F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
PBL:
I've seen one instance where it seemed to work, 10-15 years ago, and am familiar with one that isn't working as well.
Not only is MTBF data counted (and if you don't have a five year average you can't even start, from what I have seen) but causation for removal/replacement of the more expensive bits needs to be understood to fold into the predictive models. That would give the logistician a fighting chance to estimate long lead time materials, to consider just one piece of the problem. There are others, to include suppliers suddenly becoming unqualified after an audit.
Is the F-35 mature enough for that kind of data driven logistics tail support? I can't see where the data would be coming from ...
I've seen one instance where it seemed to work, 10-15 years ago, and am familiar with one that isn't working as well.
Not only is MTBF data counted (and if you don't have a five year average you can't even start, from what I have seen) but causation for removal/replacement of the more expensive bits needs to be understood to fold into the predictive models. That would give the logistician a fighting chance to estimate long lead time materials, to consider just one piece of the problem. There are others, to include suppliers suddenly becoming unqualified after an audit.
Is the F-35 mature enough for that kind of data driven logistics tail support? I can't see where the data would be coming from ...
First, what O-P said,
Second,
Willard, agree.
Originally Posted by O-P
How does the DAS cope with IMC conditions? If it can't, they may as well leave it off the Northern European models. I imagine that a few lightning storms would cause a few wobbles too?
This thread has moved from being interesting & entertaining to boring and personal.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
I didn't mean low vis, I was talking about seeing through 40 000' of North Sea smeg. (smeg, in Scotland, isn't a brand of domestic appliance)
CM,
I'd imagine, that on the two days a year that you get a clear night in Scotland, the N Sea rigs will make the thingy go nuts! There is a finite point where detection range and false target rejection cross over. I hope those boundaries are adjustable depending on the theatre of Ops.
I imagine the HMD in Central Europe, on WW3 day one, would look like an American house at x-mas!!
I didn't mean low vis, I was talking about seeing through 40 000' of North Sea smeg. (smeg, in Scotland, isn't a brand of domestic appliance)
CM,
I'd imagine, that on the two days a year that you get a clear night in Scotland, the N Sea rigs will make the thingy go nuts! There is a finite point where detection range and false target rejection cross over. I hope those boundaries are adjustable depending on the theatre of Ops.
I imagine the HMD in Central Europe, on WW3 day one, would look like an American house at x-mas!!
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
...Not only is MTBF data counted (and if you don't have a five year average you can't even start, from what I have seen) but causation for removal/replacement of the more expensive bits needs to be understood to fold into the predictive models. That would give the logistician a fighting chance to estimate long lead time materials, to consider just one piece of the problem. There are others, to include suppliers suddenly becoming unqualified after an audit.
Is the F-35 mature enough for that kind of data driven logistics tail support? I can't see where the data would be coming from ...
Is the F-35 mature enough for that kind of data driven logistics tail support? I can't see where the data would be coming from ...
Serious question: Wouldn't that provide sufficient data to start populating a MTBF database with some degree of confidence?
I have never heard anything about DAS other than that it works in the midwave IR band (not the near-IR). It will be heavily affected by IMC, as will other IR devices.
My opinion (and that's all it is) is that all-round IR imaging per se will decline in value as digital night-vision devices - such as the Intevac product used on the JSF HMDS - are integrated into helmets. It's a simpler and lower-latency solution to pilot night vision.
The fixed IR sensor approach does have some advantages - it works in zero light level and you can see through the floor - but I doubt that they are worth the disadvantages of lower resolution and latency issues. At that point, you can go to a simpler (possibly uncooled) IR sensor for warning and tracking.
My opinion (and that's all it is) is that all-round IR imaging per se will decline in value as digital night-vision devices - such as the Intevac product used on the JSF HMDS - are integrated into helmets. It's a simpler and lower-latency solution to pilot night vision.
The fixed IR sensor approach does have some advantages - it works in zero light level and you can see through the floor - but I doubt that they are worth the disadvantages of lower resolution and latency issues. At that point, you can go to a simpler (possibly uncooled) IR sensor for warning and tracking.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first two production F-35s (AF-1 and AF-2) arrived at Edwards AFB on 17 May 2010, i.e. over five years ago (link). F-35s had clocked up over 15,000 flying hours by April last year (link) so the figure is liable to be significantly higher by now. There have been no incidences of in-air catastrophic failure as far as I can tell and the level of system instrumentation and monitoring has been unprecedented.
Serious question: Wouldn't that provide sufficient data to start populating a MTBF database with some degree of confidence?
Serious question: Wouldn't that provide sufficient data to start populating a MTBF database with some degree of confidence?
1. AF-1 and AF-2 were test aircraft without all of the F-35s complex systems. Those systems are certain to drive the availability and logistics support tail of the aircraft.
2. Even if those two aircraft were equipped with all the F-35s systems, it takes much more than two aircraft to generate the kind of data required by a predictive PBL program. For starters, the test and evaluation environment is nothing like the operational environment. PBL must predict and control the entire supply chain, which involves much more than simply having reliable MTBF data.
3. Early MTBF data is notoriously unreliable. It takes years to mature a product and the processes that build and support that product. The C-17 struggled with that for years, and many of its systems were already mature (the engines, major electrical and hydraulic components, radios, comms, etc). I can't think of a single system/subsystem on the F-35 that is not brand new. And a lot use newly developed technology that has no past history.
4. A huge part of PBL is the diagnostic systems used to detect and isolate faults, the systems used to repair those faults, and the systems used to recertify the part to return it to service. These systems take years to develop and mature. Just "swapping boxes" when they fail will kill a PBL program dead.
5. PBL must also take into account the operational environment. The logistic system that enables the contractor to guarantee (for example) 80% availibility in the continental US is very different than the logistics system in continental Europe, which is different than the logistics system when deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, which is different than the logistics system on board a carrier at sea, which is different than....you get the idea.
6. Tthe operational environment drives failure rates of many systems and components. For example, the salt air environment on a carrier will cause failures and generate servicing requirements that do not exist when operating out of New Mexico. The heat and sand environment in the middle east will drive different failures than those at sea. The cold in northern environments (Alaska, Northern Europe, etc) will result in different failures and failure rates. The stresses of carrier takeoffs and landings will drive all sorts of failures in the landing gear not experienced by USAF aircraft. And so it goes. It takes years of real world experience to generate the database that makes PBL possible. And each time you get a new customer or new operational environment, the database must be adjusted to take that into account. The database and the logistics system must also accommodate different block builds of the aircraft over time. So nothing is static and requires constant review and updates.
I hope this clarified.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, I didn't mean low vis, I was talking about seeing through 40 000' of North Sea smeg. (smeg, in Scotland, isn't a brand of domestic appliance)
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fixed IR sensor approach does have some advantages - it works in zero light level and you can see through the floor - but I doubt that they are worth the disadvantages of lower resolution and latency issues. At that point, you can go to a simpler (possibly uncooled) IR sensor for warning and tracking.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
Sorry about being so shabby and not answering your question earlier.
"Smeg" or "Smeggy" weather, is that dirty horrible cloud that stretches from the deck to the angels. It usually had a few VMC layers embedded in it, but nothing you could hang your hat on. It wasn't active enough to hold CB's, so just sat there for days. Sanctuary levels were very, very important!
Ever wondered why the Scots are so dour?
Sorry about being so shabby and not answering your question earlier.
"Smeg" or "Smeggy" weather, is that dirty horrible cloud that stretches from the deck to the angels. It usually had a few VMC layers embedded in it, but nothing you could hang your hat on. It wasn't active enough to hold CB's, so just sat there for days. Sanctuary levels were very, very important!
Ever wondered why the Scots are so dour?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North Sea "Smeg", which I've experienced nearly all of my flying career, is nothing more than a challenging weather phenomenon to visual and IR sensors. So, in the absence of a clear IR picture of what's out there you have EW and Radar to contribute (both off board and onboard).
The point is this - if something can target you in both the IR band and FOV of DAS you must assume it has LOS (pretty much), therefore the point (yet again) is moot - i.e. if it can't see you due to weather it can't target you so you win! EO-DAS is more than just a spectral contributor to SA, like all other sensors in the F-35. I can't say how good it is performing on a public forum but suffice it to say "it's impressive!" Please, shoot me down with your wise words of doubt if that's your deep-rooted agenda. Quote some public release saying EO-DAS is awful; I care not. Whatever folks. That sort of impression isn't representative of the truth; not by any stretch or clear margin of truth. Sorry but it isn't and i'm stating that for the record. No Kool-Aid, no BS.
Bottom line to the question presented - if you have a problem seeing something in the IR band through cloud then the enemy has the same (if not worse) issues seeing/targeting you. This assumes no radar, no cueing, no "other means."
The point is this - if something can target you in both the IR band and FOV of DAS you must assume it has LOS (pretty much), therefore the point (yet again) is moot - i.e. if it can't see you due to weather it can't target you so you win! EO-DAS is more than just a spectral contributor to SA, like all other sensors in the F-35. I can't say how good it is performing on a public forum but suffice it to say "it's impressive!" Please, shoot me down with your wise words of doubt if that's your deep-rooted agenda. Quote some public release saying EO-DAS is awful; I care not. Whatever folks. That sort of impression isn't representative of the truth; not by any stretch or clear margin of truth. Sorry but it isn't and i'm stating that for the record. No Kool-Aid, no BS.
Bottom line to the question presented - if you have a problem seeing something in the IR band through cloud then the enemy has the same (if not worse) issues seeing/targeting you. This assumes no radar, no cueing, no "other means."
The first two production F-35s (AF-1 and AF-2) arrived at Edwards AFB on 17 May 2010, i.e. over five years ago (link). F-35s had clocked up over 15,000 flying hours by April last year (link) so the figure is liable to be significantly higher by now. There have been no incidences of in-air catastrophic failure as far as I can tell and the level of system instrumentation and monitoring has been unprecedented.
Serious question: Wouldn't that provide sufficient data to start populating a MTBF database with some degree of confidence?
Serious question: Wouldn't that provide sufficient data to start populating a MTBF database with some degree of confidence?
You're right, Biggus, but LoneWolf does have a point. Surely there must be some production standard parts that belong to "standard aircraft" that have required replacement during testing? Even if it's just brakes, tyres, fluids, magic boxes, actuators, etc. it may not build a fully representative picture of training missions (although there have been some of those) or ops, but the data could get it started?
