F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Originally Posted by Engines
Oh, and along the way, developing a true leap forward in a new control system philosophy for carrier landings - just watch this again and look at how EVERY control surface is working away to give the pilots the easiest possible landings....which is the best possible outcome.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
I'd gently point out that we're not mentioning it's 10 years late, because it's not 10 years late.
I joined the programme in 2002, when we had an IOC for the F-35C that was 'around 2015', according to my own records of the programme briefs. The original batting order for the variants was A, B and then C. The B moved to the front of the queue in 2004 when the programme was rejigged to cope with the very severe weight problem facing all 3 variants. As the B had the biggest problem, it was nominated as the 'lead variant', so that the solutions could be fed into the A and C. From that point on, the batting order was B,A then C. As the programme has gone forwards, the gap between B,A and C IOC dates has closed.
The USN has always maintained that they would transition from F/A-18E/F to F-35C 'when the F-35C was ready', and have kept their timing options open. In my view (and thats all it is) that was a smart move.
Nearly all military aircraft programmes in the West have been late and well over cost. Reasons? Many. For my money, there's a well documented tendency for programmes to start with unduly optimistic estimates for cost and schedule. Typhoon was around 8 years late to original planed IOC. Tornado was around 5 years late. F-22 was around 6 years late. C-17 was late. And so on and so forth.
F-35C had a well publicised issue with the arresting gear, which they solved. They have also managed to get the approach speed down to an acceptable value that the arresting gear can cope with. They've also taken the art and science of carrier landing control technology a giant leap forwards. That will save lives and improve combat effectiveness. What I was trying to do, as an ex-member of the F-35 team, was to gently point out that they have achieved a great deal that many observers once said was impossible. Perhaps it might be nice once in a while to offer a gentle 'well done people'.
Or not.
Best Regards (from me) as ever to all those actually doing it for real now,
Engines
I'd gently point out that we're not mentioning it's 10 years late, because it's not 10 years late.
I joined the programme in 2002, when we had an IOC for the F-35C that was 'around 2015', according to my own records of the programme briefs. The original batting order for the variants was A, B and then C. The B moved to the front of the queue in 2004 when the programme was rejigged to cope with the very severe weight problem facing all 3 variants. As the B had the biggest problem, it was nominated as the 'lead variant', so that the solutions could be fed into the A and C. From that point on, the batting order was B,A then C. As the programme has gone forwards, the gap between B,A and C IOC dates has closed.
The USN has always maintained that they would transition from F/A-18E/F to F-35C 'when the F-35C was ready', and have kept their timing options open. In my view (and thats all it is) that was a smart move.
Nearly all military aircraft programmes in the West have been late and well over cost. Reasons? Many. For my money, there's a well documented tendency for programmes to start with unduly optimistic estimates for cost and schedule. Typhoon was around 8 years late to original planed IOC. Tornado was around 5 years late. F-22 was around 6 years late. C-17 was late. And so on and so forth.
F-35C had a well publicised issue with the arresting gear, which they solved. They have also managed to get the approach speed down to an acceptable value that the arresting gear can cope with. They've also taken the art and science of carrier landing control technology a giant leap forwards. That will save lives and improve combat effectiveness. What I was trying to do, as an ex-member of the F-35 team, was to gently point out that they have achieved a great deal that many observers once said was impossible. Perhaps it might be nice once in a while to offer a gentle 'well done people'.
Or not.
Best Regards (from me) as ever to all those actually doing it for real now,
Engines
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Is it not a Defence truism that everything takes twice as long and costs twice as much?
Sadly that experience never permeates down to the optimistic initial estimates
Sadly that experience never permeates down to the optimistic initial estimates
F-35C had a well publicised issue with the arresting gear, which they solved. They have also managed to get the approach speed down to an acceptable value that the arresting gear can cope with. They've also taken the art and science of carrier landing control technology a giant leap forwards. That will save lives and improve combat effectiveness. What I was trying to do, as an ex-member of the F-35 team, was to gently point out that they have achieved a great deal that many observers once said was impossible. Perhaps it might be nice once in a while to offer a gentle 'well done people'.
Or not.
Or not.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I joined the programme in 2002, when we had an IOC for the F-35C that was 'around 2015'"
Pity they never told the rest of us..............
Saying "it always happens" seems a pretty poor excuse to the poor tax-payer
Pity they never told the rest of us..............
Saying "it always happens" seems a pretty poor excuse to the poor tax-payer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T43562,
Thanks for coming back. I understand where you are coming from, but what I was trying to do (and clearly failing, for which my apologies) was to express some sense of appreciation for the achievements of the engineers involved, not the companies.
They are real people, like you and me. They work damn hard with little recognition. I can most definitely assure you that they do their work for a fraction of the money other professions get. They assume very large responsibility, are always being pressed for time, and constantly being asked to do stuff that no-one else in the world has ever done.
They have to put up with legions of managers, accountants and senior execs, all of whom have little or no idea of how damn hard the engineers' jobs are. Their main aim often appears to make the job even harder. But that is life on a large engineering project, and these people put up with it. And the F-35 is just about the biggest engineering programme in the world. It's Formula 1 level engineering on a mass scale, with the added problem that the vehicle falls out of the sky if it doesn't work properly.
And here's the thing. I went to 'work' over there fresh out of the UK services, with really no idea how hard the job was going to be. I must have been a constant hindrance, but I was met and treated with unfailing courtesy, forbearance, friendship and professional respect. The engineers didn't have time to backstab, gossip or plot - they just rolled up our sleeves and worked as a team to achieve the aim. It was a great place to be, and I'm proud of what the team has done.
Did things go wrong? Yes. Were mistakes made? Of course - we're humans beings. Did it take longer than the high priced execs said it would? Oh yes. And cost more? Yes.
But, I gently suggest, none of that stops us (if we are minded) to recognise and salute one hell of a technical achievment thats being delivered in front of us right now. With lots of British engineers fully involved. That's worth a small well done, isn't it?
Come on - you know you can do it.
Best regards as ever to all those who put up with me on the programme,
Engines
Thanks for coming back. I understand where you are coming from, but what I was trying to do (and clearly failing, for which my apologies) was to express some sense of appreciation for the achievements of the engineers involved, not the companies.
They are real people, like you and me. They work damn hard with little recognition. I can most definitely assure you that they do their work for a fraction of the money other professions get. They assume very large responsibility, are always being pressed for time, and constantly being asked to do stuff that no-one else in the world has ever done.
They have to put up with legions of managers, accountants and senior execs, all of whom have little or no idea of how damn hard the engineers' jobs are. Their main aim often appears to make the job even harder. But that is life on a large engineering project, and these people put up with it. And the F-35 is just about the biggest engineering programme in the world. It's Formula 1 level engineering on a mass scale, with the added problem that the vehicle falls out of the sky if it doesn't work properly.
And here's the thing. I went to 'work' over there fresh out of the UK services, with really no idea how hard the job was going to be. I must have been a constant hindrance, but I was met and treated with unfailing courtesy, forbearance, friendship and professional respect. The engineers didn't have time to backstab, gossip or plot - they just rolled up our sleeves and worked as a team to achieve the aim. It was a great place to be, and I'm proud of what the team has done.
Did things go wrong? Yes. Were mistakes made? Of course - we're humans beings. Did it take longer than the high priced execs said it would? Oh yes. And cost more? Yes.
But, I gently suggest, none of that stops us (if we are minded) to recognise and salute one hell of a technical achievment thats being delivered in front of us right now. With lots of British engineers fully involved. That's worth a small well done, isn't it?
Come on - you know you can do it.
Best regards as ever to all those who put up with me on the programme,
Engines
The video show an impressive amount of control-waggling (to use the technical term) on the approach to the deck. Humour me, for I am no pilot - but is the pilot monitoring the approach, letting the computer(s) do their thing until touchdown? How much stick-input is involved? If the normal approach phase is largely automated, presumably the aircrew practice manually-controlled approaches to cater for possible control-degradation scenarios?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Video has Tom Morgenfeld ex-USN ex-LM test pilot explaining briefly the origins of 'AutoMAGIC' (his term) via the X-35C doing FCLP which he claims the FnA 18 team stole to then name as 'MAGIC CARPET'. Anyway the F-35s use IDLC Integrated Direct Lift Control to HEAVE the aircraft up and down to maintain glideslope almost instantaneously (pilot reports); with the combination of ailerons and half flaps moving (to full) as required to achieve, via computer flight controls and auto throttle to maintain Opt AoA Optimum Angle of Attack, whilst at maximum carrier landing weight, the 145 KIAS, which is below the ship gear breaking point.
Anyway there are plenty of video briefs given by USN test pilots about this from recent TAILHOOK conventions. Just say the word and I'll post 'em. This one is for the oldies who might know Tom....
Anyway there are plenty of video briefs given by USN test pilots about this from recent TAILHOOK conventions. Just say the word and I'll post 'em. This one is for the oldies who might know Tom....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
I owe you a reply on your post. First, you got me. Age and infirmity will do that. Yes, the schedules you posted are the first approved SDD schedules. IOCs were originally 2010 for B, 2011 for A and 2012 for C, with first flights in order A, B and C.
So what went wrong? Plenty is the straight and honest answer, which you deserve. But I stick by my opinion (and that all it is, remember - we can all have those) that these original schedules were hopelessly optimistic, even if we hadn't hit any problems. Why? Above my pay grade, all I can offer is a generalisation that any big programmes have to offer what the politicos want to hear to get the funds - at the time, the big buzzword was, as I remember (probably badly), 'transformational'. The JSF programme was going to deploy all sorts of 'transformational' techniques to cut down the time to IOC. Some of them worked, but to be honest, quite a few didn't.
My take (informed by working with some very experienced and talented engineers) was that the 'real' USMC IOC was always 2012 at the earliest. The weight problems that emerged in 2004 added at least 2 years to the programme (again my view), with further delays mainly due to a combination of slower than expected mission system software development and much more flight testing than was originally planned.
In the event, the programme has got to USAF IOC in 15 years instead of the planned 10. And yes, i know many will point out that it's a limited capability that's been declared. They're right. But 'limited' or 'political' IOCs aren't exactly a US speciality.
Once again, and then I'll shut up. I'm just trying (and failing) to point out that the F-35 team have achieved a hell of a lot as quickly as anyone else could have, deploying some serious talent, determination and sheer intellectual horsepower along the way. Some of this team are Brits, who deserve some recognition. I hope they get it, but it will probably won't be here. That's fine, too - it's a free forum.
Less from me now,
Best Regards as ever to the engineers struggling to meet insane schedules,
Engines
I owe you a reply on your post. First, you got me. Age and infirmity will do that. Yes, the schedules you posted are the first approved SDD schedules. IOCs were originally 2010 for B, 2011 for A and 2012 for C, with first flights in order A, B and C.
So what went wrong? Plenty is the straight and honest answer, which you deserve. But I stick by my opinion (and that all it is, remember - we can all have those) that these original schedules were hopelessly optimistic, even if we hadn't hit any problems. Why? Above my pay grade, all I can offer is a generalisation that any big programmes have to offer what the politicos want to hear to get the funds - at the time, the big buzzword was, as I remember (probably badly), 'transformational'. The JSF programme was going to deploy all sorts of 'transformational' techniques to cut down the time to IOC. Some of them worked, but to be honest, quite a few didn't.
My take (informed by working with some very experienced and talented engineers) was that the 'real' USMC IOC was always 2012 at the earliest. The weight problems that emerged in 2004 added at least 2 years to the programme (again my view), with further delays mainly due to a combination of slower than expected mission system software development and much more flight testing than was originally planned.
In the event, the programme has got to USAF IOC in 15 years instead of the planned 10. And yes, i know many will point out that it's a limited capability that's been declared. They're right. But 'limited' or 'political' IOCs aren't exactly a US speciality.
Once again, and then I'll shut up. I'm just trying (and failing) to point out that the F-35 team have achieved a hell of a lot as quickly as anyone else could have, deploying some serious talent, determination and sheer intellectual horsepower along the way. Some of this team are Brits, who deserve some recognition. I hope they get it, but it will probably won't be here. That's fine, too - it's a free forum.
Less from me now,
Best Regards as ever to the engineers struggling to meet insane schedules,
Engines
Engines, Thank you for your insight on the UK input to the F35. It is good to hear that UK / US cooperation has worked well and I, for one, wish all the best to those who have worked hard towards our future!
OAP
OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 21st Aug 2016 at 18:10.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F-35 is around 6-8 years late, depending on who's IOC you are referring to - I recall USMC moved from 2008 to 2010, to 2012, and finally to 2015.
The cost is, alas, high in almost ALL early aircraft development stages but, for F-35, they are already tapering towards the approx. $80-90M per aircraft (F-35A) forecast for Full Rate Production from 2019+. Sustainment costs are key though.
Have costs been allowed to spiral beyond reasonable limits in the not-too-distant past? Yessir! There's a scar of Nunn-McCurdy that will never fade, buuuut, the Program is way beyond any fallacious cutting off of noses to spite faces.
The cost is, alas, high in almost ALL early aircraft development stages but, for F-35, they are already tapering towards the approx. $80-90M per aircraft (F-35A) forecast for Full Rate Production from 2019+. Sustainment costs are key though.
Have costs been allowed to spiral beyond reasonable limits in the not-too-distant past? Yessir! There's a scar of Nunn-McCurdy that will never fade, buuuut, the Program is way beyond any fallacious cutting off of noses to spite faces.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The cost is, alas, high in almost ALL early aircraft development stages but, for F-35, they are already tapering towards the approx. $80-90M per aircraft (F-35A) forecast for Full Rate Production from 2019+.
In my time in the program(me) the UK IOC was 2012 and back then there was confidence that the USMC would achieve IOC well ahead of that date, so our date was driven by the UK funding profile. When the weight issues hit I was in one of the departments trying to keep-up and explain the almost daily slicing-off of core capabilities at IOC. Back then 2012 would have seen us with almost all the US weapons plus the UK requirement. It will take many years before we will see the capability originally envisaged for IOC.
It's funny that the F-35C articles have brought this topic up again as, from my perspective, the US Navy were by far the most intelligent, practical and pragmatic customers. They really have achieved the near-impossible from what was a compromised design starting point.
Oh and they managed to keep on friendly terms with LM too. Admittedly they did benefit from being the only customer of the F-35C, but they still achieved miracles given the hospital pass at the start of the program(me). Indeed, the overall F-35 program contains perhaps the worst defence design and procurement program and arguably one of the best too.
It's funny that the F-35C articles have brought this topic up again as, from my perspective, the US Navy were by far the most intelligent, practical and pragmatic customers. They really have achieved the near-impossible from what was a compromised design starting point.
Oh and they managed to keep on friendly terms with LM too. Admittedly they did benefit from being the only customer of the F-35C, but they still achieved miracles given the hospital pass at the start of the program(me). Indeed, the overall F-35 program contains perhaps the worst defence design and procurement program and arguably one of the best too.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS,
Do you really believe $80-90M by 2019? What you are currently seeing from the JPO is creative accounting at work to say what a good job they have done in ratcheting the cost down. Don't look at what they advertise, look at what they are asking for in funding from Congress and the number of aircraft it covers. It isn't $80-90M per aircraft, think higher prices... And as time goes on, the goal number will drift upward, not downward, no one will remember.
As I said before, hope the UK has pre-paid for theirs in prior year Pounds while identifying every aspect that is to work properly upon purchase (warrantees are important these days). Maintenance costs remain a huge unknown, but I can tell you a Mercedes Benz (F-35s) costs far more to maintain than a Honda Civic (F-16s) based on personal experience. A lot of the difference has to do with the electronics, sensors, etc.
The cost is, alas, high in almost ALL early aircraft development stages but, for F-35, they are already tapering towards the approx. $80-90M per aircraft (F-35A) forecast for Full Rate Production from 2019+. Sustainment costs are key though.
As I said before, hope the UK has pre-paid for theirs in prior year Pounds while identifying every aspect that is to work properly upon purchase (warrantees are important these days). Maintenance costs remain a huge unknown, but I can tell you a Mercedes Benz (F-35s) costs far more to maintain than a Honda Civic (F-16s) based on personal experience. A lot of the difference has to do with the electronics, sensors, etc.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current estimate is $90M for the F-35A at FRP in FY2019. That's up from the $80M estimate a year ago (and JPO titillating us with a possible ~$75M including engine speculation.) The Bravos and the Charlies are roughly $20-25M more, or $110-115 at FRP, but to achieve that means a substantial decrease in cost over the next few years. So same old *optimistic* cost estimates that gradually creep back up to more realistic levels.
About Delta Flight Path: The pilot basically switches modes and "points" the jet to where he wants it to go. The FCS then maintains the glide path with *supposedly* small but rapid corrections using the control surfaces and the FADEC, adjusting for winds and even the burble. Interestingly, the (majority of) the Super Hornet / Growler fleet will be updated (with the H-14 software load) that contains the technology years (~2018/19) before any F-35 squadron gets on the boat.
Magic Carpet control laws were initially developed by the USN's Office of Naval Research, then further developed by NAWC, Aircraft Division at Pax. Not sure why SLD thinks LM is responsible for the technology.
About Delta Flight Path: The pilot basically switches modes and "points" the jet to where he wants it to go. The FCS then maintains the glide path with *supposedly* small but rapid corrections using the control surfaces and the FADEC, adjusting for winds and even the burble. Interestingly, the (majority of) the Super Hornet / Growler fleet will be updated (with the H-14 software load) that contains the technology years (~2018/19) before any F-35 squadron gets on the boat.
Magic Carpet control laws were initially developed by the USN's Office of Naval Research, then further developed by NAWC, Aircraft Division at Pax. Not sure why SLD thinks LM is responsible for the technology.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well this is bound to speed things up..... And a humorous interlude.
F-35 Follow-On Plan Takes Shape And U.S. Navy Tests Carrier Variant | Defense content from Aviation Week
".......The stakeholders earlier this year settled on a wish list of capabilities to be included in the first two increments of Block 4, planned for 2020 and 2022. That list is moving through the formal requirements process, with approval by the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council expected this fall, says Wathen......
A crucial change coming in Block 4 will be the JPO’s effort to wrest control of the program from contractor Lockheed Martin. The government needs to own the technical baseline for the program, explains Wathen, adding that the office is looking at “the appropriate places to ensure we obtain government-purposed rights.” The Pentagon also wants to take the reins for the test program: Right now, Lockheed has greater responsibility for the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) effort.
That undertaking presents a stark contrast to the original 2001 development contract, which was formed as a “total system performance responsibility” (TSPR) arrangement; this allowed the contractor to oversee many administrative functions that would otherwise be managed by the Defense Department, creating more risk for the government. Since then, Pentagon officials have universally declared TSPR a failure when applied to development programs like F-35, pointing to the contract structure as the root of the program’s initial cost and schedule issues.
In light of the cost overruns that initially plagued JSF, a prominent government watchdog has called on the Pentagon to establish the Block 4 upgrade program as its own separate acquisition program, as a way to increase oversight and transparency. The Government Accountability Office argues that this approach would allow Congress to more easily distinguish between the costs associated with the modernization effort and cost growth in the existing baseline. But Wathen maintains establishing a separate program is not necessary, as funding for Block 4 and SDD already are reported separately, and would add expense and red tape to a process that is transparent.
The JPO plans to release a request for proposals for the Block 4 developmental and integration effort in the next year or so, with a contract award expected in 2018. Lockheed will be the prime contractor..........."
the VFA-101 “Grim Reapers” squadrons are in awe of what the jet can do today. Says Lt. Graham Cleveland of VFA-101: “I can take off, type in an altitude, type in a heading and just let the jet go out and fly.”
F-35 Follow-On Plan Takes Shape And U.S. Navy Tests Carrier Variant | Defense content from Aviation Week
".......The stakeholders earlier this year settled on a wish list of capabilities to be included in the first two increments of Block 4, planned for 2020 and 2022. That list is moving through the formal requirements process, with approval by the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council expected this fall, says Wathen......
A crucial change coming in Block 4 will be the JPO’s effort to wrest control of the program from contractor Lockheed Martin. The government needs to own the technical baseline for the program, explains Wathen, adding that the office is looking at “the appropriate places to ensure we obtain government-purposed rights.” The Pentagon also wants to take the reins for the test program: Right now, Lockheed has greater responsibility for the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) effort.
That undertaking presents a stark contrast to the original 2001 development contract, which was formed as a “total system performance responsibility” (TSPR) arrangement; this allowed the contractor to oversee many administrative functions that would otherwise be managed by the Defense Department, creating more risk for the government. Since then, Pentagon officials have universally declared TSPR a failure when applied to development programs like F-35, pointing to the contract structure as the root of the program’s initial cost and schedule issues.
In light of the cost overruns that initially plagued JSF, a prominent government watchdog has called on the Pentagon to establish the Block 4 upgrade program as its own separate acquisition program, as a way to increase oversight and transparency. The Government Accountability Office argues that this approach would allow Congress to more easily distinguish between the costs associated with the modernization effort and cost growth in the existing baseline. But Wathen maintains establishing a separate program is not necessary, as funding for Block 4 and SDD already are reported separately, and would add expense and red tape to a process that is transparent.
The JPO plans to release a request for proposals for the Block 4 developmental and integration effort in the next year or so, with a contract award expected in 2018. Lockheed will be the prime contractor..........."
the VFA-101 “Grim Reapers” squadrons are in awe of what the jet can do today. Says Lt. Graham Cleveland of VFA-101: “I can take off, type in an altitude, type in a heading and just let the jet go out and fly.”
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the VFA-101 “Grim Reapers” squadrons are in awe of what the jet can do today. Says Lt. Graham Cleveland of VFA-101: “I can take off, type in an altitude, type in a heading and just let the jet go out and fly.”
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine, I believe that airframe cost (as has always been quoted, i.e. Not inc engine), will be $80-90M in 2019. I also don't agree with your cynical, baseless claim of JPO "creative accounting."
ORAC, couldn't agree with you more about TSPR. We were arguing the same in 2007 as Services within the JPO.
ORAC, couldn't agree with you more about TSPR. We were arguing the same in 2007 as Services within the JPO.