The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

[Triton]

Also, there isn't any Day 2. Nobody believes that any more. Defensive systems are far more robust than the old Soviet model.

But smaller munitions such as SDB allow greater exploitation of the weapons bays. Even without such munitions few F-16 sorties were being flown with more than two 1,000lb or 2,000lb PGMs.

Does this mean that the external stations on the F-35 are not likely to be used unless the weapon is LO? Most weapon loads will be carried internally in the weapons bays?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Whats the cost difference between an SDB and a JDAM?

Depends what you are doing, no need for LO over Afghanistan or Syria.

 

[quellish]

Whats the cost difference between an SDB and a JDAM?

SDB 1: ~$40k
SDB II: ~$250k


JDAM: ~$25k
Laser JDAM: ~$45k

 

[SpudmanWP]

AASM integration into F-35 will be very easy and cheap.... AASM is already UAI compliant.

 

[DrRansom]

It seems like LowObservable is hinting at a new argument against all-aspect stealth fighters: Stealth fighters carry a limited internal payload, originally justified because it was planned that a Day 2 will occur. However, modern air defenses don't allow for a Day 2, hence a stealth fighter force will be stuck with a limited capability to hit a large number of aim points. On the other hand, a fleet of Rafael's has the tactics to always hit a large number of targets, irrespective of the state of air defenses.

Does that capture the general sentiment, LO?

 

[sferrin]

It seems like LowObservable is hinting at a new argument against all-aspect stealth fighters: Stealth fighters carry a limited internal payload, originally justified because it was planned that a Day 2 will occur. However, modern air defenses don't allow for a Day 2, hence a stealth fighter force will be stuck with a limited capability to hit a large number of aim points. On the other hand, a fleet of Rafael's has the tactics to always hit a large number of targets, irrespective of the state of air defenses.

Does that capture the general sentiment, LO?

Yes, that's what he's attempting to spin. LOL.

 

[Dragon029]

Particularly considering that if F-35's are prohibited from using external weaponry out of fear of being locked by SAMs, then the same is going to apply to 4th gen fighters. If "Day 2" is too dangerous, you'll mitigate it with heavy standoff jamming and stealthed F-35s flying DEAD sorties, allowing for 4th gens and externally armed F-35s to bring in heavier payloads.

 

[LowObservable]

Dr R - Who's talking about all-aspect stealth fighters? Today's products are bowties or (more often) Col. Sanders bowties. That makes quite a difference when it comes to comparing them with an EW-heavy PacMan.

 

[sferrin]

Dr R - Who's talking about all-aspect stealth fighters? Today's products are bowties or (more often) Col. Sanders bowties. That makes quite a difference when it comes to comparing them with an EW-heavy PacMan.

Disingenuous much? If my "bowtie" RCS is 1/1000th the size of your "pac-man" yes, in fact I do have all aspect stealth. Both the F-22 and F-35 have all aspect stealth (in that they're harder to detect from every direction) compared to your average 4.5 gen aircraft, it's just that they're even more difficult to detect from the front. Those LO nozzles aren't just for looking pretty.

 

[Triton]

"F-35 Partners Eye Targeting Pod Options"
Sep 11, 2015 Amy Butler | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-partners-eye-targeting-pod-options

Members of the nine-nation F-35 team are nearing decisions on how to introduce new capabilities to the forthcoming Block 4 configuration of the aircraft, with the retrofit of a new electro-optical and infrared system high on that list.

This is because the threat to the young F-35 fleet has continued to evolve as Lockheed Martin’s delivery of the single-engine, stealthy fighter has lagged. Thus the existing baseline Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) will be insufficient for possible war scenarios as soon as the early-to-mid 2020s.

The U.S. is embracing the use of infrared search and track (IRST) capabilities as a complement to radars to detect enemy aircraft more widely. Air Force officials refer to this as an “out-of-band” (meaning “out-of-radar-band”) solution. While radar is still effective, advances in radar-evading coatings and countermeasures have rendered it unreliable as a single source for threat information.
EOTS is the first self-contained system designed to provide both IRST and forward-looking infrared (FLIR) functionality. The baseline EOTS version includes a mid-wave infrared camera, combat laser and IRST system.

Lockheed Martin is developing an Advanced EOTS that will incorporate a higher-definition midwave IR and a larger aperture, providing more fidelity within the field of view. It also will add a near-IR/short-wave television camera and IR laser pointer and marker, says Don Bolling, director of business development for fire control systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. The addition of a short-wave camera allows the F-35 to craft better images with very little radiated light, and would be useful for intelligence. It also could help detect dimmer targets.

There is no official requirement for an advanced EOTS now, but sources close to the F-35 program indicate that consensus is strong that added capability will be needed and brought into Block 4. Lockheed is offering an aggressive approach to maintain its hold on the lucrative work, offering this one-of-a-kind system. It is unclear whether the Pentagon would be required to hold a competition for an update or if it can simply contract directly with Lockheed Martin.

Development will continue, with some system testing likely in late 2017, Bolling said. In developing the baseline system, Lockheed tested the hardware and software on a company-owned Sabreliner. Bolling suggests this is a likely path for the advanced system before introducing it to the F-35.

The company hopes to have the sensor ready for fielding as soon as 2019. Haste is key to reducing the number of platforms requiring retrofit. Production numbers are low now, but set to increase; low-rate initial production lot 8 is for 43 aircraft, but that is scheduled to double by LRIP 10 in 2016. Nearly 200 F-35s a year are projected for delivery in 2020. So once production ramps up, each year in delaying retrofits substantially increases the work and cost to distribute a new EOTS to the fleet, if it is to be provided to all fielded units.

The new system is being designed with ease of retrofitting in mind, Bolling says. Though it will require a new gimbal, the Advanced EOTS is designed to work with the existing mount and electrical and cooling interfaces used for the baseline system. He says the installation should be fairly “plug-and-play,” though new software will be needed to maximize its advances.

Bolling declined to provide a specific cost target for Advanced EOTS. The goal, he said, is to be “cost neutral” compared to the baseline system once production ramps up. He expects to be within a “couple of hundred thousand dollars” of that if the equipment is introduced into service in 2019.

That timing, however, would put Advanced EOTS in Block 4.1. The F-35 program office has divided the block into increments, each rolling out in two-year cycles.

Partner countries are negotiating which capabilities and weapons are introduced in which block based on operational need and – in the case of developmental items that require funding – fiscal pressures. At the Pentagon, the powerful Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which must bless requirements before they are funded, is reviewing options for the various increments through the end of the year. Officials are shooting to have a Pentagon-approved position by the spring.

Meanwhile, the constitution of Block 4 is expected to be a top agenda item for the forthcoming Joint Executive Steering Board session slated for Sept. 17. This board includes senior officials from the member countries and top executives from F-35 suppliers.

 

[Triton]

"This Helmet Will Make F-35 Pilots Missile-Slinging Cyborgs"
Jordan Golson Gear Date of Publication: 09.14.15.

Source:
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/helmet-will-make-f-35-pilots-missile-slinging-cyborgs/

Much rightful snark and scorn has been thrown at the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter, the multi-multi-multi-billion dollar jet meant to be the mainstay of allied air superiority for the next half-century.

After years of delays and more than $60 billion dropped on development, the jet is finally just about ready, and it’s bringing some pretty slick tech along with it—including a brand new helmet that will let the pilot see through the plane, aim missiles with his eyeballs, and keep an eye on key data no matter where he turns his head.

The F-35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System, developed by defense contractor Rockwell Collins, takes the head-up display (HUD) usually projected onto on a piece of glass at the front of the cockpit, and puts it on the helmet. That means the pilot’s always got it in his field of vision, and can see useful data like the horizon, airspeed, altitude, and weapons status wherever he’s looking.

More than keeping the pilot’s cranium safe from smacking against the canopy, and mounting stuff like a sun visor and oxygen mask, the Gen III helmet is designed to improve the pilot’s situational awareness. At engagement altitudes of a few thousand feet and speeds of up to Mach 1.6, it’s crucial to know what’s going on ahead of, to the side of, above, and below and the jet.

It’s about more than flight data. Rockwell Collins, which has spent half-a-decade developing the system, linked the helmets with key systems. “The helmet becomes part of the system of the aircraft,” says Phil Jasper, executive vice president of government systems for the company.

Feeds from any of six cameras located outside the jet can be piped into the helmet, for a 360-degree field of view. When the pilot looks down, he doesn’t see his knees—he sees “through” the aircraft, and knows what’s below him. Built-in night-vision lets him see in the dark, without needing to flip down a set of goggles. He can even aim weapons with no more than a glance, thanks to the helmet’s eye tracking capability.

All that is built into a carbon fiber helmet that weighs just about five pounds. It’s customized to each pilot, both to fit around the noggin as well as to ensure that the visuals work properly. The two-day fitting process measures things like the horizontal and vertical alignment of the pupils, eye spacing, and a litany of other variables. The helmets are custom built for each pilot, so if yours at home, you’re stuck on the ground.

“The visual effects and how information is portrayed on the visor has gone through a lot of engineering,” says Jasper. Avoiding motion sickness was key and there’s no “adjustment period” needed when pulling the helmet on. Thanks to the custom fit, pilots just pop on the helmet and see what they need to see. It can even fit over eyeglasses.

Because the F-35 program doesn’t include a two-seater variant for training, pilots are on their own from their first flight. Rockwell Collins has created a second helmet for simulator work, so pilots can learn how to fly the plane during training with the same gear that they’d fly the real plane with.

Though the tech was specifically designed for the F-35, it’s easy to see how this kind of head-up display could help firefighters, construction workers, or any number of industries. Rockwell Collins is examining these other possibilities. “They’re looking at the whole idea of head-worn displays and that type of technology and what other applications it may have,” says Jasper. “Not just military but commercial as well.”

The company wouldn’t put a price on the helmet, but if it can keep a $100 million aircraft and a human pilot safer in the skies, it seems well worth it.

 

[sferrin]

"F-35 Partners Eye Targeting Pod Options"
Sep 11, 2015 Amy Butler | Aviation Week & Space Technology

The title says "Pod" but the text indicates a drop in replacement for the current system, not an external pod. ???

 

[quellish]

Disingenuous much? If my "bowtie" RCS is 1/1000th the size of your "pac-man" yes, in fact I do have all aspect stealth. Both the F-22 and F-35 have all aspect stealth (in that they're harder to detect from every direction) compared to your average 4.5 gen aircraft, it's just that they're even more difficult to detect from the front. Those LO nozzles aren't just for looking pretty.

bowtie == "all aspect"
pacman == reduction is primarily in frontal sector

 

[sferrin]

Sounded like what was being said was that today's stealth aircraft are not all aspect because they are bowties. (A bowtie can still be LO if it's a small bowtie.)

 

[Triton]

Interesting article on the Steel Jaw Scribe blog spot. Does the F-35 have a western bow tie shape signature?

Source:
http://steeljawscribe.com/2008/10/08/of-wargames-jsfs-and-baby-seals-ii

 

[SpudmanWP]

"F-35 Partners Eye Targeting Pod Options"
Sep 11, 2015 Amy Butler | Aviation Week & Space Technology

The title says "Pod" but the text indicates a drop in replacement for the current system, not an external pod. ???

I think it's a force-of-habit issue.


It's akin to people wanting ROVER to come with Advanced EOTS without realizing they do not depend on each other.


For all intents & purposes EOTS is an "internal" pod as it's a single, drop-in unit.

 

[Triton]

Is Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) an embedded equivalent of the Lockheed Martin Sniper Extended Range (XR) pod?

Source:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html

 

[SpudmanWP]

For all intents & purposes, yes.


Sniper XR grew into EOTS.

 

[SpudmanWP]

n/a

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/blog/lockheed-targeting-pod-what-it-can-see

 

[Triton]

Wow. We're using the Daily Beast as an aviation news source now?

"“EOTS is a big step backwards. The technology is 10-plus years old, hasn’t been able to take advantage of all the pod upgrades in the meantime, and there were some performance tradeoffs to accommodate space and stealth,” said another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 program. “I think it’s one area where the guys are going to be disappointed in the avionics.”

So "some dude" in the USAF who's "familiar" with the program has an opinion? And this is newsworthy? Okay. . .

The author Dave Majumdar has also written for USNI News, Flight International, Defense News, and C4ISR Journal, so I don't agree with your objection.

We know that Lockheed Martin has gone on to the improved Sniper ATP (Advanced Targeting Pod). We also know that Advanced EOTS will be available as a Block 4 upgrade. According to LowObservable, Advanced EOTS is intended to match the performance of new targeting pods like the Thales Talios.

 

[Triton]

"Sensor upgrades top USAF wish list for F-35 Block 4"
03 June, 2015 BY: James Drew Washington DC

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sensor-upgrades-top-usaf-wish-list-for-f-35-block-4-413070/

Improving two of the Lockheed Martin F-35’s key sensors should be priorities for a future operational standard called Block 4, says a top US Air Force general.

Upgrading the Lockheed electro-optical targeting system and adding a wide-area high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode – dubbed “– Big SAR” to the Northrop Grumman APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) are must-haves, says Gen Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, chief of Air Combat Command.

“I think as we look to the future, the Big SAR and advanced EOTS are the things we have to have on the sensor side,” says Carlisle, who spoke at an Air Force Association even in Washington, DC, this week. “The Big SAR radar can’t afford to move, and we’ve got to get to that advanced capability on the EOTS. Those are two that are kind of in the lurch right now. I’ll tell you, the advanced capability on the EOTS is one we’re working hard on.”

In 2007, Flight International magazine reported that the Big SAR capability was originally approved to be introduced in Block 3, which enters service next year. But that capability was delayed to at least Block 4.

The Pentagon is deciding what new weapons and capabilities will be integrated with the fifth-generation aircraft beyond those planned for the Block 3F configuration, which represents the “full warfighting capability.”

Those improved capabilities will be rolled out in Block 4, which will be delivered in cycles through the early 2020s.

The air force is also keeping an eye on software issues discovered during testing, namely the fusion of information from the aircraft’s sensor suite. “It’s one of the things we’re working hard on a making some progress, but we’ve got a ways to go,” Carlisle says.

For weapons, he places a premium on the integration of Raytheon’s Small Diameter Bomb II and delivery of more advanced air-to-air combat weapon systems beyond the AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile being integrated in earlier configurations.

Carlisle says improved air-to-air capabilities are vitally important since the air force did not buy enough F-22 Raptor air superiority jets. The air force currently has 180 Raptors, significantly fewer than the original plan calling for buying 750. He says it is simply a capacity issue.

“Probably one of the greatest mistakes made was the lack of more F-22s,” he says of the decision to end Raptor production early.

 

[LowObservable]

The operators have gotten used to having MWIR+HDTV and the competition is adding SWIR to the mix. What was new in 2001 is now subpar. Not a failure per se, but a consequence of long and difficult development during which nothing could be added to the spec. Hence a high priority for Block 4.
However, it's another reason why Block 2/3 won't be much use in CAS.

 

[SpudmanWP]

According to LowObservable, Advanced EOTS is intended to match the performance of new targeting pods like the Thales Talios.

To be polite, he has no idea of what an Advanced EOTS is capable of.


Besides one or two paragraphs that was put out, there is no public info available.

However, it's another reason why Block 2/3 won't be much use in CAS.

BS

 

[sferrin]

The author Dave Majumdar has also written for USNI News, Flight International, Defense News, and C4ISR Journal, so I don't agree with your objection.

I get that, and after a bit of reflection decided I was being a bit harsh and deleted the post. That said, it was still pretty much an opinion piece.

 

[quellish]

Sounded like what was being said was that today's stealth aircraft are not all aspect because they are bowties. (A bowtie can still be LO if it's a small bowtie.)

A low observable aircraft will have a RCS polar plot shaped like a bowtie almost by definition.
A very low observable or "ultra"/"extreme" low observable aircraft will look more like an X or Y. Few very distinct, narrow "spikes" along distinct lines of bearing.


Size of the bowtie does not matter as much as the shape does - the incoming energy has to go somewhere.

 

[Triton]

I get that, and after a bit of reflection decided I was being a bit harsh and deleted the post. That said, it was still pretty much an opinion piece.

Thank you for your reflection and consideration.

 

[Triton]

A low observable aircraft will have a RCS polar plot shaped like a bowtie almost by definition.
A very low observable or "ultra"/"extreme" low observable aircraft will look more like an X or Y. Few very distinct, narrow "spikes" along distinct lines of bearing.


Size of the bowtie does not matter as much as the shape does - the incoming energy has to go somewhere.

Does the F-35 look like a western bow tie or what LowObservable described as a Col. Sanders bow tie?

 

[Triton]

"F-35 could deploy quickly after IOC next year, general says"
By Phillip Swarts, Staff writer 2:35 p.m. EDT September 14, 2015

Source:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/09/14/f-35-could-deploy-quickly-after-ioc-next-year-general-says/72259278/

The F-35 could deploy overseas as soon as it reaches initial operating capability in 2016, said Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the Air Force's F-35 Integration Office.

"When you're at CENTCOM, you don't request a specific jet, you request the capability," Harrigian said Monday at the Air Force Association's Air and Space Conference. "When we declare IOC, the F-35 will be on the list of capabilities that will be available."

The decision of when F-35s will be deployed lies with Gen. Hawk Carlisle, who leads Air Combat Command, Harrigian said.

The service is still on pace to field a squadron of F-35s by the IOC goal of Aug. 1, 2016, Harrigian said, adding that it would likely include between 12 and 14 aircraft, 30 pilots and 240 maintainers and support personnel.

The first squadron will start off with three missions, Harrigian said: close air support, interdiction of enemy aircraft, and suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses.

"At the end of the day, this is ensuring that we bring to the warfighter a capability that's a modern capability that allows us to enter into those contested arenas," he said.

The Air Force currently has 74 F-35As, Harrigian said, and pilots have a combined 19,500 flight hours. Across the entire program for all services, more than 2,000 service members are trained as maintainers.

Harrigian said the F-35 will meet its goals for IOC, but that increasing both the number of planes and the number of operations after that date could pose problems.

"Readiness … has been a huge issue for us," he said. "We'll have to work through what's available and what is the requirement that the combatant commander has."

Retired Col. Leigh Method, the senior adviser for the integration office, said the key is maintaining long-term operational capacity for an aircraft expected to be in service for at least the next 50 years.

"We need a whole lot of maintainers to do that," she told Air Force Times. "You can't just hire a 15-year master sergeant; you've got to grow a 15-year master sergeant. We don't have 15 years' experience on this platform."

While the Air Force has trained the number of maintainers needed for IOC, Method said the service is looking into the future and trying to address any challenges that might affect personnel levels.

Another issue is finding international bases for the F-35 that can be used for resupply and depot maintenance, part of the "Global Sustainment System" the Air Force is attempting to set up.

Currently the service is evaluating 17 candidate locations in multiple allied nations, Harrigian said.

The general said he believes the F-35 will be a key piece of U.S. air power going forward.

"The threat is not sitting on its hands," Harrigian said. "They continue to evolve, and so we need to make sure that as we look at those specific threats, we're bringing capabilities that keep ourselves ahead of that curve."

 

[Triton]

"ALIS Biggest Challenge For F-35 IOC: Gen. Harrigian"
by Colin Clark on September 14, 2015 at 10:35 AM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/alis-biggest-challenge-for-f-35-on-track-to-ioc-gen-harrigian/

AFA CONFERENCE: The biggest pole in the tent for the F-35A is ALIS, the autonomous parts management and maintenance system key to managing the Joint Strike Fighter program’s in the long term.

That’s the word from Maj. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, director of the Air Force’s F-35 integration office. Harrigian, who oversees all F-35 issues for the service, also said readiness rates for the plane are barely scrapping 60 percent,

Lee Method, who leads the Air Force work on ALIS and just retired as a colonel, sent a clear message to both Lockheed Martin and to Capitol Hill: “The ALIS software will get there and we’re going to help them get there.”

Harrigian, with a shake of his head, noted the surprising fact many parts still have to be entered by hand. That cannot help readiness rates or parts monitoring.

Harrigian noted that both Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, and Deborah Lee James, Air Force secretary, “have had high level talks with Lockheed about the timeline. Let there be no doubt that we know what we need for ALIS and for Lockheed to deliver that capability.”

But about those readiness rates: “Over the last six to eight months we’ve touched 60 percent three separate times,” Harrigian told reporters. That old bugaboo, concurrency, remains a major stumbling block to readiness because modifications have to be made on planes that are supposed to be on the flight lines.

 

[Triton]

http://aviationweek.com/blog/lockheed-targeting-pod-what-it-can-see

I believe these are previously released videos of EOTS Flight Test Imagery and not Advanced ETOS.

Uploaded on Dec 1, 2009

Exceptional clarity and digital zoom enables user to clearly read stadium name.

The Electro-optical Targeting System (EOTS) is an affordable, high-performance, lightweight, multi-functional system for precision

https://youtu.be/jex0-uf144s

 

[sferrin]

Sounded like what was being said was that today's stealth aircraft are not all aspect because they are bowties. (A bowtie can still be LO if it's a small bowtie.)

A low observable aircraft will have a RCS polar plot shaped like a bowtie almost by definition.
A very low observable or "ultra"/"extreme" low observable aircraft will look more like an X or Y. Few very distinct, narrow "spikes" along distinct lines of bearing.


Size of the bowtie does not matter as much as the shape does - the incoming energy has to go somewhere.

True but wouldn't you say that if the "spikes" on your bowtie plot are 0.001 db vs 0.1 db that that is significant?

 

[Triton]

Who is the EW-heavy PacMan? A Dassault Rafale with Thales SPECTRA (Système de Protection et d'Évitement des Conduites de Tir du Rafale)?

 

[Dragon029]

Here's another decent video showing EOTS operating out to a smidge over 49NM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2q65qOl1tM

The 49.1NM shot:

 

[Triton]

"We Have Proof the U.S. Air Force Watered Down the F-35 to Avoid Embarrassment"
Flying branch is rushing new stealth fighter into service despite flaws, limited fighting capability
September 13, 2015 David Axe

Source:
http://warisboring.com/articles/we-have-proof-the-u-s-air-force-watered-down-the-f-35-to-avoid-embarrassment/

On May 18, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives dropped a figurative bomb on the U.S. Air Force. Fed up with delays and cost overruns on the U.S.-led international F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program — an ambitious effort to replace nearly all the thousands of jet fighters in the U.S. military and allied air arms with a single basic model — the House wrote language into the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act requiring the Pentagon to set deadlines for bringing the F-35 into service.

This was a problem for the Air Force’s Air Combat Command, which oversees most of the flying branch’s fighters and which had hoped to take a wait-and-see approach with the complex, failure-prone F-35, a single-seat, single-engine supersonic stealth fighter that the military hopes will be able to strike targets on the ground and in the air with equal prowess while also evading detection by enemy sensors.

To satisfy Congress while also reassuring the dozens of countries that had invested in, or might invest in, the Joint Strike Fighter program, Air Combat Command proclaimed that its F-35A version of the new warplane would be war-ready no later than December 2016.

But there was a catch — one that the Air Force has not been keen to publicize. In order to meet the end-of-2016 deadline, the flying branch had to badly water down the F-35, diluting its ability to fight and survive against a determined enemy such as Russia, China or Iran. The jet fighter that the Air Force plans to debut sometime before January 2017 is a weak version of itself. One that by the military’s own admission won’t be capable of reliably winning a high-tech battle.

Congress’ May 2012 demand caught the Air Force by surprise. Gen. Mike Hostage, then Air Combat Command’s top officer, just a few months earlier had quietly erased the Air Force’s old timeline, dating back to 2010, for declaring the flying branch’s F-35A version of the Joint Strike Fighter combat-ready.

In 2010, the plan had been to introduce the F-35A no later than October 2016 with war-ready “Block 3” software. Under that schedule, the first operational F-35As would have been capable of performing the full range of missions against even the best-armed foe — including the deadly task of hunting and destroying the latest Russian- and Chinese-made surface-to-air missiles and shooting down fully-armed enemy jets in fast-moving aerial battles.

But a long chain of problems with the F-35’s engine, sensors, cockpit layout and other subsystems had scuttled the 2010 plan. Hostage’s new plan, which he signed off on in February 2012, was “not date driven,” according to Air Combat Command’s official history for 2013, which War Is Boring obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.

Instead, Hostage wanted to wait to declare the F-35A operational until it had full Block 3 software, including all the code necessary for a Joint Strike Fighter to operate most of the sensors and weapons it’s theoretically capable of carrying.

By mid-2015, Lockheed Martin had delivered around 150 F-35s to the Air Force, Marines, Navy and allied air forces. Just 10 of the jets were officially combat-ready — those belonging to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 in Yuma, Arizona. The VMFA-121 planes have Block 2B software that’s compatible with just three different weapons — a 500-pound laser-guided bomb, a 2,000-pound GPS-guided bomb and the AIM-120 medium-range, radar-guided air-to-air missile. No short-range infrared dogfighting missile. No small GPS bomb. No cruise missile. No gun.

The Block 2B software also limits the F-35’s maneuverability and sensors.

But with Congress breathing down the military’s neck, Hostage backtracked from his open-ended timeline. According to the Air Combat Command history, Air Force brass were also worried that the absence of a firm deadline for war-readiness would hurt the F-35’s sales prospects. Lockheed anticipates selling hundreds or even thousands of Joint Strike Fighters in addition to the 2,400 the Pentagon wants to buy. Everyone is counting on economies of scale to drive down the F-35’s current high price tag — no less than $100 million for a single baseline F-35A.

Air Combat Command was in a bind. “Too much of a delay could discourage partners from buying or participating at all,” the history notes. “However, the Air Staff made it clear that they wanted to avoid ‘F-22 deja vu’ by sacrificing capabilities to meet timeline pressures.” The Air Force had rushed Lockheed’s twin-engine F-22 into service in 2005 even though the plane wasn’t actually ready. The stealthy F-22 didn’t fly its first combat mission — striking Islamic State in Syria — until September 2014.

What the Air Force needed was a compromise — a combination of a firm and relatively early date for declaring the F-35A operational plus a version of the F-35 that could be ready by that date without also being a total embarrassment to the military.

Or at the very least, being less embarrassing than having no firm date at all for finally introducing the F-35 into front-line service.

Air Combat Command floated the idea of a 2018 deadline, which might have given Lockheed time to prep the Block 3F software that should give the F-35 most of its combat capabilities. “It was the thought of many involved that the best way ahead was to hold firm to the Block 3F capabilities,” the Air Combat Command history recalls, “but Hostage began to realize the overall negative repercussions associated with waiting.”

Feedback from lawmakers reinforced Hostage’s concerns. “The read on Congress from Maj. Gen. Tod Wolters, [from the] Air Force Legislative Liaison Office, was that there was more support overall for an early declaration in [calendar year] ’16 as opposed to sticking to Block 3F with a CY ’18 declaration. These opinions came from the negative connotation with having over 180 F-35A aircraft parked on runways without IOC and also being two years behind the Marines.”

So Hostage bit the bullet. The Air Combat Command boss “stated he was willing to declare IOC at Block 3i, an earlier block with limited capabilities, and certain non-negotiable capabilities.” The new deadline for officially declaring the F-35A war-ready would be December 2016.

But there was a catch. By the Air Force’s own reckoning, the F-35A with Block 3i software wouldn’t be able to fight in the most dangerous environments without unacceptable risk to its pilots. Where before the Air Force required that its Initial Operational Capability F-35s be capable of offensive air-to-air missions and the suppression of enemy air defenses in a heavily opposed “anti-access” environment, under the new planning the initial F-35s would be suitable only for “basic” close air support and other ground-attack missions and “limited” defense-suppression — and none of it in anti-access airspace.

To meet a deadline that Congress found acceptable, the Air Force decided to debut F-35s that it knew full well wouldn’t actually be combat-ready in any meaningful sense of the term. In May 2013, the flying branch submitted its F-35 IOC date to Congress and then, according to the history, “began the tense wait to see if the JSF program could fulfill its promises over the next three years.”

 

[Triton]

Here's another decent video showing EOTS operating out to a smidge over 49NM:

Thank you for sharing, Dragon029.

 

[Triton]

"Pentagon Testing Office Calls Foul on F-35B 'Operational Test'”
by Mandy Smithberger and Dan Grazier

September 14, 2015

Source:
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/pentagon-testing-office-calls-foul.html?referrer=http://t.co/q47smXsCvI

The Marine Corps triumphantly declared its variant of the F-35 combat ready in late July. In the public relations build-up, the recent demonstration of its performance on the USS Wasp was heralded as a rebuttal to the program’s critics. But a complete copy of a recent memo from the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)—obtained by the Project On Government Oversight through the Freedom of Information Act—reveals that a number of maintenance and reliability problems “are likely to present significant near-term challenges for the Marine Corps.”

The Marine Corps named this demonstration “Operational Test One,” but it turns out it wasn’t actually an operational test, “in either a formal or an informal sense of the term.” To count as an operational test, conditions should closely match realistic combat conditions. But DOT&E found the demonstration “did not—and could not—demonstrate that Block 2B F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it was ready for real-world operational deployments, given the way the event was structured.”

The details buried inside the report’s annexes also show just how much trouble the crew faced in attempting to keep the F-35s selected for the demonstration flightworthy. Before the demonstration even began the Marine Corps had to swap out one F-35B with another “due to a fuel system fault that would have been impractical to fix at sea given the maintenance workload.” In combat, not only would this kind of replacement be impractical, it would likely be impossible.

Unrealistic Tests

To further explain how the demonstration was not a realistic operational test, DOT&E offered a laundry list of other artificial advantages present in the demonstration:

A relatively empty flight deck, without over 20 additional aircraft that make up the rest of the Air Combat Element (ACE). DOT&E notes that there are “additional complications that the presence of the other aircraft and personnel from the ACE would inject into the F-35B operations and maintenance.&rdquo

The absence of key combat mission systems, since they were either not installed or not cleared for use. Specifically, the nose apertures for the infrared Distributed Aperture System, which provides missile launch warning and situational awareness to pilots, were not installed. Night vision camera use was restricted to elevations above 5,000 feet. And only limited radar modes were available for some of the Block 2B aircraft. Critical warfighting systems like these cannot operate without advanced software which was unavailable at the time of the demonstration. These systems will not be fully integrated into operational aircraft until the block 3F software is ready in 2017 at the earliest. If these systems had been available, they would likely have added additional maintenance burdens.

For the software that was installed, DOT&E noted that degradations that would have to be addressed in combat “were often ignored during this event, as long as the aircraft were able to safely conduct the event’s limited training objectives.” This meant that in some instances, planes were flown when they were not fully combat ready.

The aircraft were not cleared to carry any ordnance. This was hardly surprising, in part because the F-35B will not be able to fire its gun until 2019.

“Significant assistance from embarked contractor personnel” on maintenance support. Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls Royce all provided Field Service Engineers (FSE). These personnel were embarked aboard the USS Wasp along with the uniformed maintainers. The number of individuals varied from day to day, but the report notes there were approximately 80 contractor civilians participating during the test. Such personnel would likely not be available during actual combat operations.

Due to an unreliable logistics management system—named the Automatic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS) system—crew used “[n]on-operationally representative [supply system] workarounds” to support the program, including for basic tasks such as fueling. The Marine Corps was able to support the aircraft only with “several ad hoc supply actions to obtain spare parts…that could not have been accomplished in a timely or a practical manner when operationally deployed.” This includes staging several extraordinary parts runs using MV-22 aircraft specially staged for the purpose. Even with all of these advantages, DOT&E found “it was difficult for the Marines to keep more than two to three of the six embarked jets in a flyable status on any given day.” In combat conditions, DOT&E wrote, it only gets “substantially tougher” for the aircraft to deploy.

Poor Test Results

The F-35Bs used for the demonstration were never able to achieve the planned number of flight hours over the 10 days of flight operations due to various maintenance issues. The report compares planned flight hours and hours actually flown for each day of flight operations; hours flown were only 70 percent of those scheduled. Here is how the planes performed, as detailed in Annex B of the report:

Monday, May 18 – Hours flown: 8.5; Hours planned: 9.0

Tuesday, May 19 – Hours flown: 2.9; Hours planned: 4.0

Wednesday, May 20 – Hours flown: 4.3; Hours planned: 7.0

Thursday, May 21 – Hours flown: 1.0; Hours planned: 6.0

Friday, May 22 – Hours flown: 4.6; Hours planned: 6.6

Saturday, May 23 – Hours flown: 2.5; Hours planned: 10.4

Sunday, May 24 – Hours flown: 11.5; Hours planned: 15.6

Monday, May 25 – Hours flown: 10.0; Hours planned: 10.4

Tuesday, May 26 – Hours flown: 11.2; Hours planned: 14.3

Wednesday, May 27 – Hours flown: 12.4; Hours planned: 15.6

DOT&E Flight Operations Chronology chart

Data from DOT&E "Annex B — Flight Operations Chronology"

Maintainers aboard the ship had their hands full during the test. One aircraft lost a “turkey feather” retaining pin in the engine when the plane first landed aboard the ship. This rendered the aircraft Not Mission Capable (NMC), an acronym which is repeated over and over again in the report.

The appendices obtained by POGO also show that maintenance problems grounded the planes throughout the demonstration. As examples of the problems encountered, at the conclusion of flight operations on May 20, three of six aircraft were down for maintenance. Four of six aircraft were out of action on the evening of May 22. On Saturday, May 23, the squadron commander cancelled two planned missions to give maintenance crews more time to complete aircraft repairs.

The report shows the unusual lengths used to resolve some of the issues. For example, one plane needed a replacement fuel boost pump. None were available on board, so one was flown in from Norfolk Naval Air Station on an MV-22 Osprey. Maintainers attempted to install the replacement part, but they found it had been damaged at some point either before or during shipping. Three more identical parts were later shipped to ensure at least one undamaged part would be available.

In another example, one of the F-35B’s needed a replacement voltage regulator to return to mission capable status. The part was unavailable locally, so one was flown from Fort Worth, Texas, out to the USS Wasp within 18 hours. The authors of the report noted, “This level of support should not be expected as normal for combat deployments once away from the continental United States.”

Extraordinary measures like these were only feasible for this test because it was conducted a relatively short distance off the east coast of the United States—a luxury DOT&E found unlikely to be available to commanders in combat: “The use of helicopter and MV-22 aircraft to fly maintenance equipment from ship to shore to support the maintenance of divert aircraft will not always be available in a timely manner during real-world operational deployments.”

The Marine Corps and Lockheed Martin anticipated issues of this sort and made special arrangements to support this event. The report notes the Marine Corps placed several MV-22’s on standby to conduct logistics runs for the test. Further, Lockheed Martin had prioritized support for the deployment “very highly.” It positioned contractors at various bases across the country to rapidly move needed parts through the system. This is hardly surprising, since it was in Lockheed Martin’s interests to do everything possible to see that this demonstration went as smoothly as possible.

Support crews had to resort to other extraordinary measures to keep the planes flying and to meet timeline expectations. The F-35 has often been described as a “flying computer.” The plane’s computers generate massive amounts of logistics data, which needs to be transferred off the planes and transmitted back to their home stations. Crews on the ground found the Autonomic Logistics Operating Unit could not handle the 400 to 800 megabyte data downloads quickly enough to meet the timeline. For purposes of comparison, that’s 3 to 6.5 hours of YouTube videos. After trying to transfer the files through several military computer networks both aboard ship and at military facilities ashore technicians finally resorted to driving off base and using commercial Wi-Fi. They had to burn the data to CDs, and then manually upload it to the Wasp squadron operating units to move the necessary files. Once those files were uploaded, they found “numerous errors” including missing files and inconsistencies between home station and deployed files that had to be corrected remotely by Lockheed Martin database administrators in Orlando and Fort Worth.

The report points out that there were also a number of other issues that arose over the course of the demonstration that were not included as potential maintenance work orders, including radio, radar, and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). Maintenance crews “made no attempt to fix these during this detachment.”

While there is nothing unusual about military equipment requiring maintenance to remain operational, the number of mechanical and electronic maintenance problems during this short period of time, and on such a highly publicized event, is remarkable. A readiness rate of 80 percent for a squadron of 6 aircraft is needed to meet combat needs according to Michael Gilmore, Director of Operational Testing & Evaluation. During this demonstration, the F-35 struggled to maintain even a 50 percent readiness level.

DOT&E noted that the reliability of the aircraft used in the demonstration varied widely. One plane in particular, BF-37 seemed useful only to test the skills of the embarked maintainers. It flew only one actual mission during the test, and even that brief flight required an emergency diversion to Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. In fact, only two of the planes, BF-23 and BF-38, could be relied upon to remain airworthy. The majority of the demonstration’s flights were made by this pair. The reliability of the 5 planes used throughout the entire 11 days of the demonstration are illustrated in the chart below.
DOT&E Annex D – Daily Flight Activity

Data from DOT&E "Annex D – Daily Flight Activity"

The reliability and operational availability of an aircraft is important in terms of combat readiness and for training purposes. Even the best aircraft in the world is useless without a skilled pilot. The only way to develop better pilots is to have them fly as often as possible in conditions replicating those they will face in combat as possible. The USS Wasp operational test, which seems no more than a PR exercise, simply confirmed that beyond the highly publicized questions regarding the F-35’s combat effectiveness, more pressing issues remain about its basic reliability. If the most expensive weapons system in history can’t even get off the ground often enough to train pilots adequately, then all the money spent on it has been wasted.

Despite this poor showing, the Marine Corps still declared its variant of the F-35 ready for combat in July. It’s worth keeping in mind the major combat capabilities missing from the F-35B’s just-declared IOC. The Marine Corps’ statements to the press note that the early operational F-35Bs do not have the new night-vision helmet, the Small Diameter Bomb II, GAU-22/A four-barrel 25mm Gatling gun essential for even minimal close support of ground troops, or the ability to stream video and simultaneously fuse sensor data from four aircraft. As we’ve written before, Block 2B was supposed to be the first block to have any claimed combat capability, but even this capability was not ready for the F-35s in the IOC test due to deficiencies identified in testing that cannot be resolved until later blocks. Now the first system to have “Full Operational Capability” (FOC) will be Block 4, currently scheduled to be declared fully capable in 2022—assuming no further schedule slips in the intervening seven years.

Traditionally, declaring IOC has depended upon completing combat-realistic testing, as was the criteria for the F-22’s IOC declaration in 2005. The Marine Corps admits the “initial” deployments are several years down the road. F-35Bs will not be deployed to Okinawa until 2017 at the earliest, and won’t be deployed on amphibious assault ships until 2018. It’s clear that the F-35B’s IOC declaration does not establish that any necessary combat capabilities have actually been achieved. It simply establishes that the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office and the Marine Corps were doggedly determined to reap the public relations benefits of meeting their artificial IOC deadline—even if in name only—no matter what.

 

[Triton]

"U.S. Air Force still evaluating options for F-35 'block buy'"
Reuters By Andrea Shalal
1 hour ago

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/u-air-force-still-evaluating-options-f-35-184538361--finance.html

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force on Monday said it is still examining a possible "block buy" that the Pentagon hopes to put together to lower the cost of U.S. and foreign military purchases of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet in coming years.

Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante said the U.S. military services and international partners are studying options for such a deal, which would pool planned purchases over a number of years to benefit from larger economies of scale and drive down the price of the new stealth fighter.

"All the services and the partners are just beginning to examine a bock buy. If in fact there is merit to it, we have time to do it," he said at the annual Air Force Association conference.

Major General Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the Air Force's F-35 integration office, earlier said that timing issue would make it "very difficult" to align the Air Force's budget process in time to benefit from a block buy starting in fiscal 2018.

He said the Air Force, the largest U.S. buyer of F-35s, had nearly locked down its fiscal 2017 budget plans for the program and an accompanying five-year plan, but gave no details. But he said officials were still looking at possible "hybrid" options.

Congress generally authorizes U.S. military spending one year at a time unless specific targets are met, and that usually occurs when a program has matured beyond where the F-35 is now.

Air Force and industry officials said that the Pentagon would find a way to enable the Air Force's participation in a discounted purchase plan, if an agreement was reached.

Harrigian said the issue would be further complicated if the U.S. Congress fails to pass a budget for fiscal 2016, which some fear may result in a full-year continuing resolution.

Production of the $391 billion F-35 fighter jet program is due to ramp up rapidly in coming years, with Lockheed slated to go from building 40 jets a year to 120 jets for the United States and the nine countries that have already placed orders: Britain, Norway, Australia, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Israel, Japan and South Korea.

Pratt & Whitney, the United Technologies Corp unit that makes the jet's engine, said it had submitted an estimate of additional savings that could result from the block buy but gave no details.

Bennett Croswell, who heads Pratt's military engines business, told Reuters the company received positive feedback from its suppliers and expected to continue driving down the cost of the engines as production increases.

Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who runs the F-35 program for the Pentagon, last week said the steep ramp-up in production could stress suppliers and that the jet's automated logistics system still faces problems.

 

[sferrin]

"Pentagon Testing Office Calls Foul on F-35B 'Operational Test'”
by Mandy Smithberger and Dan Grazier

September 14, 2015

Source:
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/pentagon-testing-office-calls-foul.html?referrer=http://t.co/q47smXsCvI

"The Marine Corps triumphantly declared. . ."

Clearly the beginning of an objective, fact-filled, analysis. :

 

[Triton]

"Lockheed Martin contracted to deliver Block 3F software for F-35"
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
01 September 2015

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/53954/lockheed-martin-contracted-to-deliver-block-3f-software-for-f-35

Lockheed Martin has been contracted to deliver Block 3F software for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter for the US and UK militaries.

The USD311.4 million contract announced by the Department of Defense (DoD) on 1 September covers delivery of the aircraft's full combat software to the US Air Force (USAF) (46%), US Marine Corps (USMC) (27%), US Navy (20%), and the United Kingdom (7%). According to the notification, work is expected to be competed in September 2021.

The F-35's software and capability blocks are broken down into Block 1A - initial training, Block 1B - advanced training 1, Block 2A - advanced training 2, Block 2B (initial combat capability), Block 3i (initial full capability), and Block 3F (full combat capability).

The USMC recently declared initial operating capability (IOC) for its F-35B jets with the Block 2B software, enabling the fleet to conduct close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort, and armed reconnaissance missions. Block 3i provides the same tactical capabilities as Block 2B, with the principal difference being the implementation of the updated Integrated Core Processor. The USAF will declare IOC for its F-35As, with one squadron of aircraft at the Block 3i standard in the third quarter of 2016.

Block 3F provides 100% of the software required for full warfighting capability, including but not limited to datalink imagery, full weapons, and embedded training. Mission Systems Block 3F software development is 98% complete and due to be rolled out in the third quarter of 2017. After Block 3F, further block upgrades will be developed and introduced. The DoD is currently balancing its future priorities with expected budgets as it looks to define its Block 4 requirements.

The USAF has a requirement for 1,763 conventional take-off and landing F-35As, the first of which was received at the Integrated Training Center at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) in 2011. The USAF will declare IOC in 2016. The USMC has a requirement for 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs, with the first having arrived at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River in Maryland in 2010. The service declared IOC of the F-35B in July. The US Navy has a requirement for 260 F-35Cs. It currently flies the variant at NAS Patuxent River and Eglin AFB. NAS Lemoore in California will be home to the service's first operational squadron, with IOC set for 2018-19.

The United Kingdom has a requirement for 138 F-35Bs for the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy, with final numbers set to be announced at the Strategic Defence and Security Review planned for later this year. Parliament has authorised the procurement of the first 14 F-35Bs as part of the overall programme of record, the first eight of which have been contracted (including four training and test platforms). In February 2015 the RAF's 17 Reserve Squadron was designated the United Kingdom's operational test and evaluation squadron at Edwards AFB. In 2016 the first operational unit - 617 'Dambusters' Squadron - is to stand up at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort before transferring to the type's homebase of RAF Marham in 2018. This unit will be joined at the same location shortly after by 809 'Immortals' Naval Air Squadron.