Ares: More F-35B Delays, Software Schedule At Risk

The F-35B short take-off, vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter may not complete flight sciences testing and shipboard integration until late 2016, even if current efforts to resolve design problems are successful, according to the latest report from the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test & Evaluation, Dr Michael Gilmore. The report has not been officially released as yet but a copy was made available to Ares. Update: DOT&E report.

Until the past few weeks, Marine and other officials continued to insist that the previously planned initial operational capability date for the F-35B, in late 2012, could be met. The new report also says that the often-promised benchmark of 12 flights per aircraft per month, for all F-35 variants, cannot be attained without reliability and maintainability improvements.

The DOT&E also reports that the latest date for the completion of development testing on the F-35A and F-35C, in early 2016, will not be met unless Block 2 and 3 software is delivered on time and other "critical" problems, including issues with the JSF's helmet-mounted display system, are resolved. But the mission systems flight test schedule "still contains significant uncertainty", the report says. Rather than the rapid software development schedule originally planned, the DOT&E report now says that "the F-35 mission systems software development and test is tending towards familiar historical patterns of extended development, discovery in flight test, and deferrals to later increments."

The report draws heavily on the just completed, unpublished technical baseline review (TBR) conducted by new program executive officer VAdm Dave Venlet. The DOT&E notes that the TBR found that feasible flight rates were even lower than earlier independent reviews (such as that carried out by the Joint Estimating Team) and that more testing would be necessary. Flight testing so far has revealed problems with handling in the transonic and medium angle-of-attack regimes, and a problem with screech - destructive high-frequency combustion instability in the F135 afterburner - which is preventing the aircraft from achieving maximum power.

The potentially huge delays to the STOVL program are the result of design changes needed to resolve problems already discovered, including the "major" fatigue crack discovered in a bulkhead late last year. These changes are needed in order to lift operating limitations and make the aircraft more reliable, so that flight testing can be moved forward. As a result, the report says, STOVL flight sciences and ship integration could lag behind the rest of the development test program by as much as a year. For all variants, earlier plans to achieve flight test goals by raising the sortie rate to 10-12 flights per month per aircraft "are not achievable", the report says, until reliability and maintainability are improved.

Mission system software is the biggest problem. Currently, the only software for which a test program has been approved is Block 0.5 - but the Block 0.5 effort has failed, since the program office has deemed it unsuitable for training. The Block 1 test program plan has been completed and is now being reviewed, and the Block 2 plan is in the initial draft stage, as part of a comprehensive replanning effort. "Completion by early 2016 is possible provided further delays in delivery of Block 2 and Block 3 software are not incurred, and the program can overcome the helmet mounted display problem before Block 2 flight test must begin," the report says.

The TBR found that the previous program plans had not allowed enough time for re-fly and regression testing (tests to make sure that new or modified software has not affected previously tested functions), according to the DOT&E. Earlier plans had also not formally included flight testing to demonstrate the integration of software and sensors before going into tests to verify capability - the assumption had been that integration on the CATBird flying laboratory would allow that phase to be bypassed or minimized.

Perhaps it would be cheaper to build the USMC some proper carriers and then give them Dave-C to play with?

PS: may I take this opportunity to reiterate my previous comments about lift fans? No-one has ever made them work properly.

USAF: Bin F-35A and acquire more F-22. Perhaps an updated F-22B model with some F-35 avionics?
Export customers: Bin F-35 and acquire F-18E/F/G.
USMC: Bin F-35B, revise CONOPS and assess F-18E/F/G. Or lose all your fast jets to the USN.
USN: Bin F-35C and acquire more F-18E/F/G.

F-35 was originally billed as an 'affordable' lightweight fighter to supersede the hugely successful F-16. It has indeed evolved into an unaffordable turkey - you cannot argue with 411A over this as he's 100% correct in my opinion.

moggiee
 

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. Do you mean aerodynamically, mechanically or perhaps installation wise?

When the X-35B first hovered the CTP of the day was kind enough to call me with the news. I asked how much thrust did you lose out of the rear nozzle with the fan engaged - 6000lb he said. How much thrust did you get out of the fan? 16000lb he replied. The additional 10000lb (approx 25% of the hover weight) was not of course something for nothing but merely indicated the higher propulsive efficiency of a fan compared to a pure jet. But that is just physics. The other advantage of the B configuration is the way the 'cold' fan efflux hitting the ground during a VL stops the hot exhaust from the rear nozzle penetrating forward towards the intakes. (see any IR pics of the event to appreciate that)

The simpler Boeing configuration using the same basic powerplant suffered from less hover thrust and increased risk of recirculation.

Having said all that I personally cannot see the military case for supersonics in a tactical aeroplane - but that is a different topic.

In conclusion the B clearly has lots of problems but I am not sure the fan is central to them.

Completely bin the F-35?
 

The Defense News article on the latest Pentagon report mainly covers the same ground as reported elsewhere. However, it does open the can of worms regarding the OBIGGS system.

Considering all the rest of the original protection/suppression was stripped out to save weight, this must be a critical path item to fix.

Report Reveals Undisclosed F-35 Problems

.............The report also calls for the aircraft's On-Board Inert Gas Generations System, which generates inert gases to prevent oxygen building up inside the fuel tanks, to be redesigned.

"The OBIGGS system fails to inert the fuel tank ullage spaces throughout the combat flight envelopes evaluated," the report says.

The report recommends program officials redesign the OBIGGS system "to ensure that the fuel tank ullage volume oxygen concentrations are maintained below levels that sustain fire and/or explosion throughout the combat flight envelopes."...........

Sure and I thought that Mr O'Biggs was the feller with the fire extinguisher, begorrah

Canada has no way to refuel new jets in air :hmm::hmm:

Military must pay for modifications or buy new fleet of tankers

The Canadian military does not have the ability to conduct aerial refuelling of the F-35 fighter jet it wants to purchase and is now looking at ways to get around that problem.

Options range from paying for modifications to the stealth jets to purchasing a new fleet of tanker aircraft that can gas up the high-tech fighters in mid-air. That option could cost several hundred million dollars, depending on how many new tankers are needed.

In addition, because the F-35 would not be able to safely land on runways in Canada's north because those are too short for the fighter, the Defence Department is looking at having manufacturer Lockheed Martin install a "drag" chute on the plane. That parachute would deploy when the aircraft lands, slowing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter down. But some pilots have said that high winds affecting such runways could make using a drag chute tricky or even dangerous.........

The government spent $126 million on modifying some of its current fleet of Polaris transport aircraft to handle mid-air-refuelling of CF-18 fighters. The first of the two modified planes was declared operational in 2009. But the system on the Polaris cannot refuel the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter model the Harper government has said it will purchase.

The Defence Department listed air-to-air refuelling as a mandatory capability for any new fighter aircraft Canada purchases, prompting some aerospace industry executives to privately question why this critical feature was ignored for the F-35 purchase. The refuelling is needed if the jets are going to cover long distances. The Defence Department stated in an e-mail that it "is studying options for F-35 air-to-air refuelling capability. The analysis is at an early stage and we will inform Canadians as soon as details become available."

But in an interview with the Citizen last summer, Tom Burbage, a senior Lockheed Martin official said he didn't think the refuelling issue would be a problem. He said the F-35 aircraft design could handle different types of refuelling systems, including those used by the Canadian Forces aerial tankers. Canada wants to purchase the same type of F-35 being ordered by the U.S. air force. However, the F-35 being built for the U.S. navy carries the equipment needed to be refuelled by tankers such as the ones operated by the Canadian Forces. "The airplane design can accommodate both refuelling systems," explained Burbage. "Canada has asked us to look at putting the navy refuelling system in the airplane and the air force refuelling system is already in it."

It is unclear what the cost of installing such a system would be. But sources say there are concerns that option could run into problems.

Another option to be considered would be purchasing new refuelling tankers. Military officers argue that by 2020 the Polaris aircraft might need to be replaced any ways.............

As first discussed on PPRuNe last year:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...8-cf-35-a.html

:hmm:

What is it that seemingly removed all evidence of simple logic from mil procurement these days :ugh:

The bay that houses the probe on the B/C is AFAIK empty on the A, so making the CF-35 into a refuelling hermaphrodite should not be a major mechanical problem.

The only issue would be clearing the envelope for the boom on the A - the aero differences from the B are not huge, but there are some, and it also goes to higher weights than the B.

And if that was the biggest problem for the F-35, everyone would be happy...

Not being blind to the financial situation, but...
 

Flight Global is running a couple of stories which you cold take to mean that the market place for amphibious CATOBAR FW is getting busier.

Super Hornet... AERO INDIA: VIDEO - Boeing reveals advanced Super Hornet options

Typhoon...
AERO INDIA: Eurofighter reveals offer to produce navalised Typhoon

According to the press, India might also be considering the E2-D for seaborne AEW. Foreign aid...don't you just love it.:confused:

So if a 4-ship of dual system CF-35s is fragged against a boom/hose capable KC-30, which will be the refuelling system of choice - singletons on the boom or two-by-two on the hoses?

I've heard that the F-35A fuel pipes are identical to the B/C, which negates the better transfer rate capability the boom and gives advantage to the simultaneous refuelling ability of probe-and-drogue.

Re-#175
 

"These include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and thrust-vectoring control nozzles for its two Eurojet EJ200 turbofan engines. The latter would enable the fighter to approach the vessel at a reduced speed without restricting pilot vision by requiring an increased angle of attack."

Scrummy, lets do a job lot with the Indians then..........................:D

Ares: In-flight Failure Halts F-35 Flight Tests

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter flight testing has been halted following a dual generator failure and oil leak in flight on Wednesday, March 9. The affected aircraft, F-35A test jet AF-4 at Edwards AFB, returned to base safely, says Lockheed Martin.

The company's statement says: "As a routine safety precaution, the Joint Program Office (JPO) has temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations until a team of JPO and LM technical experts determines the root cause of the generator failure and oil leak."

This is first acknowledged significant in-flight failure since test flight 19 in May 2007, when electrical arcing in the F-35's 270V power-by-wire flight control system knocked out power to the right horizontal stabilizer. Aircraft AA-1 recovered and landed safely.

From flightglobal :

The US Marine Corps has agreed to buy the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in addition to the short take-off and vertical landing version.
Gen James Amos, USMC commandant, confirms delays and uncertainties associated with the F-35B STOVL variant have forced a change to the acquisition plan.
"When we set the requirement in for STOVL aircraft our hope was we would be able to, some day, fly some of those aircraft off [large-deck] aircraft carriers," Amos said, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 8 March. "That's yet to be seen whether that would be possible so in the meantime it would seem prudent that we should buy some number of C variants even early on so we can begin to transition our force there."
The US Navy and USMC planned to buy a combination of 680 F-35Bs and Cs, with about 460 of the former and 220 of the latter. However, the services are re-evaluating the procurement split between the two variants, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Senate committee.
"We are undergoing a TacAir [tactical aircraft] integration look across the navy and Marine Corps to see what the proper mix is of Cs for the navy and Marine Corps," Mabus said.
The TacAir integration study "will make sure that we continue that integration and make sure marines continue to fly off carriers in strike fighters as well as in vertical take-off and landing aircraft", he said.
At the same time, USMC remains committed and enthusiastic about the STOVL variant despite the testing delays and performance challenges that prompted Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to impose a two-year probation on the F-35B.
Amos praises Gates' decision to add more funding in the development budget for the F-35B, which will help solve the structural, propulsion and reliability shortfalls identified in testing last year. "Things are lined up right now for success," Amos says.
"It's my hope we can get off probation well before two years. My intent is to, some time this spring, [provide Gates with] a set of metrics that he might consider as the threshold for getting the airplane off probation and getting it back into the regular mode of production," he adds.

As previously mentioned, the F-35 has come a very long way from the 'cheap, affordable F-16 low part of the High /low philosophy'

I realise technology has to be a continuing research subject, but in the meantime unless one is planning for World War 3, VSTOL flight has suffered hugely and all the world was looking for was an updated HarrierII ?!

AW&ST: JSF Cost Predictions Rattle Foreign Customers


Customers for Lockheed-Martin’s stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—among them Canada, Israel, Britain and Australia—are shifting their mood from anxiety to paranoia over increasingly unpredictable costs.

Foreign analysts now expect JSF prices to significantly exceed even the latest Pentagon estimate, putting government officials in fiscal and political jeopardy as they try to craft a rational purchase plan for the fifth-generation warplane.

Adding new concern was congressional testimony by Lt. Gen. Mark Shackleford, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisitons, who says that ”we currently expect up to a two-year delay” in fielding the first operational unit, which shifts the date to 2018. The delay is being triggered by the most recent program restructuring.

A new report by Canada’s Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that total program costs for the country’s 65 aircraft will be U.S. $29 billion which means a total program (through-life) unit price tag of about $450 million per aircraft in Fiscal 2009 dollars.........

DZ - If you'd asked the RN and Marines way, way back in the 1980s, they would have been happy with a sort of STOVL Gripen, or a Harrier plus decent air-to-air and minus the accident rate.

What nobody could ever figure out was how to do this technologically and economically for a 300-400-jet program.

At this point someone said "Let's merge this with the F-16 and F-18 replacement, create the universal $35 million stealth fighter and take over the world!"

What could possibly go wrong?

[quoteHarrier plus decent air-to-air and minus the accident rate][/quote]

LO, accepting your point about lack of A-A, could you please explain and substansiate your point about accident rate?