F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
This is very interesting with reference to JSF onboard and offboard software, where delays and risks are still admitted to by the project office.
» Healthcare.gov and the Gulf Between Planning and Reality Clay Shirky
A few excerpts:
The preferred method for implementing large technology projects in Washington is to write the plans up front, break them into increasingly detailed specifications, then build what the specifications call for. It’s often called the waterfall method, because on a timeline the project cascades from planning, at the top left of the chart, down to implementation, on the bottom right.
Like all organizational models, waterfall is mainly a theory of collaboration. By putting the most serious planning at the beginning, with subsequent work derived from the plan, the waterfall method amounts to a pledge by all parties not to learn anything while doing the actual work. Instead, waterfall insists that the participants will understand best how things should work before accumulating any real-world experience, and that planners will always know more than workers.
(I would add that "waterfall" is pretty much how all major defense S/W is done.)
Intoning “Failure is not an option” will be at best useless, and at worst harmful. There is no “Suddenly Go Faster” button, no way you can throw in money or additional developers as a late-stage accelerant; money is not directly tradable for either quality or speed, and adding more programmers to a late project makes it later. You can slip deadlines, reduce features, or, as a last resort, just launch and see what breaks.
Ooops...
Lockheed Reassigns Workers to Fix F-35 Software | Military.com
» Healthcare.gov and the Gulf Between Planning and Reality Clay Shirky
A few excerpts:
The preferred method for implementing large technology projects in Washington is to write the plans up front, break them into increasingly detailed specifications, then build what the specifications call for. It’s often called the waterfall method, because on a timeline the project cascades from planning, at the top left of the chart, down to implementation, on the bottom right.
Like all organizational models, waterfall is mainly a theory of collaboration. By putting the most serious planning at the beginning, with subsequent work derived from the plan, the waterfall method amounts to a pledge by all parties not to learn anything while doing the actual work. Instead, waterfall insists that the participants will understand best how things should work before accumulating any real-world experience, and that planners will always know more than workers.
(I would add that "waterfall" is pretty much how all major defense S/W is done.)
Intoning “Failure is not an option” will be at best useless, and at worst harmful. There is no “Suddenly Go Faster” button, no way you can throw in money or additional developers as a late-stage accelerant; money is not directly tradable for either quality or speed, and adding more programmers to a late project makes it later. You can slip deadlines, reduce features, or, as a last resort, just launch and see what breaks.
Ooops...
Lockheed Reassigns Workers to Fix F-35 Software | Military.com
LO
In the software industry "Waterfall" is very much not the cool thing. It's "Agile" all over the place now because we all know waterfall is bad.
The problem is that people pretend to develop stuff in an agile way and yet really don't. Their entire modus operandi is to "promise the moon" to customers and once you've done that, what else can you do than set out on a waterfall approach - you can't reduce the scope of what you're doing because you've only got the contract based on your promises.
In the software industry "Waterfall" is very much not the cool thing. It's "Agile" all over the place now because we all know waterfall is bad.
The problem is that people pretend to develop stuff in an agile way and yet really don't. Their entire modus operandi is to "promise the moon" to customers and once you've done that, what else can you do than set out on a waterfall approach - you can't reduce the scope of what you're doing because you've only got the contract based on your promises.
It covers the human deficiency to deal with abstract desciptions how things will look like or work once complete.
That said it is surely not a suitable approach for huge monolithic complex Projects since it doesn't start from an integrated detailed design.
For those Waterfall will remain relvant for the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
'LowObservable' said above:
My question is: what is the estimate (given this statement about UK Ops) of the STOVL flying time be in the case of the UK?
"...And the UK CONOPS, as I understand it, requires almost equal at-sea and land-based time, so no dodging these costs as the Marines do, by only flying STOVL ten per cent of the time...."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
From around this post there was a 'PhillipG' question [ http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7812431 ] about the F-35 simulator. Necessarily the long winded excerpt is needed with otherwise 'the bad bits' missing. So best read it all at source.
Lockheed Installs F-35 Sims at New Training Site 26 Nov 2013 Dave Majumdar
Lockheed Installs F-35 Sims at New Training Site | USNI News
Lockheed Installs F-35 Sims at New Training Site 26 Nov 2013 Dave Majumdar
"Lockheed Martin is installing high-fidelity F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) full mission simulators (FMS) at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, S.C., in anticipation of the service’s Joint Strike Fighter training squadron moving to the base next year....
...Right now, pilots are testing the software loads on the two FMS simulators to make sure they work to the required specifications.
“We’ve got a test load of software in there and we’ve had pilots actually flying the test load to make sure our installation is solid,” Luntz said. “Then we will be installing the Block 2A software into the full mission simulator.”
Block 2A is the latest hardware and software configuration for the F-35 aircraft. It includes better air-to-air and air-to-surface modes and initial Multi-Function Advanced Data Link (MADL) capability and some simulated weapons.
The Block 2A software in the FMS is a re-hosted version of the same code that is on the actual F-35, Luntz said. In addition to the operational flight program for the jet, the FMS is installed with the same computer models that govern the functionality of real F-35 hardware.
For example, the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan uses a virtual model of a perfect engine to benchmark its performance—that same virtual model would be used in the simulator.
As the F-35 matures and further configuration blocks are completed, the FMS will be upgraded with the latest software. Luntz said that the current plan calls for the FMS to be upgraded with the Block 2B software prior to the USMC’s planned F-35B initial operational capability date in mid-2015.
“Our plan is to have that Block 2B full mission simulator software completed at the end of 2014, first quarter of 2015, so that we can support the training for the Marine Corps starting in April of 2015,” Luntz said.
Lockheed expects that the FMS is realistic enough that actual flying sorties in a real aircraft could be cut by 50 percent, he said....
...In the meantime, the software load in the simulators installed at the joint F-35 facility at Eglin AFB will be upgraded so that training can start with the jet’s upgraded Block 2A configuration on Dec. 2 of this year.
“We’ve got our courseware loaded and installed and ready to go for that at Eglin,” Luntz said. “The software for the full mission simulator will follow that very shortly.”
...Right now, pilots are testing the software loads on the two FMS simulators to make sure they work to the required specifications.
“We’ve got a test load of software in there and we’ve had pilots actually flying the test load to make sure our installation is solid,” Luntz said. “Then we will be installing the Block 2A software into the full mission simulator.”
Block 2A is the latest hardware and software configuration for the F-35 aircraft. It includes better air-to-air and air-to-surface modes and initial Multi-Function Advanced Data Link (MADL) capability and some simulated weapons.
The Block 2A software in the FMS is a re-hosted version of the same code that is on the actual F-35, Luntz said. In addition to the operational flight program for the jet, the FMS is installed with the same computer models that govern the functionality of real F-35 hardware.
For example, the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan uses a virtual model of a perfect engine to benchmark its performance—that same virtual model would be used in the simulator.
As the F-35 matures and further configuration blocks are completed, the FMS will be upgraded with the latest software. Luntz said that the current plan calls for the FMS to be upgraded with the Block 2B software prior to the USMC’s planned F-35B initial operational capability date in mid-2015.
“Our plan is to have that Block 2B full mission simulator software completed at the end of 2014, first quarter of 2015, so that we can support the training for the Marine Corps starting in April of 2015,” Luntz said.
Lockheed expects that the FMS is realistic enough that actual flying sorties in a real aircraft could be cut by 50 percent, he said....
...In the meantime, the software load in the simulators installed at the joint F-35 facility at Eglin AFB will be upgraded so that training can start with the jet’s upgraded Block 2A configuration on Dec. 2 of this year.
“We’ve got our courseware loaded and installed and ready to go for that at Eglin,” Luntz said. “The software for the full mission simulator will follow that very shortly.”
Agile development is really more suited for huge monolithic developments because those are the ones where people actually know least about what they're doing upfront. Creating a technology demonstrator is an example of an agile strategy.
Building a smaller modular ship before building an aircraft carrier would be another example. It's about finding an incremental path. If you try to do otherwise you just end up spending the money anyway and more on all the mistakes that you make but you haven't had a chance to limit the scope and cost of those mistakes.
Building a smaller modular ship before building an aircraft carrier would be another example. It's about finding an incremental path. If you try to do otherwise you just end up spending the money anyway and more on all the mistakes that you make but you haven't had a chance to limit the scope and cost of those mistakes.
Originally Posted by Squirrel41
The more you hear, the worse Dave-B gets.
The $36M is for more than the LiftFan as it includes support ('plus sustainment, program management, engineering and field support'), so its still not very clear.
Peter W - Not so. All customers buy via the USG, and under USG terms the LiftSystem is P&W's responsibility under its prime propulsion contract. RR's contracts come from P&W.
SS - As I understand it from a recent conference presentation, the idea is that the two operational squadrons in the currently planned 48-aircraft batch will both be fully trained for at-sea and land operations.
This implies that to keep current (and carrier ops as you know well are much more than landing and taking off) you would need to maintain one squadron on the carrier at all times. You would probably want to train occasionally with 18-24 jets aboard, if the idea is to keep that capability as an option. So, a lot of STOVL operation.
The Marines, by contrast, plan to have 340 aircraft. The normal complement aboard an LHA/LHD is six. Today there are eight Wasp LHDs in commission + the obsolete Tarawa-class Peleliu - the total is planned to rise once the second America-class is commissioned. Moreover, amphibs today don't always deploy with jets and this is likely to continue. Since austere-base ops are a PR job, this makes it unsurprising that the Marines estimate that only 10 per cent of ops will be STOVL.
SS - As I understand it from a recent conference presentation, the idea is that the two operational squadrons in the currently planned 48-aircraft batch will both be fully trained for at-sea and land operations.
This implies that to keep current (and carrier ops as you know well are much more than landing and taking off) you would need to maintain one squadron on the carrier at all times. You would probably want to train occasionally with 18-24 jets aboard, if the idea is to keep that capability as an option. So, a lot of STOVL operation.
The Marines, by contrast, plan to have 340 aircraft. The normal complement aboard an LHA/LHD is six. Today there are eight Wasp LHDs in commission + the obsolete Tarawa-class Peleliu - the total is planned to rise once the second America-class is commissioned. Moreover, amphibs today don't always deploy with jets and this is likely to continue. Since austere-base ops are a PR job, this makes it unsurprising that the Marines estimate that only 10 per cent of ops will be STOVL.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
'LowObservable' correct me if my assumptions are incorrect.
You seem to be saying that one F-35B squadron will be on a CVF at all times. AFAIK it is still undecided if two CVFs will be in service, meaning that one would be available most of the time, with one in reserve/maintenance. I do not think if two CVFs are available that one will be at sea all the time. How much at sea time I do not guess at - perhaps you have been briefed on that in your recent conference presentation attendance (which was wot/where pray tell)?
Then with USMC 10% F-35B STOVL Ops you seem to imply that only 10% of total missions will be STOVL (either ashore or afloat). IF this is the case then not all that mission time will be Mode 4 STOVL - my guess then is that 1% of the time will be in STOVL mode. Does my assumption accord with yours in this case?
It has been made clear that ashore the USMC will be landing on runways in conventional mode (non-STOVL) with occasional STOVL/RVL/VL landings for practice (because these are easy in the F-35B and it is easy to remain current it is thought - unlike Harrier Ops). Also use of the FMS simulators will allow fewer actual sorties to remain current (along with real sorties) in STOVL ops.
Apart from exercises why would the USMC want to operate from 'austere-bases', unless required to do so in wartime situations. The USMC have implied that more F-35Bs, rather than less, will be onboard LHAs as I understand, because these aircraft have more capabilities than AV-8Bs. As an aside it is stated that USS America can embark 19-20 F-35Bs if required.
And lastly why would USMC 'austere-base' exercises be "PR Jobs"? If that is the case then any exercise by any armed forces are in effect just 'PR Jobs'? What a funny attitude you have - especially of course to the USMC - and now by implication to any other users of the F-35B. What gives?
You seem to be saying that one F-35B squadron will be on a CVF at all times. AFAIK it is still undecided if two CVFs will be in service, meaning that one would be available most of the time, with one in reserve/maintenance. I do not think if two CVFs are available that one will be at sea all the time. How much at sea time I do not guess at - perhaps you have been briefed on that in your recent conference presentation attendance (which was wot/where pray tell)?
Then with USMC 10% F-35B STOVL Ops you seem to imply that only 10% of total missions will be STOVL (either ashore or afloat). IF this is the case then not all that mission time will be Mode 4 STOVL - my guess then is that 1% of the time will be in STOVL mode. Does my assumption accord with yours in this case?
It has been made clear that ashore the USMC will be landing on runways in conventional mode (non-STOVL) with occasional STOVL/RVL/VL landings for practice (because these are easy in the F-35B and it is easy to remain current it is thought - unlike Harrier Ops). Also use of the FMS simulators will allow fewer actual sorties to remain current (along with real sorties) in STOVL ops.
Apart from exercises why would the USMC want to operate from 'austere-bases', unless required to do so in wartime situations. The USMC have implied that more F-35Bs, rather than less, will be onboard LHAs as I understand, because these aircraft have more capabilities than AV-8Bs. As an aside it is stated that USS America can embark 19-20 F-35Bs if required.
And lastly why would USMC 'austere-base' exercises be "PR Jobs"? If that is the case then any exercise by any armed forces are in effect just 'PR Jobs'? What a funny attitude you have - especially of course to the USMC - and now by implication to any other users of the F-35B. What gives?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
And lastly why would USMC 'austere-base' exercises be "PR Jobs"? If that is the case then any exercise by any armed forces are in effect just 'PR Jobs'? What a funny attitude you have - especially of course to the USMC - and now by implication to any other users of the F-35B. What gives?
I take it from LO's comments that the USMC will not routinely be doing STOVL with their Dave-Bs, and that as a result, the wear and tear on LiftSystem (TM) will be much lower and less expensive to maintain than the UK ones where a much greater proportion of sorties will be STOVL. This will be expensive for the UK!
S41
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
'Squirrel 41' I'm glad to concur with your assessment of 'Engines and Mr. Farley' with no offence to 'JTO' (I would have to search the forum for those 'JTO' posts but do not know enough to assess 'JTO'). As for 'LO'. Wot?
As for the rubbery assumptions (except for a statement that '10% of USMC Ops will be STOVL' which has never been sorted out to my mind, what that means in 'STOVL Mode 4 flight time') in this thread about percentage of STOVL Ops flight time, for different operators, that again is in the eye of the beholder - much the same as any assessment of any input on this forum. And I do not take myself nor anyone else here that seriously - seriously. However I try to support my assertions here with articles/reports etc from those who are likely to know. And if the named persons above are who they purport to be then, from their assertions, one can gain good knowledge and I respect them for providing that info. Again any input from the '30 year student of LO' that 'LO' has claimed - nuhuh - with constant bias at least against USMC ('liar liars'). Puhleeze and if you want to be all serious then be our guest 'Squirrel41'.
As for the rubbery assumptions (except for a statement that '10% of USMC Ops will be STOVL' which has never been sorted out to my mind, what that means in 'STOVL Mode 4 flight time') in this thread about percentage of STOVL Ops flight time, for different operators, that again is in the eye of the beholder - much the same as any assessment of any input on this forum. And I do not take myself nor anyone else here that seriously - seriously. However I try to support my assertions here with articles/reports etc from those who are likely to know. And if the named persons above are who they purport to be then, from their assertions, one can gain good knowledge and I respect them for providing that info. Again any input from the '30 year student of LO' that 'LO' has claimed - nuhuh - with constant bias at least against USMC ('liar liars'). Puhleeze and if you want to be all serious then be our guest 'Squirrel41'.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Thanks 'alfred the great' for that info. So we can carry out some rubbery maths of 220 days per year at sea (with only one CVF available at any one time). Not all days will be flying days most likely. What is a guesstimate for that statistic? How many F-35Bs will be aboard in this first 3 year period? I guess there will be surge exercises with a lesser usual number for long cruises, showing the flag and scaring the natives.
For onboard CVF F-35B ops once trials and deck quals complete then I would imagine out of an hour sortie that only five minutes will be in STOVL mode. One minute for short take off and four minutes for a VL (with any SRVLs perhaps upping that time a little perhaps - whereas we are told SRVLs will ease engine loads but increase brake maintenance perhaps).
Not forgetting it is likely the CVFs will have at least one portable FMS onboard to also help 'remaining current requirements' to be eased.
For onboard CVF F-35B ops once trials and deck quals complete then I would imagine out of an hour sortie that only five minutes will be in STOVL mode. One minute for short take off and four minutes for a VL (with any SRVLs perhaps upping that time a little perhaps - whereas we are told SRVLs will ease engine loads but increase brake maintenance perhaps).
Not forgetting it is likely the CVFs will have at least one portable FMS onboard to also help 'remaining current requirements' to be eased.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 27th Nov 2013 at 22:19. Reason: portapottyFMS added
We...
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8139965
Was I referring to LM? Please learn to read. It saves bunches of time. I may sound harsh but so many of your comments are based on misread information.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8139965
Was I referring to LM? Please learn to read. It saves bunches of time. I may sound harsh but so many of your comments are based on misread information.
Last edited by LowObservable; 28th Nov 2013 at 01:51.