used to have that problem. Have you seen the size of the CVF? By the power of greyskull, its gigantic-normous. Even a crab could stick one down on that.

[GreenKnight121]

That would be the X-35B... the "flight demonstrator" version. This is the redesigned "pre-production/early production" F-35B block 0 version. There are actually quite a few internal differences and some external ones.


And the term is "STORVL", not "STOSL". :=

Short Take-Off, Rolling Vertical Landing, not Short Take-Off, Short Landing (usually called STOL... Short Take-Off/Landing).

That is to emphasize that the aircraft can still do vertical take-offs (medium-light load) and vertical landings (light-load). :ugh:


Big difference (to the PR folks). :rolleyes:

[Not_a_boffin]

"And the term is "STORVL", not "STOSL".

Short Take-Off, Rolling Vertical Landing, not Short Take-Off, Short Landing (usually called STOL... Short Take-Off/Landing)."

Tears in all end will it..........

[Like-minded]

A piccy of the plane that I would soon take into battle with the forces of Taliban darkness:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3263/2557271338_4eec8de679_o.jpg

[LowObservable]

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_02/widdiDM0810_468x631.jpg

:E

Sequence of 20 build-down flights, getting successively slower, starts "first quarter 2009" at Foat Wuff, culminating in "short" - that is, partially jetborne - landing. Then to Pax River, to go all the way to VL.

[Not_a_boffin]

"You should have let it lie......."

"But you didn't let it lie!"


Etc ad nauseum, c Vic & Bob.....

[VuctoredThrest]

Just a slight hi-jack of the thread but I echo DDs sentiments regarding Graham Tomlinson or GT. He is definitely one of the finest fast-jet test pilots around (both ability and temperament) and I consider myself privileged to have flown with him in Hawks/Harriers etc on numerous occasions during his time at Dunsfold. Well done GT - use deserve to have flown it - enjoy.

[jindabyne]

Anyone care to provide a knowledgeable and succint summary of the merits of F35 (in whatever guise) relative to the current Harrier and Typhoon. I'm pretty up to speed with the latter, but JSF seems to attract the usual 'in-development' criticism on the basis of a low awareness base. Aside from the 'Day One' stealth benefit (and even that may date me), what does it bring to the table. Thanks ----

[Mr Grim]

a knowledgeable and succint summary of the merits of F35
No, sorry! But this is PPRuNe so here goes:

1. In F35C guise it can operate from a carrier (with increased fuel)
2. In F35B guise it can operate from a carrier (with less fuel and less payload)
3. 10 years newer (IOC guestimate) than Typhoon and US designed so avionics will be 15+ years newer (radar, networkcentric blah)
4. Stealth.

So IMHO it will be a huge leap from Harrier (once it is working properly in 202?) and will offer advantages over Typhoon, especially in high threat scenarios. Payload/range seems unclear v Typhoon. Typhoon is more manoeuvrable (is this important?)

[SSSETOWTF]

Jindabyne,

The Harrier's a great old girl and with the current avionics is a very capable CAS platform. But she's always been a bit short of fuel/range, doesn't carry an awful lot of weapons (compared to say an F-15E or A-10), and is pretty vulnerable to surface/air threats - even legacy systems - so can only really operate in an almost totally permissive environment.

Typhoon is certainly a huge leap forward for us Europeans, but that's only because we've been soldiering on with Tornado for quite so long. The US have been flying jets that can pull lots of g above 40k', and that have more than one tv in the cockpit, since the mid 1970s. So we've caught up. It's a great fighter and pretty soon should be a good bomber too, but it's not terribly stealthy, obviously can't fly off carriers and its avionics/radar (while still good, and better than an F3 / GR4's) are what they are - specified and designed in the late 80s/early 90s.

Seeing as the US have designed F-35 to replace all their F-15/16s/A-10s, you'll obviously expect it to be a generation better than them. It's stealthy enough to tackle any modern threat system you care to mention - SAMs or fighters. But the caveat being that it won't be a world-beating close-in dogfighter - it'll shoot other fighters long before they see it. And it wasn't optimized for super-cruising, or hanging out up in the 50k'+ part of the sky. (which is why having Typhoon complements it very nicely) (and why the USAF still want their F-22s)

The sensors on board are absolutely mind-boggling in capability. While everyone today quotes the statistics of numbers of sorties saved by using LGBs over dumb bombs, you still need to put up an AWACS, a JSTARS, some jammers and HARM shooters etc, all of which need tankers. F-35 is one step further on. It will be able to go anywhere, find what it's looking for on its own, avoid the things it wants to avoid, neutralise the things that it can't avoid and kill the target that it wants to kill - with a pair or 4 jets, and then land back on a boat or small strip. When all the major threats have been neutralized you can bolt on the external pylons and have 8 A-G pylons + the gun and become an unstealthy bomb truck to support the troops (i.e. fulfil the legacy F-16/A-10/AV-8B role), but with a fully network-centric system - datalinking to the troops on the ground, AWACS & co, UAVs, 10 Downing Street, the RN boats etc.

Almost as important as its raw capability is the fact that when you buy an F-35 the airplane is part of an entire system. All the major components are constantly recording parameters about their health and predicted time to failure (in the same way as all the modern airliners do). The airplane is part of a world-wide logistics and training network and will datalink back to base with health reports so that any required spare parts are ordered and delivered before they're needed. It has been designed as an engineer's dream so, for example, the engine can be changed in 2 hours by a team of 4 guys working within the shadow of the aircraft. All this has been done to allow the frontline to generate unheard of levels of serviceability. No longer should you need a squadron of 12-16 Harriers/Tornados to generate 8 sorties a day. The theory is also that it's so simple to fly, and so reliable, that your attrition rates will be significantly lower than legacy platforms.

My 2p on the -B model vs -C model debate would be that the -B really isn't all that bad when it comes to range. It's spec is to go 450nm on internal fuel with internal weapons, which compares pretty favourably with anything we have right now on internal fuel with a couple of bombs and missiles! But I suppose people always look at the next model up in the car or PC magazine and want the one with the biggest numbers, even if we don't actually need all those other gucci features. I mean, how many targets can you destroy with a 2000lb JDAM that you're not going to wreck with a 1000lb JDAM?? While you can never have too much 'combat' fuel, the whole premise of this aircraft is that no one can see you so you won't be doing much turning and burning with the afterburner in. If we were to go for the -C we'd have to do some far-from-trivial work on the CVF, and figure out how to train all our pilots to fly legacy carrier approaches (until JPALS finally arrives and works unfailingly).

Obviously I'm a little too close to the project to be totally impartial, and it's early days, but I hope that gives you some idea. Also I challenge any pilot with a pulse to think that the cockpit and helmet are anything other than unbelievable. And it's very hard to believe that with the US buying 2500 of them that it will be anything other than a complete success, especially as it comes from the same stable as the F-16, F-117 and F-22. I can't remember the USMC Initial Operating Capablity date off the top of my head, but it's something very aggressive like 2014. By 2017/18 the RAF should have a fully functioning OCU and one fully operatonal frontline squadron.

Sorry it wasn't very succinct.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[mr fish]

er, please dont hit me, but what the gun going to be??

[Archimedes]

It's a variant of the GAU-12 (the AV-8B weapon), the GAU-22 - a 4-barrel 25mm cannon - IIRC.

Internal fit on the F-35A and in a pod on the -B and -C.

[Fox2long]

No internal gun fitted to STOVL variant I thought!

Doh too late!! Back to the bar

[Engines]

SSSETOWTF,

Nice post, which really touches all the bases - I spent a little time involved with the project, and it's refreshing to see some informed and enthusiastic comments here on PPrune. Your points about supportability are also spot on and are IMHO probably the determining factor that puts F-35 in the driving set - affordability.

I'd like to add that we should be giving a lot of credit to the Brits out in Fort Worth and in the UK who are doing some magnificent work at the cutting edge of the project, especially in the areas of STOVL propulsion and flight controls, as well as the STOVL flight test team, and not forgetting Graham Tomlinson, the STOVL TP. He is an absolute star - a great TP, incredibly knowledgeable and a really, really nice person. He has made a huge impression on the Americans, and a massive contribution to the programme. Well done to all.

Engines.

[Razor61]

A rather long bit of news... but... Construction plans for the F-35 are planned for One per DAY.

News below:-
FORT WORTH, Texas — Inside a manufacturing facility so large that workers
routinely bike and ride golf carts down paths named after fighter jets,
preparations are underway to begin mass production of the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter.
Lockheed Martin Corp. plans to assemble the stealth plane here on a moving
assembly line using digital processes and automation techniques that are new
to the defense aerospace sector, says Steve O’Bryan of Lockheed Martin’s
F-35 business development team.
Though car manufacturers have built millions of vehicles on automated
assembly lines, the concept of moving lines has not been applied to military
aircraft since World War II.
Modern warplanes typically have been built in small quantities over the
course of many years. The Navy’s F/A-18, which has been in production for
more than 20 years, is being built at a rate of 42 aircraft per year. But
the F-35 Lightning II is expected to be built at an unprecedented rate — as
many as 230 fighters per year.
Lockheed has embraced the moving assembly line concept as the linchpin to
produce the next-generation fighter in large enough quantities to satisfy
U.S. and international sales.
The U.S. military is buying about 2,500 aircraft. Allied nations are
purchasing an additional 500 or so. Lockheed Martin officials are expecting
foreign military sales to hike the total number to more than 4,000 Joint
Strike Fighters.
“You’re really looking at F-16-like numbers,” says O’Bryan.
Once the line ramps up to full-rate production — possibly as early as 2016 —
the company estimates it will assemble about 21 fighters per month, or
roughly one aircraft per working day.
The moving assembly line is the only way to reach that rate of production, O’Bryan
says. The F-35 measures 51 feet in length. “If the plane doesn’t move 51
feet a day … you’re not going to produce one a day.”
There are three variants of the F-35: A conventional take-off and landing
aircraft for the Air Force, a short take-off and vertical landing version
for the Marine Corps and a carrier-based variant for the Navy.
Lockheed has completed the critical design reviews and last month the first
flight of its short take-off and vertical landing variant for the Marine
Corps took place.
The initial operating capability for that version is expected in 2012,
followed by the conventional takeoff and landing version in 2015, and the
carrier version a year after that.
Last December, the first F-35 variant, AA-1, was air-refueled. It will fly
from Fort Worth to Edwards Air Force Base in California for preliminary
testing.
Along with Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems are
involved in the manufacturing of the F-35. The $299 billion procurement
program is the Defense Department’s largest.
Four years ago, the company had to redesign the structure for all three
variants because the short take-off and vertical landing aircraft was
overweight. The mission systems are 98 percent common across the three
variants, says O’Bryan. “We’ve seen more commonality between the vehicle
systems than what we predicted,” and that will only help in production, he
says.
A good portion of the mile-long factory, which once built bombers, is still
dedicated to manufacturing the F-16 Fighting Falcon. But by 2016, nearly the
entire building will be producing the F-35.
“Things here are picking up quite a bit,” says O’Bryan. There are 19
prototype aircraft in production, and the first low-rate initial production
aircraft also are in various stages of construction at the plant.
Lockheed has about 600 workers on the floor doing assembly work. That number
will grow to more than 700 by the end of the year. The workforce will reach
3,500 at the peak of full-rate production, when three shifts will build the
plane around the clock.
The company expects to produce more than 130 aircraft during the low-rate
phase. In preparation for the expected uptick in production during the next
few years, the company has invested more than $500 million in improvements
to the factory floor. “Everything is always under construction here, and we
continue to expand,” says O’Bryan.
The same equipment and production lines that have been assembling the
stealth aircraft during its development phase will be used in the full-rate
production. Typically, a separate line is built for production aircraft, but
Lockheed Martin wanted to put both test and production fighters on the same
line to increase efficiency and keep costs down.

Another unusual but cost-saving measure was to implement workstations that
would accommodate all three variants of the aircraft interchangeably, says
Gus Villanueva, deputy director of F-35 global production.
Unlike in previous fighter programs that required dedicated stations for
each model, reconfigurable tools will allow the stations to handle any
variant of the F-35. “That’s one of the big cost-savings to the program,
because you don’t have to invest in all the tooling to support many
different variants,” says Villanueva.
That concept will allow all aircraft components to come together on a single
final assembly line in the center of the facility.
Bright yellow platforms will surround each plane as it moves along at a
continuous pace, guided by a dolly. Big blue towers along the wall will
swivel arms out above each aircraft to provide cooling, electrical and
hydraulic power so that engineers can test systems as the rest of the
fighter is being assembled.
For full rate production, officials expect to have at least 12 moving
platform stations up and running. All three variants of the F-35 will be
built on that moving assembly line, in any order.
That means a conventional take-off and landing jet for the Air Force might
be followed in line by a partner nation’s conventional F-35, which could be
followed by the carrier variant for the Navy, followed by the Marine Corps
short take-off and vertical landing aircraft.
Not only is Lockheed Martin adopting the moving assembly line concept from
car manufacturers but it is also using electronic 3-D models of the aircraft
in almost every aspect of the production — from the tools and the machining
to the components themselves. Engineers refer to this data as the “digital
thread,” which allows the data to be shared by all subcontractors and
suppliers. Doing so has improved the delivery time of different commodities
by as much as 40 percent in some cases, says Villanueva.
“We’re working on a lot of different manufacturing technologies that are
going to help us expedite the assembly process,” he adds.
In the past, workers would build the airplane and the external skins before
“stuffing” it with the internal mission systems. “On JSF, we’re stuffing it
before we enclose the structure,” says Villanueva. That reduces the risk of
damaging attachments or substructures, such as doors or panels, if the
interior systems require some sort of adjustment.
This new way of constructing aircraft also means that more automation can be
incorporated into the production line. Lockheed is responsible for building
the forward fuselage as well as the wings — the largest and most complex
component of the fighter. Using auto-drive vehicles, workers are
constructing the wings, which are held upright and surrounded by stands that
move up and down. “We’ve never built a wing vertically,” says O’Bryan.
The ability to use auto drilling for the forward fuselage and wing structure
keeps workers from having to spend several days manually drilling holes.
Wings often have hundreds of holes; each JSF wing requires drilling more
than 3,000.
“Now you get to do that in one pass,” says Villanueva.
Another innovation suggested by one of the company’s engineers automates the
process of installing fasteners. A laser device is used by workers to match
the correct fastener to the corresponding hole without first having to
transfer that information manually from their design instructions
“It’s a big improvement,” says Villanueva, whose first job in aerospace was
as a mechanic on a factory floor. “We didn’t have anything like that. We had
a six-inch scale and a number-two pencil. We had to lay everything out. I
remember using different colored markers for different types of fasteners.”
Villanueva later worked on Lockheed’s F-117 Nighthawk program for 24 years.
Earlier this year, the final four F-117 stealth aircraft retired from
service. Their retirement also marks the end of the company’s legacy of
analog manufacturing processes, which have shifted to digital.
Workers today sign in at computer workstations that assign them daily tasks.
Tools required for each job — the drill bits, the cutters — are already
packaged in kits that workers simply pull from nearby vending machines.
“Because they have to swipe their badge and tie back to the system they’re
using, we can do a better job in managing the inventory we need to support
the build of that airplane,” says Villanueva. That means the company can
track all the tools and replenish supplies with greater efficiency. Not
having copious amounts of supplies stored in the factory translates into
cost savings, officials point out.
To keep the line running steadily, Lockheed has been working to convince
partner nations to increase their advance orders for the aircraft. That
would reduce the price of the fighters for all potential buyers.
The United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia,
Denmark and Norway all have pledged funds to help develop the aircraft.
Singapore is said to be considering joining the program. Israel has proposed
a five-year defense plan that includes purchasing 25 JSF in 2012.
“Nobody wants to buy the aircraft that are close to the beginning [off the
production run] because they’re expensive,” says O’Bryan, drawing a timeline
chart that extends from present day to well into the 2020s.
“That’s our great challenge — to stop people from going to the right” and
waiting to buy the aircraft until after the company has hit full-rate
production. He adds that the company is developing a flat-rate price that
would cover all the aircraft.

The price tag of the F-35 remains a point of contention. The credibility of
various cost estimates has been questioned by various government audits.
Lockheed Martin says that the unit cost of the F-35A conventional fighter is
less than $50 million, in 2002 dollars, when the contract was initially
awarded. By the same accounting, the F-35B and F-35C are about $60 million
per copy.
In an audit last year, however, the Government Accountability Office
estimated that the F-35 could cost as much as $97.6 million apiece, in 2008
dollars. Norway recently asked the U.S. government to provide information on
a potential buy of 48 F-35s for delivery in 2016. Lockheed estimated that,
in 2008 dollars, each aircraft would cost $56.5 million, with an additional
$2.2 million for auxiliary mission equipment, such as pylons, rails and the
helmet-mounted display systems.
If the partner nations place early orders, those price tags could be
reduced, depending on the timing and the numbers of aircraft, Lockheed
officials say.
In preparation for a production ramp-up, Lockheed plant managers are working
with suppliers to set up what could be a highly complex supply chain, with
different parts and components arriving from various places around the
world. Northrop Grumman is building the center fuselage at its plant in
Palmdale, Calif. while BAE Systems is building the aft fuselage in
Samlesbury, England. Those fuselages will arrive here at the factory with
most of the systems installed.
Officials say that’s one of the challenges — ensuring all the pieces are
arriving where and when they’re supposed to be to support aircraft
production.
“I think we’ve pretty much figured what we’ve got to do here, how to tie all
those countries into that manufacturing process,” says Villanueva.
If the production line is maxed out in Fort Worth, the company has plans to
build a final assembly and checkout facility in Italy to help keep up with
orders. Workers there will produce the fighters at a lower rate, but they
will use the same tools found in the U.S. plant.
One controversial issue that has not yet been resolved is the engine of the
F-35. The Defense Department selected the F-135 engine manufactured by Pratt
and Whitney. The F-136 engine made by General Electric and Rolls Royce was
chosen as the back-up engine. But Pentagon officials later decided to kill
the GE engine to cut costs. Several members of Congress disagreed, and are
pushing to keep the second engine.
Lockheed officials say they are neutral on the issue but stress that they
don’t want any decision on the engines to add expenses or delay schedules in
the F-35 program. “We can’t absorb that kind of cost,” says O’Bryan.
While Lockheed presses forward with preparations for full-rate production of
the F-35, the program still faces political hurdles, including accusations
by Pentagon auditors that the company is not properly managing the project.
A November 2007 report by the Defense Contract Management Agency — which was
first obtained by the Project on Government Oversight — found that Lockheed
Martin’s military aircraft division was not compliant with
contractually-required industry guidelines for tracking and managing costs
called the “Earned Value Management System.” EVMS helps contractors and the
government spot potential cost problems before they balloon out of control.
DCMA looked at how Lockheed was managing the F-35, F-22 Raptor and F-16
programs. The agency said Lockheed was non-compliant in 19 of 32 industry
guidelines.
For example, the company used its “management reserve to alter internal and
subcontract performance levels and overruns,” said DCMA. Management reserves
are meant to be used to address unexpected issues, not to alter
subcontractor cost overruns. The report said that the improper use of the
management reserve ultimately led to a reduction in test planes and test
flights in the JSF program.
The decline of Pentagon and contractor emphasis on EVMS was “an unintended
consequence of 1990s acquisition reform,” James I. Finley, deputy
undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology, told POGO.
At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month,
Pentagon acquisition chief John Young said the DCMA report prompted an
extensive review of Lockheed’s fighter-aircraft programs. He said the
company agreed to a 12-step plan to address the issues that were raised by
DCMA. “We will withhold $10 million for every milestone that Lockheed
misses,” Young told the committee.
In response to questions from senators about the JSF, Young said the
Pentagon faces some tough decisions. If the Defense Department chooses to
slow down the program to conduct additional tests of the existing prototype
aircraft, it could add time and costs. If possible, the Pentagon wants to
transition to low-rate production and begin full production as currently
scheduled, with the knowledge that there are always risks involved, Young
said.

[Brewster Buffalo]

The estimated rate of procurement for the United Kingdom is modest starting in 2011 and not reaching double figures until 2016 with 12 per annum to 2023. So there will be over 10 years of deliveries.

[jindabyne]

SSSETOWTF (and Razor),

Well succinct, and most helpful - many thanks for taking the trouble.

[Modern Elmo]

I mean, how many targets can you destroy with a 2000lb JDAM that you're not going to wreck with a 1000lb JDAM??

Depends on whether or not you want to reach out and touch a rather deeply buried, hardened target.

[Engines]

Modern Elmo,

I agree with you, but here's the rub: targets can nearly always be hardened a bit more. (Another 6 feet of earth on top, say). So, you end up needing a 2,500 lb bomb. Or a 3,000 pounder. Or a 'Tallboy'. Or a 'Grand Slam'. And so on....

If you really want to 'reach out and touch' a target, capturing it and using demolition charges is often the most reliable way to do the job. Yes, more risk and harder to do, but dropping airborne explosives on to hardened targets is often an inefficient process.

'Air power' is not always the best option. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not.

[ORAC]

I have rarely seen an RAF FJ, Jag, Tornado, Harrier etc without a couple of external tanks in day to day operations - training or war. Clean wing might win out in the competition to buy, but doesn't last into service.

The biggest apparent downside, and I would love to be disabused, is that the wing pylons will be dry - hence external weapons, but not fuel. So you are looking at a jet with a short range and no way to extend it without AAR, which means a permissive, (air supremacy) environment.

The sensors depend on high bandwidth data-links. Please look at the latest reports concerning the work down to provide F-22 information outside the force. The required data-links are barely available within the US forces, taking L16 as an example you are looking at a minimum of 20-30 years, if ever, to allow other forces access to the technology.

The above, in the US forces, justify the fact that the performance is no higher than that of the F-16, no more is needed. Any other force operating the aircraft requiring to use external stores, fuel or weapons, without the permissive environment, will be operating an F-16 in a Mig-35/Typhoon environment....

Bottom line, if you are in a US aircraft, with all the data-links, data, and AAR , it's the ideal solution. For anyone else I would look very, very carefully at what, outside the basic system was guaranteed in the contract. The UK still hasn't got any firm commitments even on the software on the jet, let alone the links.

[glad rag]

ORAC thanks I have tried to convey this message several times, in the simplest of languages, but people will not listen.
No government will give away the top 10% of it's weapon systems performance to export.

NOT ONE!

glad rag

[Engines]

ORAC,

The F-35 has a very high fuel fraction compared with other aircraft - the F-35B has around 14,000 lb of fuel carried internally. For many missions, it will go clean. In addition, having bomb bays removes the drag (and fuel) penalty associated with external stores.

The inboard wing pylons are wet, and the drop tanks being designed for the aircraft are quite large. I don't know why this 'dry pylons' rumour keeps resurfacing, hopefully this reply may kill it off. F-35B AAR is via a neat retractable probe on the starboard side of the cockpit.

Data links - JSF has the standard Link 16 capabilities, but in addition has MADL (Mission Adaptive Data Link) for JSF to JSF data exchange. MADL modes and performance are classified, but it's a great deal 'fatter' a pipe than L16. Uk is getting MADL, and UK engineers are working on it at Fort Worth.

Bottom line - the deal we are getting on this jet is way better than you are suggesting. Perfect? No. But really quite good.

Best Regards

Engines

[ORAC]

I don't know why this 'dry pylons' rumour keeps resurfacing, hopefully this reply may kill it off. because a DoD contract update, which I have posted a couple of times but cannot locate at the moment, stated specifically that qualification of the wing pylons to carry fuel tanks was deleted from the test programme.

It didn't state state whether that was because of time, because they it was no longer required, or because they were taking out the piping for weight reasons etc. But I assure you the contract amendment was published.

If you can categorically state it is back in the programme, and where it was added back in, I will, as stated in my previous post, be more than happy to be disabused.

[Engines]

ORAC,

You are quite right that the qualification of the wing tanks on the pylons has been moved out of the currently contracted test programme. Driven by cost pressures, will be carried out at some time in the future tbd. (F-22 used a similar device to keep their flight test costs down).

But the F-35 inboard pylons are wet, and piping has been retained. The tanks have been designed and wind tunnel tested. Don't know if any have been built yet.

Hope this helps

Engines

[ORAC]

Data links - JSF has the standard Link 16 capabilities, but in addition has MADL (Mission Adaptive Data Link) for JSF to JSF data exchange. MADL modes and performance are classified, but it's a great deal 'fatter' a pipe than L16. Uk is getting MADL, and UK engineers are working on it at Fort Worth. See article below by Bill Sweetman.

F-22 and F-35 suffer from network gaps (http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/December/12132007/12132007-18.htm)

[Engines]

ORAC,

Bill Sweetman's article is pretty much on the money - 'network centric' is harder than people think.

However, (glass half full) JSF has MADL which is a significant advance on anything else we have in the inventory. Yes, it will be 'JSF to JSF' unless we start putting it on some other platforms. And there are some smart people working on that, I would think.

Best Regards

Engines

[Wrathmonk]

I also recall seeing somewhere, albeit on an unclassified site so it may be hoop, but because of the space required for the direct lift fan means that the STOVL variant won't be able to be fitted with new and novel weapons (directed energy etc) as this technology becomes available. Of course you could argue that this doesn't matter.

[hulahoop7]

Hi,

Is it likely that we will end up with more than 4 front line squadrons, and are they likely to remain at 9 or go up to 12? I'd suggest that we would need more to meet all the commitments. Maybe 2*12 FAA and 4*12 RAF?

Cheers

[LowObservable]

Good discussion, all in all.
The networking problem remains unsolved - the issue is that "netcentric stealth" makes as much sense as "Trappist talk radio" and that's all there is to it. The USAF's idea is to fit the MADL datalink on a Gulfstream sitting at FL500 and carrying a Babel Fish device which then pumps that data into the net.
The B has the same internal fuel fraction as an F-16 or Typhoon. Granted this includes four internal weapons, with some net drag reduction, but not a lot. There'e a reason that the jet looks like it's eaten a few too many cheeseburgers. I have no doubt that semiconformal carriage for AMRAAMs, for instance, is more efficient than an internal bay.
My understanding is that fuel tanks will be qualified for the B, but not the A & C, which have much more internal fuel. From a flexibility viewpoint, however, a disadvantage is that the F-35B only has a two-bag configuration available - most aircraft have one, two or three-tank options.