F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[George K Lee]

The logic behind retaining many military capabilities goes like this:

1 - We can't prove that we won't need it, some day.

2 - If we let the capability go, and that day arrives, we won't be able to regenerate it quickly enough.

[Brat]

Originally Posted by George K Lee

[I]...Now think - how much have you, and the other shills and fanbois, contributed to anyone's national defense (other than China's) by your passionate defense of your fetish project?

I have simply been interested in the F-35 for a long while, as an observer, in answer to a question of yours, and not in a sexual way, the usual connotation associated with that word.

Curious though why would defence (the British spelling), of the ‘fetish project’ as you put it, contributes to China’s defence??

However, I do remember you stating...

Originally Posted by George K Lee

… I'm sure this forum would function better if everyone acknowledged their identities. As for me, I am...

Wait, I'm being un-Britishly rude!

You go first, old bean!

… but then seem not to have not gone on to enlighten us.

Originally Posted by George K Lee

Mr Engines - I don't want to continue this forever, but as it happens I too have been closely associated with this project for a long time. …

Associated how, if you don’t mind telling us and revealing some credentials?

[Brat]

LM F-35 GM says in the video that in 'BEAST' mode the F-35 carries 22,000 pounds of ordnance with 18,000 pounds of that external.

With a radius of action denominated in feet, I should think. Sanitary dihydrogen monoxide auto-ingestion in action.

Would think that ‘beast' mode would be utilised by the USMC once air superiority has been established, and operating from forward bases close to the action where range is not so critical.

Has there been a range given in that config?

[Just This Once...]

The range with external stores is not as truncated as you may think. The F-35 is already relatively fat and draggy so adding some external drag is not as dramatic as it would be on a more traditional aircraft.

[George K Lee]

Brat,

Irony is apparently not native to you. Also, drag your mind out of the gutter, please.

Fetish, n. - an object believed to have supernatural powers, or in particular, a human-made object that has power over others.

As for the USMC hauling 22 klb of ordnance off a short runway, in that case I would suggest that the mission range would be equivalent to the distance to the trees at the end of said runway. There's only so many things any airplane can do at once and I don't thing the STO MTOW would permit it.

JTO - I hadn't thought of it quite that way...

[Lonewolf_50]

George, it seems to me bad form to blast Brat for speculation when you are engaging in the same -- see JTO's pointing that out to you -- regardless of your past linkage to the program. (The last direct contact I had was about 14 years ago).
The program isn't canceled. It's going ahead. I find it amusing that the journalistic fury that got a book like the Pentagon Paradox published still didn't stop the F-18, which aircraft has served pretty well and continues to serve pretty well.

Of what value is your getting shirty with brat about the myriad stumbles the program has had? (My pet "you have to be kidding me!" moment was the original mess with the 'oops, it doesn't work' tail hook for carrier ops ).
You are coming off like one of the never listening V-22 critics who act as though it's still 2002.
Wake up, George. The year is 2017, the FY is 2018, and this (very expensive) aircraft is going forward. Those in the program will try to make the best of it, as did the F-18 folks over 30 years ago in the face of considerable push back for that aircraft.


That the Canadians can't afford the F-35, or don't like the price tag, is disappointing but that's real life. Sometimes, things don't work out as you hoped they would. I don't blame the Canadians for their reticence given the cost.

[George K Lee]

You can make anything fly with enough power. You can make almost anything reach IOC with enough extra money and time.

Sometimes it's worth it.

[Brat]

Originally Posted by George K Lee

You can make anything fly with enough power. You can make almost anything reach IOC with enough extra money and time.

Sometimes it's worth it.

As a lot of people think about the F-35 program.

Never did get your connection or credentials. Still being coy.

[Brat]

Fetish:- a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.

And how exactly was this passionate defence of the F-35 by myself, the other 'shills and fanbois' benefiting China’s national defence?

[PhilipG]

Does anyone know when Software Block 3F is finally going to be rolled out?

Further does anyone know what the plans are for bringing the UK's F35s to that standard, thinking of all the press about the USAF not being able to afford to upgrade the c200 F35s that it has at the moment, concurrency..

[Engines]

PhilipG,

Perhaps I can help - although it's over 7 years since I was involved with the programme, and I can only go by what's out there on the net.

Publicly issued information states that Block 3F was planned to be rolled out around October this year, starting with USAF aircraft. Block 3F clears different sets of weapons for A, B and C, so it's a good idea to get out there and see what the plans are. For example, it appears that the USMC is waiting for Block 4 to introduce the 250 pound Small Diameter Bomb. The USAF has stated that it intends to retrofit 3F to all aircraft delivery so far. However, other sources have indicated that some early aircraft might be left in a reduced capability. I've not seen any definite decisions yet. (Shades of Typhoon Tranche 1)

As I've frequently posted before, the F-35 mission system software development programme has been severely delayed compared with the original (highly optimistic) schedules that the JPO went with. Reasons? Many. I think I'd identify:

1. Good old 'optimism bias' - programme managers believing their internal publicity about computer aided design ensuring that all software would be 'right first time' and thus test programmes could be cut right back. These unrealistic programmes were then used to try to keep IOC dates on track.

2. A decision to only have one full mission systems software development and test rig. This decision was challenged in the early days, particularly by BAE, who were still coming out of their nightmare that was Typhoon mission systems development. A second (UK based) software development and test rig was proposed, but the UK MoD wouldn't support it (or foot the bill). Lack of rig capacity has severely hampered software development schedules.

3. Poor requirements development - I've posted on this before. The F-35 programme as developed by LM allowed insufficient time for the systems engineers to develop a properly constructed set of detailed mission system requirements flowing down from the high level JORD. This process is called 'requirements decomposition', and it's not at all sexy or exciting. Worse, it doesn't deliver any progress that your average political or pilot can really grasp. (Honourable exceptions were the specialist UK aircrew provided to support the programme both in the JPO and in LM. They were screaming for this stuff to be done). Instead, LM just steamed ahead to 'get some code written at all costs'. The result was that early mission systems software versions lacked essential features. That meant big rework programmes, and that delayed matters even more.

4. Not invented here - LM had access to a highly talented mission systems team from Warton who has just come off the Typhoon programme, armed with lots of lessons learned and some really advanced concepts for building and testing next generation software. It took LM some time to start listening to these people. Note - I'm not saying 'Brits good, Americans bad' - it's just that LM passed up the chance to bring some fresh knowledge into their mission systems team. After a year or so, Brits were allowed into the mission systems development effort, but much damage had been done by then.

There might be more, but that's all I can reliably add to the conversation. Mission systems software development and test is a formidably complex task. Flight testing of internally and externally carried weapons is also complex, and requires a high level of very specialist knowledge. Clearing weapons and software for operational service isn't at all straightforward either.

The F-35 team aren't chumps. They're working damn hard to deliver what the customer needs, trying to make as few mistakes as possible and get the job done as soon as they can. I suppose the best outcome from this programme would be an improved and more realistic appreciation of the importance of proper requirements development, and the risks involved in marrying up millions of lines of code with potentially hazardous weapon systems, making it work and proving that it's acceptably safe. While I wouldn't bet on that happening, one can only hope.

Best regards as ever to all those working so hard on the F-35 programme to get the capabilities out to the front line.

Engines

[George K Lee]

Thanks, Engines, for the insights.

I would add that - with 21 years of history since LM and Boeing were put on contract to fly the CDAs and design the PWSC - a pattern is apparent. Top management has tended to focus on today's big problem (first weight, then late flight-test assets, then production issues, then software and then...) and make two errors: prescribe an optimistic schedule-driven get-well for the current problem and lose sight of the next.

(Aside: The fans and shills have helped create a climate where this behavior was rewarded, thereby helping to waste a lot of money. And I'm sure that climate has been truly unpleasant for many of the troops in the program.)

The next issue is sustainment and upgrade.

[PhilipG]

Thanks Engines, as ever a very helpful post.

It would seem to me that at the moment the answer to my questions is not sure....

Unless I have misread your post?

[t43562]

Originally Posted by Engines

I suppose the best outcome from this programme would be an improved and more realistic appreciation of the importance of proper requirements development, and the risks involved in marrying up millions of lines of code with potentially hazardous weapon systems, making it work and proving that it's acceptably safe. While I wouldn't bet on that happening, one can only hope.
Engines

I can only say that where software is concerned it seems that the same mistakes get made alarmingly frequently in the commercial world and also from my experience a lot of people don't learn, or end up making diametrically opposite mistakes to their previous ones. Success seems to be a matter of luck and the weeding out of the bad and entrepreneurs who did things "their way" and not as much about a logical process by which any big company can set about the design of software and guarantee that it will be a success.

Perhaps software should be competed out as engines are?

[Engines]

PhilipG,

My sincere apologies for a schoolboy error - I failed to fully answer the question. Sorry for that.

I think I answered the question about Block 3F. As far as I know, all of the UK's F-35B's will be brought up to Block 3F, and then to Block 4 as that software standard is delivered. The idea is that, as a Tier 1 partner (actually the only Tier 1 partner) the Uk fleet will stay 'in sync' with the US fleet.

I expect that there might be a separate UK 'sub version' of Block 4non national security grounds (both US and UK), but I'm too old and too ill informed to be able to explain how that might work, if it were required.

However, I hope this delayed explanation helps,

Engines

[PhilipG]

Engines,

Thanks again for getting back to me.

Regarding 3F software, I also understood that the software was meant to have been released by now, as yet I have not seen a photo of a F35, that is not part of the test fleet with external stores, makes me think that 3F has yet to be released. Although I have read somewhere that 3F has been released, with no linked source as I recall.

As I understood it plan A was that all F35s would in the end be on the same level of software, implicitly any necessary technical refreshes necessary would have to be installed.

My concern is that IF the USAF has decided NOT to upgrade their early LRIP F35s, where will the UK ones be upgraded and where the funding for the upgrade comes from?

Apologies if I have misunderstood your response.

Philip

[ORAC]

Seems a comprehensive report here. Airworthiness testing has been done using software version 6.2; the IOT&E fleet have been upgraded and are testing the release 6.3; the testing should take a year and the operational release of 6.3 should be at the end of 2018.


https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightnin..._sdd_and_what/

....Under the restructure plan, initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) was supposed to have begun around July 2017, which means the development program will probably wrap up between six and eight months late. That reflects estimates made by top Pentagon leaders—such as former Undersecretary of Defense Frank Kendall—in mid-2016, but is better than estimates made by the Defense operational test and evaluation community that same year. DOT&E forecast that operational testing might be delayed until late 2018 or even early 2019......

”There is “nothing major,” preventing the F-35 from entering the home stretch of its basic development, Joint Program Office director Vice Adm. Mathias Winter told Air Force Magazine in a September interview. “We have the resources” in the Fiscal 2017 and 2018 defense budgets to complete development, Winter said, adding that he expected airworthiness flight testing of all three variants, in the 3F configuration, to conclude in December 2017.......

What will be handed over to the Pentagon’s initial operational test and evaluation community will be a “warfighting capability,” Winter said. The aircraft will be in the 3F configuration, flying with 3F software version 6.3. Developmental test units have already been flying with version 6.2, Winter said.....

While IOT&E depends on handing testers 23 jets in the 3F configuration, Winter’s predecessor, retired Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, told Congress last year an arrangement was being struck with DOT&E to begin testing with fewer jets, adding more as they become available. Earlier-version F-35s, flying with the 2B or 3i software and/or processors, have to be modified to the latest and “final baseline” configuration. The 23 jets comprise six each of the A,B, and C variants from the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, while three more will be B models from Britain and two others will be Dutch F-35A models.

So what happens after the jets are handed off? The test community will put them through their paces, matching them against the no-fail requirements set by the services in all the mission areas the F-35 must perform. These include air-to-ground attack, air-to-air combat, suppression of enemy air defenses, electronic warfare, electronic attack, close air support, and ancillary missions related to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. If all goes well, and no substantive deficiencies are found, the F-35 can proceed to full-rate production in the 3F configuration........

The IOT&E program should last “roughly a year,” Winter said, and the exact test plan was to have been nailed down in November......

[PhilipG]

Thanks for that, so 3F is roughly a year away and there is a facility to upgrade the LRIP airframes.

[ORAC]

IIRC there was always the ability to upgrade the early airframes; the problems being that the list of other structural and system updates required to bring them up to the operational standard, along with the processor and other changes to handle 3F made it so expensive it wasn’t economic.

Secondly the number of aircraft requiring update would serious slow and affect the ramp up of production aircraft and thus increase their unit price.

Lastly, the structural upgrades required in the F-35Bs as add-ons would mean their weight would grow so much their operational payload would be severely effected and would not meet the minimum requirement.

The first is an operational necessity in the IOT&E fleet and the second and third are not a factor. But a very large political question hangs over whether the customer delivered jets will ever be upgraded.

[golder]

The weight of training aircraft wouldn't be an issue. How many are the UK keeping in the US? I understand all partners have to provide training frames. Is this a forever plan?
It also seems that it would impact on 2 or possibly 3 frames @$15M. LRIP 7 concurrency costs seem ok @$5M.
h ttp://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19101&mode=view
2 F-35B in LRIP run 3,
1 F-35B in LRIP run 4,
1 F-35B in LRIP run 7,
4 F-35B in LRIP run 8, 6 F-35B in LRIP run 9, 3 F-35B in LRIP run 10, 2 F-35B in LRIP run 11, 2 F-35B in LRIP run 12
6 F-35B in LRIP run 13, 8 F-35B in LRIP run 14 and 7 F-35B in LRIP run 15. This brings us to 42 in 2023.