F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[sandiego89]

Spaz.... http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...2016f35jsf.pdf

Lots of interesting stuff in that report. Really highlights how much more still needs to be done/fixed, and numerous potential problems down the road.


For some reason empty weight caught my eye in making me truly appreciate how big and heavy this thing is- and I know there have been numerous debates about performance perhaps being lacking, but it is indeed quite impressive that anything this heavy can do what it can do on a single engine.


Actual empty weights as per the report:
A 28,999 pounds (AF-72)
B 32,442 pounds (BF-44)
C 34,581 pounds (CF-28)


Those empty weights are @ F-15E territory.

[Just This Once...]

It's not really that much bigger than an F-16 (although it is rather fat round the middle) and yes, it really is rather heavy.

[2805662]

http://www.janes.com/article/66908/lockheed-martin-delivers-200th-f-35-fighter?utm_campaign=%5BPMP%5D_PC5308_Jane%27s%20360%2013.01 .20171_KP_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

"The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme passed a milestone in early 2017 with the delivery of the 200th aircraft, it was announced on 12 January."

[Martin the Martian]

Getting costs down AND making it even better?

Isn't that like lowering taxes AND increasing spending?

I've never understood how that works either.

[A_Van]

Referring to the F-35 part of the DOTE 2016 annual report:

Can't judge about mechanics and likes, but on the software side (both flight s/w and JSE) the problem seems to be rather universal (worldwide).
Too much critrical software in such modern systems, while most of the talented guys prefer to go to googles, apples, yahoos, etc.

[Bing]

Too much critrical software in such modern systems, while most of the talented guys prefer to go to googles, apples, yahoos, etc.

The guys at google, apple, etc aren't that talented. Most of Google's software is permanently in beta and the 'rocket scientists' at Uber have so far managed a self-driving car that can knock down cyclists and which they tried to claim wasn't self-driving to get round Californian law. Apple are responsible for iTunes which is basically a virus with mouse support.
It may just be that writing critical software that doesn't have glitches is really really hard.

[MSOCS]

Bing,

Bingo!

[ORAC]

It's not that it is necessarily hard - but in the commercial market place it is unnecessary.

As Microsoft found, there is no money in fixing bugs, nobody will pay for a fixed version, they want new features. So you work on a new product and only fix the critical ones.

Accepted it doesn't work that way for safety critical systems, but horses for courses and you won't find any commercial PC or phone running ADA......

[A_Van]

OK, I respect your opinion, but still have mine. I wonder if you are in high-tech s/w business now to be so sure? I am, for many years after my retirement, and I see and periodically hear about that in many countries around the world. Even some 15-20 years ago it was already the case at NASA and some its primes which I worked with.

I have no time to thoroughly look for some recent numbers, but the following article dated 2008 is still valid I think:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/us/25engineercnd.html

There, Paul Kaminski is mentioned - a person whom I respect greatly and who managed to raise the bar for advanced software technologies very high when he was Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (mid 90's).


Here is an excerpt from the above article with some numbers (NYT, not a Russian propaganda :-) I also hope you know what is M.I.T.


---
"At M.I.T., a 2007 survey showed 28.7 percent of undergraduates were headed for work in finance, 13.7 in management consulting but just 7.5 percent in aerospace and defense. The top 10 employers included McKinsey, Google, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bain, JP Morgan and Oracle — but not a single defense contractor or government office.
The same survey showed the average annual starting salary in finance and high-tech was more than $70,000, compared with $37,000 at the Defense Department. The average in the defense industry was $61,000.
MIT does not have comparable survey data for 10 or 15 years ago, but officials there say the trend is unmistakeable."

[Lonewolf_50]

If I may tag on to A Van's point.

Just under two decades ago I was working on acquisition projects directly associated with an aerospace OEM. The DoD requirements for CMM (Capability Maturity Model) for critical software development had levels 1-5. The OEM we were working for was trying mightily to achieve the level 3 as a milestone for an APN-1 acquisition program. (This is late 90's when the software/tech bubble had not yet burst)


Their constant frustration was that it was damnably hard for them to attract and keep the talent levels (from new talent to mature/experienced talent with years of programming experience) available in the labor market.


I don't know how much that has changed. I do know that there is an attraction in the Silicon Valley culture to get on with a start up in hopes that one's shares do for you what Google shares did for those who got in on the ground floor: earn you a tidy sum when that start up goes public.


Also attractive to some programmers is writing "that one app" that everyone uses and getting well paid for that. That's attractive from both the creative and the monetary perspective.

Being salaried and working for a medium sized or large company does not necessarily offer those kinds of rewards. (A friend of mine who works in computer game development has shared with me how very satisfying it is when the game "goes gold" and they can start producing discs for what will end up on the shelf ... though now a lot of games are streamed/downloaded rather than sold in a box).

I don't know the current state of play in the software/programmer labor market, but I'll guess it hasn't changed that much.

Also, what Bing said. Writing clean code for complex, interrelated systems with flight safety implications is hard. This from a few of my friends who are in the programming business.

[Al R]

Lockheed Martin CEO: Close to deal to lower F-35 costs, add 1,800 jobs - Business Insider

[ORAC]

Lowering costs at the same time as adding 1800 jobs does seem somewhat problematical.

[Al R]

It makes you wonder where the money for the next round of R&D is going to come from.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Al R

It makes you wonder where the money for the next round of R&D is going to come from.

Please pardon my cynicism, but if recent history is anything to go by, the government will just print it.

[The Sultan]

The new Republican budget adds 9 TRILLION dollars to the US deficit before tax cuts so money no issue. Any F-35 cost reductions will come by eliminating needed capability. So that cost lives, the Republicans don't care because they are not going to be on the front lines risking their lives. Added plus it will make their new buddy Putin happy.

The Sultan

[Maus92]

Originally Posted by sandiego89

Lots of interesting stuff in that report. Really highlights how much more still needs to be done/fixed, and numerous potential problems down the road.


For some reason empty weight caught my eye in making me truly appreciate how big and heavy this thing is- and I know there have been numerous debates about performance perhaps being lacking, but it is indeed quite impressive that anything this heavy can do what it can do on a single engine.


Actual empty weights as per the report:
A 28,999 pounds (AF-72)
B 32,442 pounds (BF-44)
C 34,581 pounds (CF-28)


Those empty weights are @ F-15E territory.

The report mentions that it is expected that F-35B will exceed its threshold weight numbers when incorporating modifications necessary for version 3F at the end of SDD.

[SpazSinbad]

Is this the reference text that 'Maus92' has cited?

"...Weight management of the F-35B aircraft is critical to meeting the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD), including the Vertical Landing Bring-Back (VLBB) requirement, which will be evaluated during IOT&E. This KPP requires the F-35B to be able to fly an operationally representative profile and recover to the ship with the necessary fuel and balance of unexpended weapons (two 1,000-pound bombs and two AIM-120 missiles) to safely conduct a vertical landing.

▪▪ 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 VLBB not‑to‑exceed weight of 32,749 pounds.

▪▪ The actual weights of production aircraft through Lot 8 have increased slightly, with the latest Lot 8 aircraft weighing approximately 30 pounds heavier than BF-44. Weight estimates for Lot 10 aircraft and later project weight growth of an additional 90 pounds, primarily due to additional EW equipment.

▪▪ Known modifications to the 14 Lot 2 through 4 F-35B aircraft, required to bring those aircraft to the Block 3F configuration, are expected to potentially add an additional 350 pounds, which will push their weight above the objective not-to-exceed weight to meet the VLBB KPP. This KPP will be evaluated during IOT&E with an F-35B OT aircraft.

▪▪ Estimates for FoM weight growth include an additional 250 pounds, which will exceed the vertical landing structural limit not-to-exceed weight of 33,029 pounds for the Lot 2 through Lot 4 aircraft. This additional weight may prevent these aircraft from being upgraded to the Block 4 configuration...." page 63

[glad rag]

The F35, the return of the lead sled.

A awful lot of estimation going on Re weight and weight growth, it will be illuminating to see what actually happens in the real world on the scales...

[riff_raff]

Originally Posted by The Sultan

The new Republican budget adds 9 TRILLION dollars to the US deficit before tax cuts so money no issue. Any F-35 cost reductions will come by eliminating needed capability. So that cost lives, the Republicans don't care because they are not going to be on the front lines risking their lives. Added plus it will make their new buddy Putin happy.

The Sultan

Say what? Do you even understand how the US federal government budget process works?

First, there is no such thing as a "Republican budget". The US budget is defined by a federal law passed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress each year and signed by the President. The US budget becomes effective at the start of the fiscal year on October 1st.

Second, the FY 2017 US federal budget deficit is estimated to be approximately $560 billion, and not the $9 trillion that you claim.

Third, the portion of the US federal budget spent on defense is only around 18% of the total.

[RAFEngO74to09]

F-35As from 388 FW arriving at Nellis AFB for Ex REDG FLAG 17-1.

An unusually rainy day for my part of the world - hopefully bodge tape is not required around the cockpit frame edge like some UK jets I remember !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rACWl1zRVaQ