F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Maus - It's funny to see the JPO's pre-emptive response while the kiddies on other boards are wailing about Congressional leaks.
The full report is a monster, BTW. It's even bigger than last year's 34-page opus. Most programs get two- or three-page reports.
The big problem with the DOT&E documents is that they are huge and densely packed with technical details that most media and political types don't understand (they don't fit into 140-character tweets).
And Gilmore himself is scrupulously non-political, and doesn't have a single communicator on his staff, while Bogdan is consummately so and has a few full-time PR folks, backed up by a cast of thousands on the contractor side.
PG - All aircraft being built now have the TR-2 processor hardware that runs 3i/3F. That's been the delivery standard for a couple of years.
The full report is a monster, BTW. It's even bigger than last year's 34-page opus. Most programs get two- or three-page reports.
The big problem with the DOT&E documents is that they are huge and densely packed with technical details that most media and political types don't understand (they don't fit into 140-character tweets).
And Gilmore himself is scrupulously non-political, and doesn't have a single communicator on his staff, while Bogdan is consummately so and has a few full-time PR folks, backed up by a cast of thousands on the contractor side.
PG - All aircraft being built now have the TR-2 processor hardware that runs 3i/3F. That's been the delivery standard for a couple of years.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anybody hates him, but I would prefer he posted here under his own name rather than surreptitiously.
That may sound a bit rich since I operate anonymously myself, and its a fair point, however I am not an aviation talking head who is mentioned on here regularly under my actual name.
That may sound a bit rich since I operate anonymously myself, and its a fair point, however I am not an aviation talking head who is mentioned on here regularly under my actual name.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/2015...onse-statement
Forget the words contained in this response. Look at the commercialism.
Five star General and two term US President, Dwight D. Eisenhower rolled over in his grave as the public statement by Lt. General Chris Bogan surrounded by Lockheed-Martin advertising represents the epitome of the Military-Industrial Complex that is apparently acceptable by the DoD in the US today. The Lockheed-Martin uniform Bogdan is wearing looks eerily similar to that of the USAF for which we support with our tax dollars. Is Bogdan working for L-M already?
Lockheed-Martin announced early this week they are selling their IT business to "concentrate" more on their military business. Too bad they didn't do this before participating in the JSF program, maybe the resulting F-35A, B & C would have come far closer to meeting overall expectations including program costs which American tax payers provide funding for.
TD
Forget the words contained in this response. Look at the commercialism.
Five star General and two term US President, Dwight D. Eisenhower rolled over in his grave as the public statement by Lt. General Chris Bogan surrounded by Lockheed-Martin advertising represents the epitome of the Military-Industrial Complex that is apparently acceptable by the DoD in the US today. The Lockheed-Martin uniform Bogdan is wearing looks eerily similar to that of the USAF for which we support with our tax dollars. Is Bogdan working for L-M already?
Lockheed-Martin announced early this week they are selling their IT business to "concentrate" more on their military business. Too bad they didn't do this before participating in the JSF program, maybe the resulting F-35A, B & C would have come far closer to meeting overall expectations including program costs which American tax payers provide funding for.
TD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I have my identity to hide, since in the real world I would have to be more circumspect about my opinions to not damage my chances of employment. Unfortunately that is the HR driven world we live in. Not towing the party line is considered a bad thing.
Here's the tl;dr of the JPO response.
It's old news. Nothing exciting to report.
But look over here! We actually DID GET SOME STUFF done, with a piffling few billion in R&D and production and who knows what in operational costs. Airplanes were built! Maintainers trained!
Oh by the way, the report is accurate. Just don't read the bits about how we prioritized schedules and spec compliance over delivering a product that works, or how 2B/3i can't be deployed in combat without supporting assets (not tankers, either).
We have TOO fixed SOME earlier problems and we're working REALLY REALLY hard on the others.
Please throw us more money as planned.
thxbai
the JPO
It's old news. Nothing exciting to report.
But look over here! We actually DID GET SOME STUFF done, with a piffling few billion in R&D and production and who knows what in operational costs. Airplanes were built! Maintainers trained!
Oh by the way, the report is accurate. Just don't read the bits about how we prioritized schedules and spec compliance over delivering a product that works, or how 2B/3i can't be deployed in combat without supporting assets (not tankers, either).
We have TOO fixed SOME earlier problems and we're working REALLY REALLY hard on the others.
Please throw us more money as planned.
thxbai
the JPO
Last edited by LowObservable; 31st Jan 2016 at 17:09.
PS - If the PA staff are reading this... not a good choice of photo. You should have had the PEO tieless and in shirtsleeves, personally delivering pizza to a roomful of perspiring, dedicated, midnight-oil-burning coders.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really is a turkey isn't it?
from the Link
Mission Data Load Development and Testing
• The F-35 relies on mission data loads—which are a compilation of the mission data files needed for operation of the sensors and other mission systems—to work in
conjunction with the system software data load to drive sensor search parameters and to identify and correlate sensor detections, such as threat and friendly radar signals. The U.S. Reprogramming Lab (USRL), a U.S. government lab, produces these loads for U.S. operational and training aircraft. Mission data optimization testing, which includes
both lab-testing and flight-testing, is conducted by an AirForce operational test unit augmented by Navy personnel.The unit provides the test plans to the DOT&E for approvaland independent oversight.
• Significant deficiencies exist in the USRL that preclude efficient development and adequate testing of effective mission data loads for Block 3F. Despite being provided a $45 Million budget in FY13, the program has still not designed, contracted for, and ordered the required equipment—a process that will take at least two years, not counting installation and check-out. In addition, despite theconclusions of a study by the Program Office indicating that substantial upgrades are needed to the laboratory’s hardware, the program is currently only pursuing a significantly lesser upgrade due to budgetary constraints
from the Link
Mission Data Load Development and Testing
• The F-35 relies on mission data loads—which are a compilation of the mission data files needed for operation of the sensors and other mission systems—to work in
conjunction with the system software data load to drive sensor search parameters and to identify and correlate sensor detections, such as threat and friendly radar signals. The U.S. Reprogramming Lab (USRL), a U.S. government lab, produces these loads for U.S. operational and training aircraft. Mission data optimization testing, which includes
both lab-testing and flight-testing, is conducted by an AirForce operational test unit augmented by Navy personnel.The unit provides the test plans to the DOT&E for approvaland independent oversight.
• Significant deficiencies exist in the USRL that preclude efficient development and adequate testing of effective mission data loads for Block 3F. Despite being provided a $45 Million budget in FY13, the program has still not designed, contracted for, and ordered the required equipment—a process that will take at least two years, not counting installation and check-out. In addition, despite theconclusions of a study by the Program Office indicating that substantial upgrades are needed to the laboratory’s hardware, the program is currently only pursuing a significantly lesser upgrade due to budgetary constraints
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks LO. Interesting reading.
It also points out the problems that can arise with heavily “integrated systems”. They can work fine and provide excellent results, however, If the is no federated backup you may have a system that can’t function when some piece is not on line. For example on an aircraft where you have to bring up the full mission computer just to talk on the UHF radio to tow the aircraft.
It also points out the problems that can arise with heavily “integrated systems”. They can work fine and provide excellent results, however, If the is no federated backup you may have a system that can’t function when some piece is not on line. For example on an aircraft where you have to bring up the full mission computer just to talk on the UHF radio to tow the aircraft.
Even though we could all read between the lines of the claimed USMC IOC the tone used in the official report is verging towards the damming end of the 'interesting' scale. The report could not even bring itself to call it an operational test, just a mere 'demonstration'.
I like the bit where if you think about using a bomber then take a real bomber with you to sort out the target coordinates and if you think about using it as a fighter then take some real fighter support with you to deal with the enemy fighters. Oh and if you think of doing this outside of USA then take most of LM with you. Although we would still have no idea if the mission data is valid, but we will warn you of that just so you know.
If you eject whilst out-of-control we have no idea what will happen, but we do know that in stabilised flight a typical 74 kg man will have 25% chance of death and 100% chance of a serious, perhaps life changing, neck injury; if you don't drown of course. Don't worry though as the JPO and your service has taken the 'risk', but not all stakeholders know how they have managed to do this….
I like the bit where if you think about using a bomber then take a real bomber with you to sort out the target coordinates and if you think about using it as a fighter then take some real fighter support with you to deal with the enemy fighters. Oh and if you think of doing this outside of USA then take most of LM with you. Although we would still have no idea if the mission data is valid, but we will warn you of that just so you know.
If you eject whilst out-of-control we have no idea what will happen, but we do know that in stabilised flight a typical 74 kg man will have 25% chance of death and 100% chance of a serious, perhaps life changing, neck injury; if you don't drown of course. Don't worry though as the JPO and your service has taken the 'risk', but not all stakeholders know how they have managed to do this….
Actually, the whole report is a bit of a horror story. I think we were all aware of most, if not all, of those issues, but seeing them all listed together and the analysis of the risks of each is, frankly, shocking.
What I haven't quite got my head around yet is the reality of the future timeline. The effect of current problems and change of effort on probable dates for various milestones is well described, but the complexity of the way so many threads interact makes it hard to see exactly where the risks in one thread affect the others, which affect others, etc.
It feels like a house of cards that already has major flaws in the lower layers.
What I haven't quite got my head around yet is the reality of the future timeline. The effect of current problems and change of effort on probable dates for various milestones is well described, but the complexity of the way so many threads interact makes it hard to see exactly where the risks in one thread affect the others, which affect others, etc.
It feels like a house of cards that already has major flaws in the lower layers.
Strangely, while not disputing the substance of the DOT&E report, the JPO implies that it is not the whole story, as if some other information would make it all seem acceptable. Whether all the knots will ever get untied, I don't know, but it will take much longer and cost much than many are willing to admit.
As a customer, I would be careful not commit to premature decommissioning of air assets that the JSF is supposed to replace. As a taxpayer, I wish we hadn't shut down the F-22 assembly line. The marginal cost of the F-22 will prove to be less than F-35, I'm afraid.
As a customer, I would be careful not commit to premature decommissioning of air assets that the JSF is supposed to replace. As a taxpayer, I wish we hadn't shut down the F-22 assembly line. The marginal cost of the F-22 will prove to be less than F-35, I'm afraid.
As a customer, I would also be highly suspicious of the block buy proposal. A great way to be stuck with a lot of useless airframes that require a lot of modification before they can be used operationally. Who would want to do that?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GN,
I really agree with you, especially the F-22 restart, even knowing the initial cost to do so will be high. More F-22s are needed to cover the F-35s fleeing from the air to ground attacks in the battlefield where air superiority isn't secured.
I really agree with you, especially the F-22 restart, even knowing the initial cost to do so will be high. More F-22s are needed to cover the F-35s fleeing from the air to ground attacks in the battlefield where air superiority isn't secured.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
........
In addition to the mission systems deficiencies cited above, the Block 2B fleet aircraft are restricted by fuel system deficiencies:
I have concerns about weight, when combining the following.
.....The program completed the final weight assessment of the F-35B air vehicle for contract specification compliance in May 2015 with the weighing of BF-44, a Lot 7 production aircraft. Actual empty aircraft weight was 32,442 pounds, only 135 pounds below the planned not-to-exceed weight of 32,577 pounds and 307 pounds (less than 1 percent) below the objective vertical lift bring-back not-to-exceed weight of 32,749 pounds.
- The program will need to continue disciplined management of weight growth for the F-35B, especially in light of the small weight margin available and the likelihood of continued discovery through the remaining two years of development in SDD......................
• F-35B durability test article (BH-1) completed 11,915 EFH by August 13, 2015, which is 3,915 hours (48.9 percent) into the second lifetime. The program completed the 11,000 hour data review on August 5, 2015.
- Two main wing carry-through bulkheads, FS496 and FS472, are no longer considered production-representative due to the extensive existing repairs. The program plans to continue durability testing, repairing the bulkheads as necessary, through the second lifetime (i.e., 8,001 through 16,000 EFH) which is projected to be complete in mid-2016.
- Prior to CY15, testing was halted on September 29, 2013, at 9,056 EFH, when the FS496 bulkhead severed, transferred loads to, and caused cracking in the adjacent three bulkheads (FS518, FS472, and FS450). The repairs and an adequacy review were completed on December 17, 2014, when the program determined that the test article could continue testing. Testing restarted on January 19, 2015, after a 16-month delay.
- The program determined that several of the cracks discovered from the September 2013 pause at 9,056 EFH were initiated at etch pits. These etch pits are created by the etching process required prior to anodizing the surface of the structural components; anodizing is required for corrosion protection. Since the cracks were not expected, the program determined that the etch pits were more detrimental to fatigue life than the original material design suggested. The program is currently developing an analysis path forward to determine the effect on the overall fatigue life.
- Discoveries requiring a pause in testing during CY15 include:
Then there is the matter of suitability for sea, do the QE and PoW have suitable lockers.....
.......▪ When the aircraft is wet it is extremely slippery. The F-35 sits higher off the deck than legacy aircraft so falls off of it can cause greater injury, or at sea, can lead to a man-overboard. This is exacerbated by the plastic booties maintainers are supposed to wear when working on the aircraft to protect the LO coatings. The detachment decided, for safety reasons, to allow maintainers to work on the aircraft without wearing these booties. The program should investigate alternate footwear to continue to protect aircraft LO coatings while also ensuring the safety of maintainers........
....The Navy made several modifications to the USS Wasp in order to support F-35B operations. The deployment demonstration provided the following observations on some of these ship modifications:
▪ Naval Sea Systems Command installed a Lithium-Ion battery charging and storage facility. The F-35 relies on 270 Volts-Direct-Current and 28 Volts-Fully-Charged Lithium-Ion batteries, and other assets that will deploy onboard L-class ships are also predicted to make greater use of Lithium-Ion batteries. However, Lithium-Ion batteries can catch fire under certain circumstances, especially during charging and, due to their chemical nature, cannot be extinguished but must burn themselves out. The storage facility consisted of racks of lockers that resembled ovens, each with its own exhaust system that could flue smoke and heat from a battery undergoing “thermal runaway.” Battery charging would occur only in these lockers......
- For the F-35A, the airspeed at which the weapons bay doors can be open in flight (550 knots or 1.2 Mach) is less than the maximum aircraft speed allowable (700 knots or 1.6 Mach). Such a restriction will limit tactics to employment of weapons at lower speeds and may create advantages for threat aircraft being pursued by the F-35A.
- For the F-35A, the airspeed at which countermeasures can be used is also less than the maximum speed allowable, again restricting tactical options in scenarios where F-35A pilots are conducting defensive manoeuvres.............
In addition to the mission systems deficiencies cited above, the Block 2B fleet aircraft are restricted by fuel system deficiencies:
- All variants of the fleet Block 2B aircraft are restricted from exceeding 3 gs in symmetric maneuvers when fully fueled in order to avoid exceeding the allowable pressure in the siphon fuel tanks. The allowable g increases as fuel is consumed. The program has developed and tested a hardware correction to the problem for the F-35B; corrections for the F-35A and F-35C are still in work.
I have concerns about weight, when combining the following.
.....The program completed the final weight assessment of the F-35B air vehicle for contract specification compliance in May 2015 with the weighing of BF-44, a Lot 7 production aircraft. Actual empty aircraft weight was 32,442 pounds, only 135 pounds below the planned not-to-exceed weight of 32,577 pounds and 307 pounds (less than 1 percent) below the objective vertical lift bring-back not-to-exceed weight of 32,749 pounds.
- The program will need to continue disciplined management of weight growth for the F-35B, especially in light of the small weight margin available and the likelihood of continued discovery through the remaining two years of development in SDD......................
• F-35B durability test article (BH-1) completed 11,915 EFH by August 13, 2015, which is 3,915 hours (48.9 percent) into the second lifetime. The program completed the 11,000 hour data review on August 5, 2015.
- Two main wing carry-through bulkheads, FS496 and FS472, are no longer considered production-representative due to the extensive existing repairs. The program plans to continue durability testing, repairing the bulkheads as necessary, through the second lifetime (i.e., 8,001 through 16,000 EFH) which is projected to be complete in mid-2016.
- Prior to CY15, testing was halted on September 29, 2013, at 9,056 EFH, when the FS496 bulkhead severed, transferred loads to, and caused cracking in the adjacent three bulkheads (FS518, FS472, and FS450). The repairs and an adequacy review were completed on December 17, 2014, when the program determined that the test article could continue testing. Testing restarted on January 19, 2015, after a 16-month delay.
- The program determined that several of the cracks discovered from the September 2013 pause at 9,056 EFH were initiated at etch pits. These etch pits are created by the etching process required prior to anodizing the surface of the structural components; anodizing is required for corrosion protection. Since the cracks were not expected, the program determined that the etch pits were more detrimental to fatigue life than the original material design suggested. The program is currently developing an analysis path forward to determine the effect on the overall fatigue life.
- Discoveries requiring a pause in testing during CY15 include:
- Cracking in the left- and right-hand side aft boom closeout frames, which are critical structural portions at the very aft of the airframe on each side of the engine nozzle, at 9,080 EFH. The cracks were not predicted by modeling and required a three-week pause in testing for repair, which consisted of a doubler (i.e., additional supporting element) as an interim fix to allow testing to continue. Designs for retrofitting and cut-in for production are under development.
- Damage to a significant number of Electro-Hydraulic Actuator System (EHAS) fasteners and grommets at 9,333 EFH. The EHAS drives the aircraft control surfaces based on the direction and demand input by the pilot through the control stick.
- Inspections in April 2015 revealed that cracks at four previously-identified web fastener holes near the trunnion lug of the FS496 bulkhead, a component integral to the bulkhead that supports the attachment of the main landing gear to the airframe, had grown larger. FS496 was previously identified as a life-limited part and will be modified as part of the life-limited modification plans for production aircraft in Lots 1 through 8, and a new production design cut into Lot 9 and later lot aircraft.
- Failure of the left 3-Bearing Swivel Nozzle door unlock in April 2015; requiring replacement prior to restarting testing in May 2015.
- Crack indication found at two fastener holes on the left side keel.
- Crack reoccurrence at the Station 3 pylon at 10,975 EFH.
- Cracks on the transition duct above the vanebox, a component of the lift fan, discovered in August 2015, requiring the jacks that transmit loads to the duct to be disconnected to allow cycling of the rest of the test article to continue.
- During the repair activity in September 2015, a crack was discovered in a stiffener on the right-hand side of the mid-fairing longhorn.
Then there is the matter of suitability for sea, do the QE and PoW have suitable lockers.....
.......▪ When the aircraft is wet it is extremely slippery. The F-35 sits higher off the deck than legacy aircraft so falls off of it can cause greater injury, or at sea, can lead to a man-overboard. This is exacerbated by the plastic booties maintainers are supposed to wear when working on the aircraft to protect the LO coatings. The detachment decided, for safety reasons, to allow maintainers to work on the aircraft without wearing these booties. The program should investigate alternate footwear to continue to protect aircraft LO coatings while also ensuring the safety of maintainers........
....The Navy made several modifications to the USS Wasp in order to support F-35B operations. The deployment demonstration provided the following observations on some of these ship modifications:
▪ Naval Sea Systems Command installed a Lithium-Ion battery charging and storage facility. The F-35 relies on 270 Volts-Direct-Current and 28 Volts-Fully-Charged Lithium-Ion batteries, and other assets that will deploy onboard L-class ships are also predicted to make greater use of Lithium-Ion batteries. However, Lithium-Ion batteries can catch fire under certain circumstances, especially during charging and, due to their chemical nature, cannot be extinguished but must burn themselves out. The storage facility consisted of racks of lockers that resembled ovens, each with its own exhaust system that could flue smoke and heat from a battery undergoing “thermal runaway.” Battery charging would occur only in these lockers......
Interesting about the thermal issue. We were told that it had been solved around Lot 3 with a new fuel pump, and when the Luke maintainers painted their fuel trucks white to alleviate JSF overheating, we were told that it wasn't a real problem.
And as for plastic booties? Weren't we just being reminded a few posts up about how rugged and damage-tolerant the new coatings are? And seriously, who the
thinks it's a good idea to stand on any airplane in the rain on a carrier deck with plastic bags on your feet?
And as for plastic booties? Weren't we just being reminded a few posts up about how rugged and damage-tolerant the new coatings are? And seriously, who the
thinks it's a good idea to stand on any airplane in the rain on a carrier deck with plastic bags on your feet?