JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[Philip]

Lockheed: Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Final Approach to Initial Operational Capability
By: Dave Majumdar
Published: June 10, 2014

ockheed Martin has begun testing the final version of the F-35’s Block 2B software that the US. Marines need to declare the jet operational starting on June 9, company officials told reporters on Monday.

“We are putting the final capability version of the software on the aircraft today and expect to be flying today with 2B in its final drop of software,” Lorraine Martin, Lockheed’s F-35 executive vice president said. “It is possible we will learn things as we go through flight test throughout the summer and into the fall and we have provisioned with the JPO [Joint Program Office] that if we find something we’ve got capacity to go update the software.”

That means all of the capability needed for the U.S. Marine Corps’ initial operational capability (IOC) date with the F-35B short take-off vertical landing variant of the jet in July 2015 is currently flying in test. The software will be verified by the end of the year and released to the fleet in the second quarter of 2015, Martin said

Meanwhile, the government-company integrated test force has flown five sorties with the Block 3i software–which is the configuration the U.S. Air Force requires for its August 2016 IOC date. Block 3i, with the exception of a new third generation helmet-mounted display, offers the same capability as Block 2B other than the fact it runs on newer, faster computer hardware. The new helmet fixes issues with night vision found on the older version of the hardware.

“We did have some integration issues with the hardware itself,” Martin said.
“Once we ported the software over, we made no software changes to the application software. It ported clean, but we did have some integration issues that are now behind us.”

She said that the hardware and software are performing extremely well thus far.

The Marines do not need the new hardware for their IOC, but eventually their aircraft will be retrofitted with the new processors.

Martin says that the final Block 3F version of the software will be delivered on time despite concerns from the Joint Program Office that there could be a six-month delay. Martin said the Block 3F code is 80 percent complete with only 170,000 lines of code remaining. “We have plenty of time in my estimation to get the 3F software complete,” she said.

Martin said she has full confidence in the company’s current schedule because the plan is based on the “actual” past performance of the program in developing and testing the 2B software.

“We hit 2B essentially on the nose,” she noted.

If all goes as planned, the final Block 3F will finish testing at the end of 2016 and should be released to the fleet in the third quarter of 2017. The U.S. Navy will declare the F-35C operational with Block 3F software.

Meanwhile, Lockheed anticipates an eighth low-rate initial production contract to be signed in the summer of this year. Martin said that the price of the F-35 drop compared to the last production lot.

[Philip]

And some news on counter-stealth tech available with the E-2D.Previous JSF report from same USNI link.

http://news.usni.org/2014/06/09/u-s-nav ... ight[quote]
The U.S. Navy’s Secret Counter-Stealth Weapon Could Be Hiding in Plain Sight
By: Dave Majumdar
Published: June 9, 2014
An E-2D lands on the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69). US Navy Photo

The Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye maybe the U.S. Navy’s secret weapon against the emerging threat of enemy fifth-generation stealth fighters and cruise missiles.

The key to that capability is the aircraft’s powerful UHF-band hybrid mechanical/electronically-scanned AN/APY-9 radar built by Lockheed Martin. Both friend and foe alike have touted UHF radars as an effective countermeasure to stealth technology.

One example of that is a paper prepared by Arend Westra that appeared in the National Defense University’s Joint Forces Quarterly academic journal in the 4th quarter issue of 2009.

“It is the physics of longer wavelength and resonance that enables VHF and UHF radar to detect stealth aircraft,” Westra wrote in his article titled Radar vs. Stealth.

UHF-band radars operate at frequencies between 300MHz and 1GHz, which results in wavelengths that are between 10 centimeters and one meter long.

Typically, due to the physical characteristics of fighter-sized stealth aircraft, they must be optimized to defeat higher frequencies in the Ka, Ku, X, C and parts of the S-bands.

There is a resonance effect that occurs when a feature on an aircraft—such as a tail-fin tip— is less than eight times the size of a particular frequency wavelength. That omni-directional resonance effect produces a “step change” in an aircraft’s radar cross-section.

Effectively what that means is that small stealth aircraft that do not have the size or weight allowances for two feet or more of radar absorbent material coatings on every surface are forced to make trades as to which frequency bands they are optimized for.

That would include aircraft like the Chengdu J-20, Shenyang J-31, Sukhoi PAK-FA and indeed the United States’ own Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Only very large stealth aircraft without protruding empennage surfaces — like the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit or the forthcoming Long Range Strike-Bomber — can meet the requirement for geometrical optics regime scattering.

“You can’t be everywhere at once on a fighter-sized aircraft,” one source told USNI News earlier in the year.
An E-2D Hawkeye outside the hangar at Naval Air Station Patuxent River on March 26, 2014. US NAvy Photo

However, as Westra and many other sources point out, UHF and VHF-band radars have historically had some major drawbacks. “Poor resolution in angle and range, however, has historically prevented these radars from providing accurate targeting and fire control,” Westra wrote.

Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin appear to have overcome the traditional limitations of UHF-band radars in the APY-9 by applying a combination of advanced electronic scanning capability together with enormous digital computing power in the form of space/time adaptive processing.
The Navy would not directly address the issue, but service officials did say the APY-9 provides a massive increase in performance over the E-2C Hawkeye 2000’s radar.

“The E-2D APY-9 radar provides a significantly enhanced airborne early warning and situational awareness capability against all air targets including threat aircraft and cruise missiles,” said Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon in an emailed statement to USNI News.

“The modern technology of the APY-9 radar provides a substantial improvement in performance over the E-2C’s APS-145 radar whose heritage dates back to the 1970s.”

But the Navy openly talks about the E-2D’s role as the central node of its Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) (pronounced: nifk-kah) construct to defeat enemy air and missile threats—Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy’s director of air warfare, described the concept in detail to USNI News last December.

Under the NIFC-CA ‘From the Air’ (FTA) construct, the APY-9 radar can act as a sensor to cue Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles for Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets fighters via the Link-16 datalink.

Additionally, the APY-9 also acts as a sensor to guide Standard SM-6 missiles launched from Aegis cruisers and destroyers against targets located beyond the ships’ SPY-1 radars’ horizon via the Cooperative Engagement Capability datalink under the NIFC-CA ‘From the Sea’ (FTS) construct. And thus far, all live-fire NIFC-CA missile shots have been successful.

The first increment of NIFC-CA is set to be fielded later this year when the first E-2D squadron, VAW-125, is set to declare initial operating capability in October 2014. NIFC-CA will be declared operational concurrently with that squadron.

The APY-9 is a unique design in many respects, NAVAIR and Northrop brag that the radar is a “two-generation leap” over the APS-145 in an information booklet the service has been distributing. While externally the radar appears to be no different than the purely mechanically-scanned AN/APS-145—also built by Lockheed Martin–internally it is an another matter entirely.

While the APY-9 does rotate inside the E-2D’s dish-shaped radome to achieve 360-degree coverage, the crew of the aircraft can control the antenna rotation speed to focus on an area of interest according to NAVAIR. Further, the 18-channel passive phased-array ADS-18 antenna has the ability to steer its radar beam electronically. It also incorporates an electronically-scanned identification friend or foe system.

The transmitter and receiver hardware are located inside the aircraft’s fuselage and connect to the antenna via high power radiofrequency transmission lines and a high power radiofrequency rotary coupler. Thus, it is not an active electronically scanned array radar.

The APY-9 has three distinct radar modes, Advanced Airborne Early Warning Surveillance, Enhanced Sector Scan, and Enhanced Tracking Sector.

Advanced Airborne Early Warning Surveillance is the normal operating mode for the radar to provide uniform 360-degree, simultaneous air and surface coverage with long-range detection of low radar cross-section targets. The antenna rotates 360 degrees every ten seconds or so when it is operating in this primarily mechanically scanned mode.

The Enhanced Sector Scan mode merges traditional mechanical scanning with steerable electronic scanning to leverage the benefits of both technologies while simultaneously mitigating the shortcomings of either methodology. The antenna rotates mechanically, but the operator can select a specific sector where the rotation of the antenna is slowed to focus on an area.

Enhanced Tracking Sector is a pure electronically scanned mode, where the antenna is geographically stabilized or following a particular target. This mode provides enhanced detection and tracking in a selected sector by stopping the antenna and scanning purely electronically. This mode is particularly useful against low-observable targets due to its rapid track updates.

The APY-9 has a range of at least 300 nautical miles and seems to be limited only by the performance of the E-2D airframe–which normally operates at 25,000ft.

The Navy ultimately hopes to buy a total of 75 E-2D with the last examples entering the fleet in the 2020s.[/quote]

[brar_w]

And some news on counter-stealth tech available with the E-2D.Previous JSF report from same USNI link

The same DUO that made this radar, have also created the F-35 and its sensor suite, and have been key players in the stealth development over the last 3 decades. RCS optimization and the overall signature suppression is designed to defeat the threat and break the kill chain. Needless to say, that just because these sort of things are not talked about does not mean that powerful UHF, VHF sensors have not been constantly evaluating stealth aircraft in the inventory and in development at the various secret and known test ranges. Ever since the first stealth aircraft/prototype flew there has been a constant effort to build up ranges and evaluation, every stealth aircraft that has been delivered undergoes fundamental RCS checks, rechecks, mounted checks and then goes through rigorous operational degradation and tested again before going back to the depot to have its stealth restored. I have posted pictures of the pre-delivery stealth verification facility for the F-35 program (in another thread). All these tests are over and above the fundamental RCS and stealth (more than just RCS) testing and evaluation that is done in the early phases of the program. In the case of the JSF, this was done when the X-35 was evaluated (or the YF22) and then again at the CDR phase of the program. Post CDR, one of the first thing that is tested after first of post-CDR production vehicle is the stealth vs projected RCS based on modeling done during the CDR. In addition to the UHF radar in the new E-2, Northrop Grumman (F-35 program partner, and the main sensor provider, in addition to the fact that they are pioneers in stealth with the various efforts ranging form the B-2 to the YF23, F-35 and X-47B) is also the maker of one of the largest L band projects in the Electronically scanned array for the wedge tail.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... s/mesa.pdf


At the end of the day, only the designers, operators know the exact capability against all bands. This is a closely guarded secret. The exact measuring, verification and Blue v Red scenario has been constantly refined since the 70's so its not like they are learning how to do things. Stealth vs radar is not a zero sum game/fight.

Here is how the early testing happened in 1980 when the B-2 program had a head to head between lockheed and Northrop (Who are now partnered on the F-35), and the things that lead to the RCS designs and the learning curve that eventually lead to the B-2 bomber. This was not the first time khan designed a stealthy aircraft. Common sense would dictate that the number of parameters tested, required to be verified and the amount of information at their disposal would be huge in 2006 compared to 1980 when early decisions were made on the B-2 program. The fact that they are continuing with stealth on the JSF, on the 6th gen concepts, and on the B-3 bomber project (whatever that is called) despite of having operational UHF, L band radars and having some of the most well funded radar test ranges on the planet speaks quite loudly as to the untapped potential of low RCS and that the PEAK has not been touched just yet. There is plenty of capability that is being spoken of in technical journals about where the "materials" side of the the game is developing. Lockheed has already quite openly suggested that they will be looking at offering self healing structuresfor the 6th generation US fighter development. F-35 already represents quite a significant enhancement over the F-22 as far as the materials of choice and how stealth was baked into the material (Fiber mat)

Also see this

http://www.thehowlandcompany.com/radar_ ... d_F-22.htm

All of this is of course comparing the structural RCS to the model or what they expected/required from the design. At a more operational level all of the components individually are tested for their contribution to stealth. The radar is a perfect example. The Apg-81 began testing in 2008 (iirc) for its capability, performance and the LPI (low probability of intercept) which is a key enabler of stealth. Similarly once the jet is at a certain maturity level, the entire system (airframe, avionics, software etc) is sent out to test the signature and stealth (overall just not RCS) against a simulated radar in an operational scenario at a test range . As was quietly reported here -

JSF Tests against Russian, Chinese Air Defenses

This is where you test it against various ground based radar bands that your red force is likely to operate (and also things like the UHF radar cited in your article). Some of the range radars are known, yet some are not. Most air forces will guard these secrets closely (threat radar simulators). Even if the US spent 5% of what they spent on stealth R&D on having the most cutting edge range radars (based on their intel obviously) the scope of the ranges would be huge and thorough. You can obviously never match the precise software and algos for foreign radars, but you can built up an index based on your intel, and build very capable radars of your own to test the design limits of a particular aircraft vs a particular band. With that knowledge you go out and develop tactics and adjust active support (EW). That is why I found the entire news story on the daily mail laughable (the one that talked about EW protection on the F-35). The fact that the article was bashing a largely classified capability on the f-35 without knowing the actual test results of the design and system at various levels was quite amusing. Its always healthy to criticize when you have access to information with which you come to a different conclusion compared to the designers or the air force concerned. But attacking a design approach without first knowing the "full" capability of the EW suite (even the full capability of the f-22's EW suite is classified, so why would the makers talk about that of the much newer F-35?) or the full facts on the stealth testing of the X-35, RCS modeling at the CDR and consequent stealth testing of the F-35 was highly mischievous and clearly aimed at pushing an agenda. The most recent article posted here on this forum clearly set the most light on the entire matter when it said this

Several sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations — from government and industry — tell me that each country went in to discussions with the Pentagon with a great deal of skepticism. But once country representatives received the most highly classified briefing — which I hear deals mostly with the plane’s cyber, electronic warfare and stealth capabilities — they all decided to buy.

If this does not put that discussion to rest, nothing except making the full capability public would (which is not likely to happen for quite a while - if it hasn't yet for the f-22)

[NRao]

Corrected version:

Lockheed: Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Final Approach to Initial Operational Capability
By: Dave Majumdar
Published: June 10, 2014

Lockheed Martin has begun testing the final version of the F-35’s Block 2B software that the US. Marines need to declare the jet operational starting on June 9 {NOTE: 2015}, company officials told reporters on Monday.

“We are putting the final capability version of the software on the aircraft today and expect to be flying today with 2B in its final drop of software,” {NOTE: A year ahead}Lorraine Martin, Lockheed’s F-35 executive vice president said. “It is possible we will learn things as we go through flight test throughout the summer and into the fall and we have provisioned with the JPO [Joint Program Office] that if we find something we’ve got capacity to go update the software.”

That means all of the capability needed for the U.S. Marine Corps’ initial operational capability (IOC) date with the F-35B short take-off vertical landing variant of the jet in July 2015 is currently flying in test. The software will be verified by the end of the year {NOTE: 2014}and released to the fleet in the second quarter of 2015, Martin said

So ...........................

Meanwhile, the government-company integrated test force has flown five sorties with the Block 3i software–which is the configuration the U.S. Air Force requires for its August 2016 IOC date. Block 3i, with the exception of a new third generation helmet-mounted display, offers the same capability as Block 2B other than the fact it runs on newer, faster computer hardware. The new helmet fixes issues with night vision found on the older version of the hardware.

She said that the hardware and software are performing extremely well thus far.

Time for my

Martin says that the final Block 3F version of the software will be delivered on time despite concerns from the Joint Program Office that there could be a six-month delay. Martin said the Block 3F code is 80 percent complete with only 170,000 lines of code remaining. “We have plenty of time in my estimation to get the 3F software complete,” she said.

confidence for you!!!!

If all goes as planned, the final Block 3F will finish testing at the end of 2016 and should be released to the fleet in the third quarter of 2017. The U.S. Navy will declare the F-35C operational with Block 3F software.

All three IOCs - on-time. And, in very good shape.

Granted over cost.

[NRao]

June 5, 2014 :: Exclusive: Canadian review will recommend buying Lockheed F-35 fighter jet - sources

"Sources" granted (Some have an allergy for it).

Canada is poised to buy 65 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, sources familiar with the process told Reuters, marking a major renewal of Canada's fighter fleet and helping contain costs of the expensive defense program.

An 18-month review of Canada's fighter jet needs has concluded that the government should skip a new competition and proceed with the C$9 billion ($8.22 billion) purchase, three sources said.

It is a recommendation, which, obviously, could be rejected by the Government.

A spokesman for Harper's office said there was nothing to announce yet.

However, the sources said the recommendation was expected to lead to formal approval of the F-35 purchase. They said Harper and key cabinet members supported the decision

[Philip]

Canada,part of the "5 eyes" ultra-exclusive whites only club (US,UK,Canada,Oz,NZ),will be under enormous unseen pressure not to reject the bird,even though its cost is prohibitive.The carrot being offered is interoperability,being part of a whole group of nations operating it,the sum of the whole vastly more efficient than its parts.Since the US's allies defer to its mil. leadership,and the allies doing their bit,funding their share of the defence/offence depending upon their financial,human resource and mil. capability,the diktat from Washington will be subtle but strong.There is no way that the US will allow Canada to buy a flying "frog",especially when Marie le Pen who might end up one day squatting in the Elysee Palace ,wants France to leave NATO!

IOC is a significant step,FOC the first major operational deployment with the USMC.As for the stealth,anti-stealth battle,only combat between the opposing sides will reveal the truth as the article says.That is if he US isn't afraid to send the JSF into battle unlike its attitude with the F-22! Perhaps the unfolding scenario in Iraq where ISIS is changing the map of the Middle East might see its first deployment,but only until FOC.

[Viv S]

With regard to the recent disclosure by Gen Hostage about the F-35 having a lower RCS than the F-22.


No Growling Needed

The F-35 is beating the stealthiness expected of it “at maturity,” said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program manager. Officials must still verify this claim “with more data,” she told reporters on June 9 during a company-sponsored media day in Arlington, Va. She noted that Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mike Hostage recently told Breaking Defense that the F-35 needs no jamming support from other aircraft, such as Boeing’s EF-18G Growler, in a heavily defended battlespace to “go where it needs to go.” Hostage said the F-35 actually has better stealth than the F-22. “I can’t say some of those things” due to classification, commented Martin, but she said Hostage accurately represented the F-35’s capabilities. The Growler and similar platforms are going to be “helpful” if there are “fourth generation aircraft … and they need some protection,” but the F-35 has “all the stealth we said it would have,” and can “get in and get out safely with the electronic warfare it has on it,” she asserted. The F-35’s stealth is checked as it exits production and again just before government acceptance. “And, after we fly it a few months, we put it back through the [stealth test] range and verify the stealth is still there,” said Martin.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... eeded.aspx

[NRao]

carrot being offered is interoperability

Oh my. Do I see the white flag in the distance? So, this turkey can really fly? Fire a missile and its guns? really?




BTW, the last time I checked they offered to modify the Gnat to make it "interoperability".

[member_26622]

Lo bhai...Now why do we need to spurge on old hag RAFALE and to be born PAKFA? F-35 Missile and armaments will be cheaper given huge production runs as well.

We will need a stealth jet to take on Chinese and will have whole hearted American support for F-35 behind us.

For Paki side, SU-30 and LCA will send PAF planes packing to their Saudi safe keepers. Doesn't matter if US soft kills F-35's on the ground.

Pardon my over simplification given time constraints - Let's save money and avoid anguish, buy 100~150 F-35's, learn and jump start local stealth plane development.

[Viv S]

Canada,part of the "5 eyes" ultra-exclusive whites only club (US,UK,Canada,Oz,NZ),will be under enormous unseen pressure not to reject the bird,even though its cost is prohibitive.

With SAAB having withdrawn from the fray, its only alternative was the Rafale. And the F-35A though more expensive is still fairly competitive with the Rafale on cost. Huge difference in capability however.

That is if he US isn't afraid to send the JSF into battle unlike its attitude with the F-22!

Its not worth deploying the F-22 for strike and CAS when there is an abundance of adequate platforms for the task. In a large scale conflict, the F-22 would become extremely valuable.


Also for the record, F-22s haven't been hidden away and have been deployed to potential conflict zones.

America's most sophisticated stealth jet fighters have been quietly deployed to an allied base less than 200 miles from Iran's mainland, according to an industry report, but the Air Force adamantly denied the jets' presence is a threat to the Middle East nation. (link)


Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh on Tuesday sketched out a dramatic tale of a lone F-22 Raptor chasing off Iranian fighter jets over the Arabian Gulf.

"Did you guys see the news clip not long ago about the Iranian F-4s that intercepted a remotely-piloted aircraft out over the Arabian Gulf, and then they were warned off?"
Welsh then displayed a picture of Sutterfield before a large audience of his fellow service members at the Air Force Association's Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition on Tuesday.
"This is the guy that warned them off," he said. "He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home.'" (link)

Perhaps the unfolding scenario in Iraq where ISIS is changing the map of the Middle East might see its first deployment,but only until FOC.

What sort of ground/air defence systems does the ISIS/ISIL field?

[Indranil]

With regard to the recent disclosure by Gen Hostage about the F-35 having a lower RCS than the F-22.
No Growling Needed
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... eeded.aspx

Come on Viv. That's a PM talking on a PR event. What else do you expect?

The F-35 is beating the stealthiness expected of it “at maturity,” said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program manager. Officials must still verify this claim “with more data,” she told reporters on June 9 during a company-sponsored media day in Arlington, Va. She noted that Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mike Hostage recently told Breaking Defense that the F-35 needs no jamming support from other aircraft, such as Boeing’s EF-18G Growler, in a heavily defended battlespace to “go where it needs to go.” Hostage said the F-35 actually has better stealth than the F-22. “I can’t say some of those things” due to classification, commented Martin, but she said Hostage accurately represented the F-35’s capabilities. The Growler and similar platforms are going to be “helpful” if there are “fourth generation aircraft … and they need some protection,” but the F-35 has “all the stealth we said it would have (well, of course),” and can “get in and get out safely with the electronic warfare it has on it,” she asserted. The F-35’s stealth is checked as it exits production and again just before government acceptance. “And, after we fly it a few months, we put it back through the [stealth test] range and verify the stealth is still there,” said Martin.
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... eeded.aspx

A plane designed and built by one of best in the world (as LM truly is), will certainly exhibit its designed RCS. Question is whether the RCS alone is sufficient or not. For me, the jury is firmly out on that. I have to admit that I am slightly biased against JSFs chances. USAF will officially always extol the chances of the F-35. Do you hear the IAF chief speaking about the weaknesses of Su-30, the French air chief speaking against the Rafale or the Royal Airforce chief saying anything against the EF. That does not happen. I am afraid the world has to wait for a combat. Also, where all the future designers go with the hindsight of designing and fielding the F-35/PAKFA/J-20 will be an eye opener.

[Viv S]

Come on Viv. That's a PM talking on a PR event. What else do you expect?

Fair enough. (Elsewhere there was some talk about how he may have misspoken, I was posting it mostly to buttress that revelation.)

A plane designed and built by one of best in the world (as LM truly is), will certainly exhibit its designed RCS. Question is whether the RCS alone is sufficient or not. For me, the jury is firmly out on that. I have to admit that I am slightly biased against JSFs chances. USAF will officially always extol the chances of the F-35.

Actually the most significant development was the closing down of the F-22 production. The USAF is planning to take on the PLAAF with an F-35 centric fleet.

On the F-35 - PAK FA debate, for India there are two crucial questions -


- Which aircraft can do the job better?

I am very skeptical about the PAK FA's VLO properties, mostly because they seem 'flexible' on the level of stealth that they're shooting for. The advertised RCS (0.1-1m2) is not in the VLO range. Perhaps the PAK DA will be able to effectively complement it for strike role.

- Which aircraft can we develop more easily?

Developing a PAK FA analogue certainly seems an easier bet for HAL/DRDO than pushing for something comparable to the F-35. Doesn't need an exceptionally low RCS. A 5th gen engine can be acquired off-the-shelf as can a significant part of the avionics. Lower sensor fusion requirements. Lower maintainability requirements. Faster development. Faster delivery.

[Indranil]

On the F-35 - PAK FA debate, for India there are two crucial questions -


- Which aircraft can do the job better?

I am very skeptical about the PAK FA's VLO properties, mostly because they seem 'flexible' on the level of stealth that they're shooting for. The advertised RCS (0.1-1m2) is not in the VLO range. Perhaps the PAK DA will be able to effectively complement it for strike role.

- Which aircraft can we develop more easily?

Developing a PAK FA analogue certainly seems an easier bet for HAL/DRDO than pushing for something comparable to the F-35. Doesn't need an exceptionally low RCS. A 5th gen engine can be acquired off-the-shelf as can a significant part of the avionics. Lower sensor fusion requirements. Lower maintainability requirements. Faster development. Faster delivery.

I think that decision has already been made. And personally, I like it.

[NRao]

Here

Code: Select all

JSF PROGRAM: SUMMARY OF EXPECTED ORDERS as of early June 2014
F35 Variant   A      B      C      TOTAL
TOTAL         2244   508    340    3104
USA           1763   340    340    2443
-        USAF 1763                 1763
-      Marine        340    80     420
-        Navy               260    260
Australia     72                   72    100 Initially proposed. This commitment still stands. 
Canada        65                   65    18 mth review advised Govt. to skip another competition.
Denmark       30                   30    Still considering options.
Holland       37                   37    Initially proposed to purchase 85, but currently sticking with 37.
Israel        19                   19    Considering up to 75, but already committed to 19.
Italy         60     30            90    Initially proposed to purchase 131 - reduced due to budget pressures.
Japan         42                   42    A near-term purchase of 28-42 aircraft is expected.
Norway        16                   16    Intention is to purchase 52 aircraft.
Turkey        100                  100   First 2 already ordered.
UK            138                  138   Committed to 48 aircraft already, with a further 14 this year.
South Korea   40                   40    Confirmed full 40.
Singapore     12                   12    12 Indicated to date, joined program as Security Cooperation Participant.
Belgium                                  Need to find a replacement for the F-16 - competition to be run soon 

[Austin]

F-35 Stealthier Than F-22? - Bill Sweetman

I figured that there would be some kind of PR offensive out of the Joint Strike Fighter program in preparation for the floating of the UK carrier and the international debut of the F-35, and here it is, in the form of a two-part piece in Breaking Defense, here and here.

The first observation to be made is that the Air Force might be able to use an Eng Lit 101 course.

Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mike Hostage, according to reporter Colin Clark, "labels as 'old think' those critics who point to the F-117 shoot-down and the presumed supremacy of high-powered electronic-magnetic warfare."

“Oldthink”, of course, is a word straight out of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Oldthinkers unbellyfeel FifthGenerationTM, indeed.

That aside, we should remember that Hostage ruffled a few feathers with a quote earlier this year:

If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.

That was not exactly a ringing endorsement of the F-35, particularly for customers who had been assured that F-35 was, no kidding, a dominant air-superiority platform (as the Australians were, in sworn testimony to Parliament). So, particularly with Canada's government ready to announce another sole-source decision to buy JSF without a competition that would provide a full view of alternative fighters, it is good news for the program if Hostage talks over his previous statement.

In the new interview, Hostage talks up the F-35’s stealth and expressly takes issue with the Boeing/Navy picture of the F-35 requiring first-day support from the EA-18G Growler or other electronic warfare assets.

“In the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical. You’re not going to get a Growler close up to help in the first hours and days of the conflict, so I’m going to be relying on that stealth to open the door.”

However, note that Hostage is not saying that F-35s will go in unsupported: they will use numbers for mutual support:

“I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two (F-22) Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

The words “that site” imply that Hostage is talking about destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD) rather than air superiority alone – where the F-22’s speed and larger missile load could be expected to yield an advantage over the F-35. But a four-to-one advantage for the F-22 in DEAD, which is one of the JSF’s prime design missions, is unfavourable in terms of cost-effectiveness: according to a 2008 RAND study of continuing production of the F-22 (at 30 or fewer per year) and the most optimistic F-35 numbers from Lockheed Martin (at 150-plus per year), the F-22 at worst costs twice as much as the F-35.

Hostage makes another, very interesting comparison between the F-22 and the F-35.

The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”

Now, we all know that a lot of things can go happen between the interviewee’s brain and the interviewer’s keyboard, but the idea that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 contradicts pretty much everything that has been said about the program for the past 20 years, including the reporting of my former colleague, the usually well-informed Dave Fulghum.

The statement is curious for other reasons. Nobody ever suggested in the program’s formative years that the goal was to beat the F-22's stealth - and indeed that would be extremely unlikely since the JSF was designed for export. Stealth, along with other requirements, was also subject to trades in the development of the final JSF requirement, and less important than life-cycle cost.

The geometrical basics of stealth -- sweep and cant angles, minimized small-radius curves and nozzle design -- favor the F-22, and everything anyone has said about radar absorbent materials for years has been about life-cycle cost rather than performance.

Hostage is effusive about the value of the F-35’s sensor fusion and datalinks, too:

“Fusion says here’s what’s out there. You told me, this one right here’s a threat. Here’s what it’s doing right now. Here’s what your wingman (knows): he sees he’s got a missile on the right, so I’m not going to waste a missile because I already see that my wingman’s taking care of it.”

With all due respect, what is Swedish for “Hold the front page”? The datalink and tactical display system on the JAS 39A Gripen did exactly that, 15 years ago.

Finally, the second half of the Breaking Defense story talks a lot about cyber (very little of it from Hostage or any named source) and says that export buyers “went in to discussions with the Pentagon with a great deal of skepticism. But once country representatives received the most highly classified briefing — which I hear deals mostly with the plane’s cyber, electronic warfare and stealth capabilities — they all decided to buy.”

Three questions that all those export customers should answer to their voters: In what Block will those magic cyber capabilities appear? What guarantees have been provided that F-35 cyber weapons developed by the U.S. will be shared with non-U.S. operators? And, failing that, will international partners be enabled to program their own cyber-operations tools into the F-35?

[brar_w]

he words “that site” imply that Hostage is talking about destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD) rather than air superiority alone – where the F-22’s speed and larger missile load could be expected to yield an advantage over the F-35. But a four-to-one advantage for the F-22 in DEAD, which is one of the JSF’s prime design missions, is unfavourable in terms of cost-effectiveness: according to a 2008 RAND study of continuing production of the F-22 (at 30 or fewer per year) and the most optimistic F-35 numbers from Lockheed Martin (at 150-plus per year), the F-22 at worst costs twice as much as the F-35.

Speculation galore i guess. Could the author not get an interview with the general like others in the media? Oh i forgot, he did try to contact the USAF and lockheed (to no avail) when he last wrote on the JSF/B. The 4:1 was a passing reference to a mission that the F-22 routinely performs. That is CAP. If you put 4:1 in DEAD you would have to be quite crazy, since DEAD in the USAF is something that is currently supposed to be done by the F-22 and the B-2 (read USAF Gen Jumper's doctrine). You put a fighter that by its design is going to be operating at mid altitude and pit it against a super cruising 50K fighter you are going to be bound to be stretched. That is not how the F-35 is going to operate, at least initially.

Coming to the missile point. Indeed as things stand the F-35 has 4 internal BVR missiles compared to 6 on the raptor. What is also true is that lockheed expects this to be upped to 6 internal (same as F-22) at a future date as capability is added. The current roadmap of development is till block 4, with 75% of the requirements of block 5 set while 25% of the space remains vacant for what ever the partners wish to put into it. Things like DIRCM, greater missile load, a new missile etc could fit in here if it is so desired. A lot of the advantage on CAP for the f22 comes from its larger MRAAM load. What 10 raptors can do in terms of missiles on targets you need 15 F-35's to do. This is not going to stay like this forever.

Now, we all know that a lot of things can go happen between the interviewee’s brain and the interviewer’s keyboard

Angry much? Or just jealous that these folks talk to others and not to him?

but the idea that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 contradicts pretty much everything that has been said about the program for the past 20 years, including the reporting of my former colleague, the usually well-informed Dave Fulghum.

Either he has the internal classified briefing on the stealth and how it compares to the raptor or he does not. Which is it? If he has a document that is at par with what the General is privy too then he can challenge him. In the absence of it he should just keep mum and not make a fool of himself. Is he calling the general a liar? What exactly is he doing? Asking for the USAF to reveal complex RCS study documents?

The statement is curious for other reasons. Nobody ever suggested in the program’s formative years that the goal was to beat the F-22's stealth

So things would have to be suggested to be actually true? So no one suggested during the ATF that lockheed could achieve a 12% better super cruise then what was written in the ATF document or what was shown in the YF22. The flight testing found a 12% increase over the baseline mach 1.5. I guess that must also not be true.

unlikely since the JSF was designed for export.

What does this mean? That because its a 10-12 year younger design, an export level of materials and stealth cannot be more stealthier than the F-22 which first flew in 1991? Lockheed had a 80 billion dollar experiment before they applied their minds on the F-35 . Materials, shaping, computing all had advanced and most importantly they had experience from the f-22 program. They also brought northrop grumman as a team member (that included design and building stealth components, structures and assemblies) and combined these two represented 100% of the operational stealth OEM's in the world

Stealth, along with other requirements, was also subject to trades in the development of the final JSF requirement, and less important than life-cycle cost.

Speculation continues

With all due respect, what is Swedish for “Hold the front page”? The datalink and tactical display system on the JAS 39A Gripen did exactly that, 15 years ago

And so did the F-22's IFDL 17 years ago. Point? You have more sensors to get the information, faster mission computers to crunch the information, better software that is more extensive and huge threat libraries that can take a 800 nm missile launch and put sensors on it to match algos to try to pin point the missile concerned. If he cannot discriminate between the two levels of sensor fusion then god bless him. What the F-22 had was the Apg-77/-94 combo passing target and track info to other f-22's. What the F-35 has is way over and above that. Lets say a F-16 is detected taking off from a base 70 nm using the EODAS sensor. The sensor alone is unlikely to make a positive ID at those distances because well the fighter is not using its after burners etc. The sensor sends whatever it finds to the mission computers. The mission computers take the image and crunch it down for a positive ID of the target even though the image is not very clear. The mission computers are not able to do so. The info is sent to the other integrated sensors and automatically in real time the Barracuda starts to track emissions on the jet. L band, VHF and X band passive sensors (The apg-81 is a passive sensor as well if it wants to act in that mode) assist the EODAS in trying to get another return (non IR) from the jet to further nail down what it is. Lets say this works. The CNI suite on the F-35 (MADL, Link 16, SATCOM, plus other bands for specific customers) automatically sends all this info to the F-35's that are in the fight (formation or down range), no need to beam huge EODAS images or info because they all share the same software. Just some zeros and ones that would show up on other F-35's MFD's or visor. The other F-35's change formation to be best position to show "off their stealth" (RCS favorable posture) and to deal with the threat. In the event the Barracuda and the EODAS cannot nail down and positively ID what is coming from distance the F-35's can change formation to get a better all aspect IR or RF track on the bogey at 70nm and in the worst case scenario use the Apg-81 in active mode actually get an RF track on the jet. Even with the computing you have the option of beaming down the info (more for ground threats) to your command using the various modes at your disposal, to get more computing power. Those assets can quickly look at satellite pictures, your SAR image and tell you with some degree of certainty how many SAM's to expect while dealing with an IAD, or how many back up radars there are, or whether the primary emitting radar is actually a radar or an emitting decoy. Sensor fusion and fast computing does not end with just that. There is plenty of capability "built in" to the system from the start. Lets say the EODAS picks up AAA fire directed at a low flying helo or even an F-35. The sensor and the fusion has been designed to be capable enough to automatically characterize the threat, pick it up and nail down the coordinates using that sensor alone and do so in real time. By the time the data about the AAA shows up on the MFD of the JSF, the computers would have already worked out the threat, its coordinates and sent them to the weapon so that all the pilot needs to do is launch. In case the F-35 does not have a A2G weapon the CNI has also in real time sent everything down to other aircrafts in formation. If you still do not have the weapons even amongst yourselves, you have the option of in real time beaming this down using other data links (link 16's, other wavebands, or satcom). There is a reason why the creators/designers expected the ability to Geolocate threats even from the smallest IR sensors on the aircraft (EODAS). Its for the untapped potential and capability. What you can do or cannot is only dependent on how much you invest in keeping your mission computers relevant and how effectively you can write code. The sensors have huge capability that is untapped, and the aircraft is not an F-22 but open architecture which allows you to switch mission computers every other block and port the software without much hassle. That is one of the capabilities that cannot be acquired in a snap and requires years of planning and development and then years to actually implement. Avionics architectures need to be planned way in advanced, a huge and consistent R&D pipeline needs to be created, and roadmaps drawn 5, 10 , or even 20 years into the future. The sensors have to be capable enough and most importantly you need to acquire (yes acquire as is compete with the likes of apple, google, microsoft) the best possible software talent with enough job security that will last them decades. Keep these teams well funded and have a robust roadmap that goes beyond your early blocks but well past the MLU. System integration is as important as RCS testing in the 5th gen context.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZO0T5mDYU[/youtube]

Three questions that all those export customers should answer to their voters: In what Block will those magic cyber capabilities appear?

So is he an aviation journalist or a political activist? This statement deserves to be in some policy related left wing website or made by Greepeace or something, not an aviation defense publication. Even if we put that aside, does he think the air force is going to communicate in a transparent fashion when a classified capability is going to be fielded and with what capability? Is he naive or simply a lunatic?

[NRao]

Twilight zone stuff. Amazing.





Need an emoticon for Bill.

But then I guess every serious literature effort needs a joker.

[NRao]

“Fusion says here’s what’s out there. You told me, this one right here’s a threat. Here’s what it’s doing right now. Here’s what your wingman (knows): he sees he’s got a missile on the right, so I’m not going to waste a missile because I already see that my wingman’s taking care of it.”

With all due respect, what is Swedish for “Hold the front page”? The datalink and tactical display system on the JAS 39A Gripen did exactly that, 15 years ago.

That is his understanding of data fusion.

[Viv S]

F-35 Stealthier Than F-22? - Bill Sweetman

A note to Bill. First, thank you for the acknowledgement and the publicity for our site. Sadly, I must disabuse you of the basic premise on which your story rests -- that my stories were some sort of "PR offensive" on the part of the Air Force. (Does someone with such vast experience really believe the Air Force public affairs is really that adept?) I spent more than six months pressing the Air Force to get Gen. Hostage (or someone with similar stature and access) to speak on the record about the F-35's capabilities. The interview finally happened 25 April at Langley AFB. It took a while to do the transcript thing and even longer to piece all the bits together for the two stories and then to write them. I wish I could offer substantiation for your theory, Bill. Alas, I cannot.


- Colin Clark

[brar_w]

IOC is a significant step,FOC the first major operational deployment with the USMC.

.

The F-35B is going to deploy to japan in early 2016.

As for the stealth,anti-stealth battle,only combat between the opposing sides will reveal the truth as the article says.That is if he US isn't afraid to send the JSF into battle unlike its attitude with the F-22!

You send resources to match the threat. If you do not do this you will loose aircraft at a very fast rate due to airframe wear and tear. The F-22 has been present in the iranian context has been shown to you in the post above. The F-22's is going to be held close to the chest and only deployed if extremely required, because the USAF has decided to not do a SLEP on the f-22's post 8000 hours on the airframe. So you need to stretch those 8000 hours as far as possible, while your 6th gen effort is still in development. The F-35 on the other hand would be a work horse, given that it replaces pretty much everything.

Perhaps the unfolding scenario in Iraq where ISIS is changing the map of the Middle East might see its first deployment,but only until FOC[/quoe]

I am sure the security situation in iraq would warrant mach 1.7 super cruise with stealth

Question is whether the RCS alone is sufficient or not. For me, the jury is firmly out on that.

This fundamentally assumes that the F-35 is designed only with low RCS in mind. Which it is clearly not. Just look at the Avionics suite on the jet, the weaponry at its disposal and the kind of support its users can put at a moments notice (NATO, US and the US in the pacific). The mission computers alone are going to be upgraded every other block (they'll be upgraded NOW with the block 3i and again with block 5) just so that it is up to the mark with threat analysis and sensor fusion as it matures.

Regarding the jury, bit ; I am afraid the jury may always be out for us folks in forums. The point that is worth nothing is to see what the customers who get a full classified capability briefing on the jet, and who actually are a part of the program DO. You have air chiefs around the world singing praises of the capability that the fighter brings to the table, and you have orders from a capable air forces that were not development partners. Actions speak louder than words.

[brar_w]

F-35 Stealthier Than F-22? - Bill Sweetman

A note to Bill. First, thank you for the acknowledgement and the publicity for our site. Sadly, I must disabuse you of the basic premise on which your story rests -- that my stories were some sort of "PR offensive" on the part of the Air Force. (Does someone with such vast experience really believe the Air Force public affairs is really that adept?) I spent more than six months pressing the Air Force to get Gen. Hostage (or someone with similar stature and access) to speak on the record about the F-35's capabilities. The interview finally happened 25 April at Langley AFB. It took a while to do the transcript thing and even longer to piece all the bits together for the two stories and then to write them. I wish I could offer substantiation for your theory, Bill. Alas, I cannot.


- Colin Clark

His dislike for the F-35 (which got him suspended even at aviation week where he was the *rockstar*) is so much that he at this point does not care even to pick fights and attack other reporter's stories, to a point where he virtually accuses them of doing PR. Rather sad for a person who has put in so many years in the business.

[Austin]

i dont think he got suspended because he wrote this article on the Aries Blog ... unless the blog is not part of AW&ST.

Most of the Defence Journals like AW&ST , Defence News , Janes etc are just part of Pentagon mouth piece that is there to Glorify US Wars and MIC.

Unfortunately we lost good journalism and Journals after the end of Cold War and has given way to Paid Journalism and PR.

I still have Janes , Military Technology , Air International from 80's and the kind of write up used to be much balanced then what we see now which are like Corporate Handouts for Lockmart , MBDA and who not.

Coming back to Bill Article I dont vouch or refute for what he is saying but when it comes to LO capability of JSF , So far we have been hearing even from Official Source that F-22 has low RCS compared to JSF but this is the first time they have just said the opposite .....so I will take that with a bunch of salt unless you hear that from multiple sources.

[brar_w]

i dont think he got suspended because he wrote this article on the Aries Blog .

Not saying he did because he wrote this article. Only that he did get suspended earlier and that was because of the F-35 and lockheed martin. I have posted the background on this thread.

Coming back to Bill Article I dont vouch or refute for what he is saying but when it comes to LO capability of JSF , So far we have been hearing even from Official Source that F-22 has low RCS compared to JSF but this is the first time they have just said the opposite .....so I will take that with a bunch of salt unless you hear that from multiple sources.

I guess you would need multiple sources to be sure. Others may not, especially given the person making the statement is the head of USAF's tactical fighter fleet. One would be hard pressed to find a more informed officer to talk about both the f-22 and f-35. We can only read what these guys have to say, ultimately its for the people in the decision loop to decide. So far air forces all around the world that were not a part of the JSF development effort are talking highly about its capabilities. Ultimately its they who count, and not military/defence buffs like us.

If one accuses other of PR one must first be a fair judge of one's own articles.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erica.html

[Austin]

I take the event was a PR event so I wouldnt expect the General to say any thing that would reflect bad on the Aircraft and it is also his duty to defend it.

But having followed the F-22 versus F-35 debate even when the decision to cut F-22 and stop its production was not taken , the talking point was always that F-22 would go in first and clear the Air as it had Speed Stealth & Weapons , The JSF would come in later and mop the ground and low LO over JSF was always paraded as the key element.

The debate took a different tune when F-22 production stopped and then it was JSF can do every thing F-22 can do and much more.

Just last year the General stated the without F-22 the JSF is no good.

So its the constant shift point thats raises eyebrows. Specially for years when we are told that F-22 has the lowest RCS over any fighter including JSF

[Austin]

Ok I found the article where USAF mentioned F-22 was a metal marble and JSF Golf Ball RCS

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairf ... 51125.aspx

The U.S. Air Force, in it's effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how "stealthy" the F-22 is. It's RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.Â

The air force revealed this information, which is usually kept secret, because it wants to make the case that it makes more sense to cut production of the F-35 (which cost $30-50 million each), so that more F-22s (that cost over $100 million each) can be bought. Most of the air force generals are former fighter pilots, and the F-22 is a much hotter fighter than the F-35 (which is basically a fighter-bomber, with emphasis on the latter function.) This is causing an international uproar, because of the many foreign countries that are buying the F-35. Some of these countries have contributed money for the development of the F-35. The F-22 will not be exported, because it uses so much top secret technology.

[Manish_Sharma]

I keep reading about this sensor fusion; the 10 million lines of codes etc. for jsf being written.

Then also it keeps appearing that same thing grippen could do too 16 years back.

What is super-duper about these 10 million lines of code that only khan could do and other nations like Russians, french or even piddly swedes can't do. I mean RWR talks to main AESA radar and other sensors send info to each other and these infos are also available to other sister jsfs flying in the formation. So why can't it be done to Tejas, Rafale, AMCA and FGFA?

Its only man hours of software programmers writing codes, isn't it?

Brar warrior is there some article you can point me to which explains this sensor fusion and 10 million code thing for non-technical people?

[Austin]

The thing about Sensor Fusion is that each country/company claims they have the best sensor fusion.

Rafale says its sensor fusion is best out there , Eurofighter says it has better Sensor Fusion , Gripen says its years ahead in the area of Datalink & Sensor Fusion over the two and JSF says the same thing in different way.

The debate is similar to cockpit debate we see where each country claims it has the best layout for MMI based on the studies it has done

[brar_w]

so I wouldnt expect the General to say any thing that would reflect bad on the Aircraft and it is also his duty to defend it.

So if the F-35 is designed to have lower stealth than F-22, and it remains at that level, because its a PR event the general would have the liberty to say that (lie) that it has better stealth than the F-22? Would you use the same yardstick in the comments made by PAKFA designers that the final design of the pakfa would have RCS values at par with the F-22?

But having followed the F-22 versus F-35 debate even when the decision to cut F-22 and stop its production was not taken , the talking point was always that F-22 would go in first and clear the Air as it had Speed Stealth & Weapons

Indeed the f-22 is a more effective air dominance fighter. Its by design. However, technology has advanced since the f22 was developed and this allows some exciting capability to be added to the f-35 which allows the pilots to bring a highly capable fighter even in air to air combat.

The JSF would come in later and mop the ground and low LO over JSF was always paraded as the key element.

Thats a very simplistic way to explain things to people. For a more clearer understanding one needs to look at the F-16 mission profile and the fact that the F-35 is quite different from the LF F-16 concept. Its designed with a different mind set than the Viper/falcon. It also was designed with the AEF in mind where entire A2A missions would be offloaded to it from the start (one reason why the air force is waiting for 3i ).

Just last year the General stated the without F-22 the JSF is no good.

He said that the f-22 is required, and it is. Its your dedicated air superiority fighter, and by design and as per the CONOPS its more effective at that. The f-35 will get 6 MRAAM's at a future date, it will also get other enhancements where the gap will narrow. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter and as such covers a lot of capabilities. The F-22 has been designed with the "Not a Pound From Air to Ground" mentality of the F-15. That mentality has little room in a new net-centric USAF/USN/USMC where the platforms and the bomb truck concepts of networked systems is trumping silver bullet systems that are not very interoperable. Even the B-3 is being rumored to have multiple missions.

So its the constant shift point thats raises eyebrows. Specially for years when we are told that F-22 has the lowest RCS over any fighter including JSF

Again, it hardly matters what we think. Its the air chiefs around the world who are constantly evaluating this jet for their air forces that really matter for its success.

Ok I found the article where USAF mentioned F-22 was a metal marble and JSF Golf Ball RCS

The article was written a year before the first post CDR F-35 actually flew. Majority of the RCS testing would have been conducted after that especially with the design changes and material changes that were not there on the X-35.

This from an article posted above

The F-35 is beating the stealthiness expected of it “at maturity,” said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program manager. Officials must still verify this claim “with more data,” she told reporters

So is it not possible that the F-35's RCS values are ahead of the curve or where the known values were in 2005 a full year before the first flight of a production representative jet occurred? Rcs testing is also not static, its a continues process that every inspection, every depot run, and every range flight adds to the model (think of it as a wargaming model) and that model is constantly updated. It could very well be that the f-35 just does not degrade in VLO as much as an F-22 and the overall signature at checkout is much better than what the CDR phase of program thought would be possible given the shaping and the materials used.

The thing about Sensor Fusion is that each country/company claims they have the best sensor fusion.

Rafale says its sensor fusion is best out there , Eurofighter says it has better Sensor Fusion , Gripen says its years ahead in the area of Datalink & Sensor Fusion over the two and JSF says the same thing in different way.

The debate is similar to cockpit debate we see where each country claims it has the best layout for MMI based on the studies it has done

No need to read PR. Look at the sensors available to each aircraft the level of integration, their mission computing power and how frequently they plan on updating their sensors and/or the mission computers. Also look at what the air forces evaluating all these 4.5 ten fighters vs 5th gen fighters are choosing.

[brar_w]

Then also it keeps appearing that same thing grippen could do too 16 years back.

Sensor fusion is a terminology, the ability has varying degree, capability and performance goals. Did the Gripen have more than 20 onboard passive and emitting sensors to fuse the data from? Did it have the computing power to crunch the data at a given speed and volume? As explained fusion can be simply passing weapon tracks from one fighter to the other or it could be quite complex things. The F-22 had Fusion and IFDL when it first flew in 1997, does it mean that it was at par with the F-35 then? Or whether it is at par with the F-35 now? F-16's can beam full SAR images downrange. Is that fusion? Software code depends upon the capability you want. For example if you want a simple EODAS sensor, lets say you want a 180 degree frontal EODAS to function in the IRST role. You'd need two EODAS sensors only, that would cover most of your frontal track. Now you want them to do just the basic stuff, you can have some very basic software do just that. The EODAS sensors pick objects in the airspace in front and report that to the IR MFD screen in front of you. Lets bump up software to the next level , write some more code and we now have the EODAS sensors not only picking up and tracking objects in the frontal hemisphere but also sending that info to the mission computers using high speed FO and that mission computer using complex algos and the software to in real time (measured in fractions of seconds) to sift through its threat libraries to come up with a firm ID on the target. Lets take it up another notch. We'll give the Mission computer the power to not only use the IR imagery coming from the 2 frontal sensors, but also give it the ability to automatically cue the larger IR sensor (EOTS, IRST+FLIR+CCTV) to automatically assist the EODAS sensors when help is required (without the pilot needing to do this). Thats a lot more code. Why stop at that, lets add your Barracuda to the mix as well and fuse all three of them together and give the computers onboard the power to choose information from all three sensors and build a SA picture and ID the target. But thats so 2005 , lets add the ability for the mission computers to choose which radar mode is best suitable and manipulate the various situations automatically to build the picture and do a track. Lets say the EODAS alone is more than enough to build a positive ID and to track the frontal threat. The radar then automatically switches to PASSIVE mode, in which case your CNI and EW suites just got the help of 1500+ TR modules that are acting as totally passive sensors picking up other threats. Or the mission computers could deploy the radar to beam a SAR image for a B-2, 50nm out that needs the latest intel for a strike mission. All this needs a lot more software then the simpler capabilities listed earlier. Now one decides that why have 2 sensors for frontal coverage, lets have 6 sensors all over the jet and develop some more software so that they picture is fused and seamless (no gaps where one coverage from one sensor is handed-off to another (handshake)). Again, back to writing more code. But wait, why do we need the HUD+HMS when we can just write some more software and remove the HUD altogether. The sensors exist to do the HUD's job, more software just fuses the two hardware components. Then some tactician says " why do we need to eyeball the MFD for IR track" or a SAR coordinate? Why can't all this information come straight to my HMD. Again back to the drawing board for some more software. Then the pilots come to the program in charge and say that in dogfights, we find it extremely hard to pick Red vs Blue. In a fur ball for example when 6 fighters are fighting 6 we find it extremely hard to move our heads all over to track each fighter in front of us and not he sides and see which one is which. What happens when the aircraft look quite similar to each other or when the enemy employs cammo to make his aircraft look like ours. The designers turn to the "architects" and say, you have these beautiful 6 sensors that use the IR spectrum and are capable enough that they can independently do a lot more tan just be 360 degree IR defensive coverers. What can you bring to the table from a software and integration point of view? The architects then go back to the drawing board and write complex algorithms that use the high speed data connectivity and mission computing (number crunching) systems they have onboard to develop a system where the 6 sensors continuously and seamlessly track each and every fighter in the dogfight, color code that fighter either blue or red, and constantly display this information on the HMD even during high G dynamic dog fights (this is done 360 degrees, not just where the pilot can see). This just adds to the software workload and development. Now bring MDA (missile defense agency) to the picture. They see these sensors and the computing power and want the ability of the F-35 to pick Missile launches from 1000+ nautical miles and to send that track in real time to other aircraft. Eventually they'd want a NCADE or an ALHTK launched at that threat from an F-35 on anti missile role or an F-15E in the same mission. That would require more computing and software.

Then some brilliant architect (thats what avionics planners essentially are) says, we have mounts within the airframe to conformally house the EODAS sensors. Why "cheap out" on these sensors? Why not make them capable enough where they can perform roles far beyond their initial warning (MAWS) using an IR threat. Lets give these 6 IR sensors the ability to independently geolocate threats. That would mean that if AAA fire is located on the ground the aircraft would not have to turn around and get the EOTS (FLIR) sensor on the target to geolocate it. This again sends the team to the software drawing board to write more code. Ultimately the lines of code, the software implementation depends upon not only the hardware being integrated but also what purpose that hardware wishes to solve. Expect less from the hardware (Simple frontal IRST) and your software load becomes reduced. Want more function from the hardware, and there is no substitute.

Another limiter of software is the MISSION computing ability. If your computers cannot handle complex processes your software is useless (Same reason our phones only get software updates up to a point beyond which the software becomes too complex for the hardware to handle - Android and iOS work in a same fashion. iPhone 4's won't get the IOS8 for example because the software overwhelms the hardware). Therefore as your software becomes more complex your hardware needs have the ability to handle that. The plan for the JSF appears to be

1- Allow massive growth room in sensors (radar, EODS and EOTS)
2- Have very capable mission computers
3- Upgrade computers and/or components every other block (3i upgrades them (already happening) and block 5 will upgrade once again)
4- Write software at every block to add capability (block 3F adds on 2b software, block 4 adds on 3f and block 5 adds on 4 etc)

1: EODAS sensors have capability that goes far beyond even block 4 software modes. More software is going to be written to extract more capability from the sensors. Limiting factor is the software and not the performance of the sensor. We know this because capability beyond baseline 3f and 4 has already been demonstrated at Red flag in alaska and videos provided for public consumption. The radar also has baseline capability that will introduce many firsts in an induction AESA. It is also most likely software limited in scope. The same facility that makes the AESA and its components will be switching over to Gallium nitride by end of the year. So once the maximum capability of the radar is exhausted through software they'll just swap out the TR modules and introduce the GAN modules. The radar has been designed with modularity from the outset.

2: ICP's are already cutting edge and have growth. Some of that growth is already being upgraded, and the first upgraded aircraft flew just a few days ago. The plan is to upgrade the ICP's (make them faster, better form the data speed and volume pov) every other block. Block 3i ungraded from the baseline, and block 5 upgrades the block 3i.

Now coming to aircrafts such as the gripen, F-16 etc. Their ability to absorb technology is limited by design constraints. The Gripen radar is around a 1000 TR modules (similar or slightly bigger than raffle's radar). The F-16 SABR/RACR should be between 800-1000 TR modules. The cooling, plus avionics capability addition is limited as per space constraints. Simply put the legacy 4th and 4.5th gen have to scale up to get addition while the f-35 starts from its most basic capability with all that and includes huge volumes of potentially capability for addition. They also lack VLO features, no internal weapon bays, podded sensors etc. The avionics growth through newer sensors is limited by the degradation it provides to survivability (a simple tradeoff). With conformal sensors, that leave growth for addition the F-35 can do both. Grow its sensors and avionics while still maintaing stringent signature demands from the customer. ThNDR for example (DIRCM) has to be designed to fit into space already present for such a sensor. It won't be bulging out of the frame as it would on an upgrade for the gripen or the F-16.

To conclude, In the domain of system integration, sensor fusion is a relative term and so is the ability DL aircraft. Just because the F-22 or others had data link transfers for MFD's in the late 90's does not mean that they are at par with the F-35. Terminology is distinct from capability, and for capability a deep reading on what the architectural plans are has no substitute. Add to that that capability is never going to be "static" which patiently waits for others to catch up or surpass. The capability has a well documented growth path already in motion, and has an existing industrial base to fully see that growth path through. The driver is the volume of the program, and the market it has already tapped (9 or 10 customers already).

[brar_w]

Brar warrior is there some article you can point me to which explains this sensor fusion and 10 million code thing for non-technical people?

I think I have tried to simplify my understanding of it to the best of my ability. Here are some articles that explain what is required and what is being done (and how).

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/c ... 5lL617UXwI

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... n_845.html

Its not about what others can or cannot do. SAAB for example has been constantly upgrading its networks and data linking / data sharing abilities since the 90's, but its a one off case where they have connected elements of their ground defense and air defense. Its been quite remarkable what a country with the population of New delhi has achieved. However NATO has also had some very very impressive interoperability upgrades with the entire Link 16 program, and the scale is just huge. Its about what the F-35 does from the get go and where it is going. Its the effort to constantly stay ahead of the curve that is the design from the start (hence the ambitious capability at start with a robust addition to it with block increments). Whats driving such software, hardware ambitions and the roadmap that requires huge infrastructure investments both at the developing level and at the testing level? At the industrial level its the 3000-4000 aircraft the program expects to sell over its lifetimes. Had that number been 1000 or 500 or 185 (f22) the ambitions would have been much lower.

Lets bring F-22 V F-35 back -

The F-22 is not open architecture. Its software development is extremely limited in scope. Increments add radar modes, and support for various weapons. There is a limit to what the software can do through enhancements because the mission computers are not as easy to swap or upgrade as those on the F-35. The f-35 on the other hand has a software plan that is at least 10 years ahead of the IOC of that software mode. They are already finishing up on block 5 software architecture even though 2b has not completed testing yet. The roadmap is also clear on the ICP growth and or complete replacement if need be. There is no artificial "limiter" that is put on software development so lockheed could go out and compete with the likes of apple, google etc that employ the most talented software developers and rope a team in that would have a guaranteed run for 10-20 years doing just that. They could not afford to do that on the f-22, given that its software roadmap was littered with uncertanities because the hardware increment plans are extremely volatile and budget dependent.

Also this from the previous page

The DAS is a remarkably sensitive and discriminating set of six sensors that gives the pilot data not just from in front of his aircraft, but directly below, above and to the sides — in military parlance he’s got 360 degree situational awareness. How sensitive is the system? I’ve been told by two sources that the DAS spotted a missile launch from 1,200 miles away during a Red Flag exercise in Alaska. But DAS, just as with the older Defense Support Satellites used to search the world for missile launches, may not know exactly what it’s looking at right away.

That’s where the F-35′s data fusion library comes in, combing through threat information to decide what the plane has detected. The plane, after combing through thousands of possible signatures, may suggest the pilot use his Eletro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) or his AESA radar to gather more data, depending on the situation. The F-35 that spots the apparent missile launch will share its data with other F-35s and the Combined Air and Space Operations Center (CAOC), which will be managing all the data from US and allied aircraft and satellites so that bigger computers on the ground can crunch the data from those sensors and make recommendations if any single plane hasn’t gathered enough information with enough fidelity. (Of course, the CAOC can also do that whole command thing and coordinate the F-35s flying with other aircraft, ships and ground troops.)

The loop will be complete once a target is identified. Then the plane’s fusion center will recommend targets, which weapons to use and which targets should be killed first. Given the Chinese government’s vast and persistent espionage enterprise it won’t be surprising if the J-20s boast some of the F-35′s capabilities, but I have yet to speak with anyone in the Pentagon or the intelligence community who says the Chinese appear to have developed soft are and sensor capabilities as good as those on the F-35.

The other side of the cyber conflict is what is usually called electronic warfare, though separating cyber and electronic warfare becomes awfully difficult in the F-35. The AESA radar plays a prominent role in this arena too, allowing sharply controlled and directed energy attacks against enemy planes, surface to air radar and other targets.

While Growlers, Boeing’s EA-18G, have extremely powerful, broadband jamming capabilities, the F-35′s combination of stealth and highly specific electronic beams is a better combination, Hostage tells me during the interview.

“If you can get in close, you don’t need Growler-type power. If you’re stealthy enough that they can’t do anything about it and you can get in close, it doesn’t take a huge amount of power to have the effect you need to have,” he says.

One of the keys to spoofing is, I’ve heard from several operators, being careful to avoid overwhelming the enemy with high-power jamming. That’s another problem with the Growler approach.

“The high power-jamming is ‘I’ll just overwhelm them with energy since I can’t get in there and do magic things with what they’re sending to me,’” Hostage says.

Much of this electronic warfare, as well as the F-35′s intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) capabilities, are made possible by a core processor that can perform more than one trillion operations per second. This allows the highly classified electronic warfare suite made by BAE Systems to identify enemy radar and electronic warfare emissions and, as happens with the EOTS, recommend to the pilot which target to attack and whether he should use either kinetic or electronic means to destroy it.

In our interview, Gen. Hostage points to the plane’s ability to gather enormous amounts of data, comb through it and very rapidly and simply present the pilot with clear choices as a key to its success.

“People think stealth is what defines fifth gen[eration aircraft]. It’s not the only thing. It’s stealth and then the avionics and the fusion of avionics. In my fourth gen airplane, I was the fusion engine, the pilot was the fusion engine. I took the inputs from the RHWG, from the Radar Homing Warning Gear, from the radar, from the com, multiple radios, from my instruments. I fused that into what was happening in the battlespace, all the while I’m trying to do the mechanical things of flying my airplane and dodging missiles and all these sorts of things,” he says.

Combine the fusion engine, the ISR sensors, the designed-in stealth, the advanced helmet, and the eight million lines of software driving what it can do, add weapons to the stealthy weapon bays, add a pilot and that is what allows you to “break the enemy’s kill chain,” as Hostage likes to put it.

“What we’ve done with the fifth generation is the computer takes all those sensory inputs, fuses it into information. The pilot sees a beautiful God’s eye view of what’s going on. And instead of having to fuse three pieces of information and decide if that’s an adversary or not, the airplane is telling him with an extremely high degree of confidence what that adversary is and what they’re doing and what all your wingmen are doing. It’s a stunning amount of information,” Hostage says.

Combine that information with the kinetic, cyber and electronic warfare capabilities of the F-35 and we may know why South Korea, Japan, Israel and Australia have all recently committed to buy substantial numbers of F-35s, in spite of the aircraft being behind schedule, facing significant technical problems and, of course, being really expensive overall. Several sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations — from government and industry — tell me that each country went in to discussions with the Pentagon with a great deal of skepticism. But once country representatives received the most highly classified briefing — which I hear deals mostly with the plane’s cyber, electronic warfare and stealth capabilities — they all decided to buy. That kind of national and fiscal commitment from other countries may say more about the aircraft’s capabilities than anything else. After all, some of those countries are staring right at China, the country that has rolled out two supposedly fifth generation fighters. And Russia, the other country trying hard to build a rival to the F-22 and the F-35, sits not far behind.

[brar_w]

Since we were discussing the F-35B and YAK a few days ago here is an interesting bit of history from lockheed martin.

History Of The F-35B Swivel Duct

A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Navy wanted a supersonic STOVL fighter to operate from its ski jump equipped carriers. At what point the Yakovlev Design Bureau became aware of the multi-swivel nozzle design is not known, but the Soyuz engine company created its own variant of it. The Yak-41 version of the nozzle, from published pictures, appears to be a three-bearing swivel duct with a significant offset “kink.” The Yak-141 also used two RKBM RD-41 lift engines – an almost identical arrangement to the Convair Model 200 design. The aircraft was also re-labeled as a Yak-141 to imply a production version, but no order for follow-on series came from the Russian Navy.

The Yak-141 was flown at the Paris Airshow in 1991. The flight displays of the Yak were suspended when the heat from the lift engines started to dislodge asphalt from the tarmac. At the 1992 Farnborough show, the Yak was limited to conventional takeoffs and landings with hovers performed 500 feet above the runway to avoid a repeat performance of asphalt damage. But the Yak-141 does deserve credit for being the first jet fighter to fly with a three-bearing swivel nozzle – twenty-five years after it was first designed in the United States.

During the early days of the JAST effort, Lockheed (accompanied by US government officials from the JAST program office) visited the Yakovlev Design Bureau along with several other suppliers of aviation equipment (notably also the Zvezda K-36 ejection seat) to examine the Yakovlev technologies and designs.

Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits.

The 3BSD was invented in America in the 1960s, proposed by Convair to the US Navy in the 1970s, first flown by the Russians in the late 1980s, re-engineered from the 1960 Pratt & Whitney design for the X-35 in the 1990s, and put into production for the F-35 in the 2000s. Sometimes a good idea has to wait for the right application and set of circumstances to come along. One moral of this story is not to throw out good work done in the past. It just might be needed later on

[Manish_Sharma]

^Thanks for the explanations Brar !!!

[brar_w]

From the PAKFA thread

I do not see the "FGFA" in the same light as the "MKI". There was a clear need to get to the next level, where Indians would learn from teh Russians - thus the need for the $11 billion "R&D" - *and* then go on their own (AMCA). IF India were to rely on the Russians for "core avionics" (as you claim), this break would not be possible in the AMCA, or the learning curve would be long/steep.

I was initially looking at the PAK FA development and drawing (unjustified?) parallels to the F-22 and F-35 programs. The level of sensor fusion that is built into the F-35 means that swapping out components is not practical (aside from those that are built to be modular eg. ICP). It can be done, but its not worth the time and effort. There are provisions for add on equipment though - which will be employed on Israeli and possibly Japanese units.

In the PAK FA's context, one would assume the higher the degree of sensor fusion that's built into the aircraft, the more expensive and time-consuming it will be to customize. For the time-being one would like know what is the type of 'open-architecture' employed (in theory the F-22 employed OSA as well, in practice...). The vendor seems rather quiet on that aspect, though it was talked up for Su-30/34/35 and MiG-29K.

This is only a problem for existing systems such as the meteor etc. Data links are much easier to integrate as the CNI suite aboard the F-35 has provisions that were kept in there precisely for this reason. The USN and the IDF are going to add to the CNI suite newer data links (IDF its standard Data link and the USN its common link that would enable NIFC-CA).

For in development weapons most of the upcoming weapons will have the option to be UAI compatible, there are already program partners that are designing weapons with the UAI interface. With UAI ( Universal Armament Interface) all the integration would come down to safety tests, separation etc, the weapon would be plug and play. This is not going to be limited to weapons but would also extend to pods, data links and other embedded or mountable sensors. UAI is like an app platform, where the compatibility of the app is designed in such a way that the app communicates with the operating system, and similarly the user communicates with the operating system that intern talks to the app. I think the likes of apple, blackberry, google call this sort of thing "sandboxing".



The Turkish SOM (stand off missile) would be the first non US weapon to be designed with UAI in mind. Once it is fully developed, all the turkish would have to do is test the missile with drop tests from the internal bays for safe separation and they are done. The UAI block that would be patched into the block 4 software of their F-35's will take care of the rest. No more asking the program office for time and a dedicated team of engineers to write code for the SOM so that it could be integrated onto the F-35. This integration can take years both dependent on the level of work and the schedule. With UAI the testing should take a few weeks to months and turkey can do much of it at home. This opens up huge markets for them given that any number of F-35 users can buy that missile without any (ZERO) fighter integration costs. I think the Norwegian future block for the in development JSM would also be UAI enabled. UAI itself is going to be developed in blocks and with each block more capability would be added. One block for simpler weapons, another for more complex ones, yet another for pods or electronic warfare stuff etc. Currently the program has already done the LJDAM, SDB, JASSMER with the UAI and also ported the software to all of the F-15E fleet and around 250 NATO F-16's so all UAI weapons would be plug and play for these platforms. I expect the europeans to lap onto this with their future weapons such as future versions of meteor (a big carrot for the US it ever decides to purchase it) or brimstone etc. All US future weapons would use UAI. This is quite interesting especially for some of the smaller defensive forces that would be using the F-35 (like Singapore), they can sim train with weapons that they do not have, and if they are in real need rapid acquisitions of UAI weapons can be made that would be plug and play. When the pod UAI enters its SDD phase for example, OEM's can latch onto the program and begin developing their pods (UAI is just not for F-35) knowing full well that that UAI version would be ported to the future F-35 software build/block, so the potential market for the equipment would increase exponentially.


Coming to removing components and customizing, it depends what the user wants to achieve. If the components are being replaced just because they can then its different, but if the components are considerably better than the ones on the F-35, they should be developed further by the nation concerned and marketed to the entire team. If someone can make better ICP's then those on the F-35, or those planned for it in the "roadmap" that is presented to all partners, then by all means they should be brought to the table or made for themselves if the operator wishes not to sell them for whatever reason. Same goes for targeting pods. If some has better alternative for the EOTS, they can develop it using UAI (around 2022-2025 i think) and offer it to other F-35 operators as an upgrade. I expect Israel to make full use of this capability, given that they can cater to the upgrade market in the future. The US may have no use for an air to air launch stunner, but if the IDF and raytheon decide to make it using UAI, they can pretty much bypass the US development cycle and offer it to the likes of Singapore, Australia as an alternative a2a weapon.

[Manish_Sharma]

Is australia also going to manufacture jsf, or just japan and england? Are they going to make jsf engines also like we do for mki?

[brar_w]

There has been no partner yet that has wished to make the jet (as in make the parts and put them together), So far only Italy and Japan have wanted (and had) a final assembly and check out line (FACO) facility for their jets. Italy is going to be assembling its own jets but also those for some other european partners. The suppliers pool for the JSF is large and international and it would quite foolish to break away from that pool given that the vendors have huge volumes to produce and therefore realize massive economies of scale. Northrop grumman for example would have built facilities to produce 3-4K mid sections. There are companies that make parts for a few hundred jets as per the contract (due to the international nature of the competition). Israel for example will make its own wings. On the whole however the parts (with some exception) would come from the common pool of suppliers built over the years. This is not to say that local industry would not be involved, because the volume is so large, they could always offload some of the work to local industry. This is what is going to play out in Canada, where lockheed has an industry in place because canada was an original partner of the program with a commitment for 65 jets. If canada does not order the F-35, a lot of that work would be taken out of canada and handed over to other companies (lockheed, Northrop, Mitsubishi, Alenia, Terma etc).

[Austin]

F-35 Stable, but Software Potential Long-Term Issue

The F-35 program is largely on track, but software remains a concern that could lead to delays down the road, according to top Pentagon officials.

The Pentagon is currently flying software block 2B on test fights, and is starting the process to load block 3I — essentially, the same software with better hardware – onto test flights. The situation is slightly different with the 3F block of software, which will deliver the greatest capabilities for the plane and is expected in the 2018 time frame.

“Our belief is that we're about six months behind in software development there,” US Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the head of the F-35 program office, said during Thursday conference call about the fifth-generation fighter. “That is if we don't do anything different and we don't get any better over the next two to three years in developing that software. So I have to do everything I can to work with Lockheed to ensure that we take that six months and move it back so that we don't impact anything in the future.”

The biggest challenge with 3F is the “fusion” of data, Frank Kendall, DoD undersecretary for acquisition, said.

“It's merging of information from different sensor systems on the aircraft and off the aircraft, information that comes from other airplanes that's transmitted to the F-35 and then merged with its own information,” he said.

“That's a difficult processing problem, it's a difficult computational problem,” Kendall continued. “And just going through all the tests and getting the different aircraft that might need to be in a test together so that you can pull all the test off is challenging. And that's where the scheduling backup comes in.”

The Navy intends to go operational with 3F, but Bogdan said the service would not necessarily hold up going operational if 3F is delayed. The Marines intend to go through IOC in 2015 with the block 2B software, while the Air Force will use the block 3I in 2016.

William LaPlante, Air Force undersecretary for acquisition, said in a Friday speech at the Atlantic Council that he was “reasonably confident” the Air Force would meet its IOC date.

Kendall used the call to announce a program “blueprint for affordability,” which involves establishing incentives for industry members to encourage a “high rate of return for the government in future cost savings.”

LaPlante expanded on Kendall’s comment, noting the plane “involves industry doing investment on its own and being able to get benefits of that investment, with the taxpayer and warfighter getting a cheaper airplane.”

Quantity remains the largest driver of cost savings for the program at this point, something Kendall noted in his opening comments.

“Every time someone slips their buys, it increases the cost for the other partners. And we're all aware of that and we're all committed to trying to hold the line on our production plans,” he said.

“Now for the US in particular, that's a problem because of the threat of sequestration. We can't make a firm commitment to our partners that we're going to be able to do what we have asked for in our budgets because of that. And it's an unfortunate situation and one of the many negative impacts of sequestration hanging over our heads.”

[brar_w]

@Austin, this has been known for some time. The program boss General bogden said that the 3f is behind by 4-6 months as of a few months ago. I had talked about it. Block 2b testing, 3i testing is on track and this is the version with which the marines and the air force will declare initial operational capability. Lockheed has been told to add more software engineering to the team and they have done so. The USN itself has built a 4 month buffer in its declared IOC date (like the other 2 services) so even if the worst case scenario plays out (Lockheed is unable to cover up the software in the next 3 years) the IOC delay may only be 2 months. I also think that the USN would declare IOC as per the original schedule if 3f is delayed by a few months. Going from 3I to 3F requires a simple software update that does not require the jet to fly to lockheed's facilities so they could train and IOC with 3I if they so desire and have the jet upgraded when they come back to the air station.

There will be no effect on international customer IOC if 3F is unable to cover up the development schedule, as most partners have built in buffers into their IOC dates with a particular software.

“Every time someone slips their buys, it increases the cost for the other partners. And we're all aware of that and we're all committed to trying to hold the line on our production plans,” he said.

“Now for the US in particular, that's a problem because of the threat of sequestration. We can't make a firm commitment to our partners that we're going to be able to do what we have asked for in our budgets because of that. And it's an unfortunate situation and one of the many negative impacts of sequestration hanging over our heads.

This is the main concern, however the threat is not playing out as much as people fear. Just recently the US services committee gave 4 more F-35's to the budget than were asked for by the pentagon. The diminishing or greatly reduced orders from the likes of Spain, Italy (economic troubles) have been greatly covered by orders (not only orders but fast orders, and not draggy purchases as the europeans like it) from Japan, South Korea that were not development partners. From the article Nrao posted it seems Canada is going to stick with the F-35's. Add to that the IDF came through and would be the first foreign partner to IOC with the jet and it seems the economies of scale problem is not as grave as many expected it to become.

Long lead contracts for a 94 fighter (LRIP X) batch have already been handed out so we know that come w018 there would be 94 fighters built most likely followed by production bump to around 150 as the jet enters into full rate of production. The facilities can handle one jet a day final assembly.

[Austin]

I think the main problem for JSF would be sequestration and indeed the general DOD and what would follow for even worse considering US Economy is in very difficult situation and its not getting better , Same goes for Europe which are in dire straits.

Even if US wants NATO to increase defence budget its not possible for them for the same reason as NATO (Europe ) economy has been in difficult times with debt massively piling up.

We are all looking at a 2008 scenario only thing is it would be far more worse , that far part being an understatement.

[brar_w]

I think the main problem for JSF would be sequestration

The JSF development has been completely protected from sequestration. Not a single development dollar has been taken away from the program due to it. The production plans have also stayed pretty steady with the exception that the USN has shifted 30 F-35C slots in the LRIP 10 Full op production 1 and 2 to FP blocks 3 and beyond. Those slots have been taken over by South Korea and Turkey. Although nothing is going to be 100% protected but the F-35 seems to have come through quite unscathed much like the Boeing tanker.

Even if US wants NATO to increase defence budget its not possible for them for the same reason as NATO (Europe ) economy has been in difficult times with debt massively piling up

The main drivers for the JSF would not be Europe but nations like Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, US services, Israel and the likes. Europe will buy but unless something drastically happens with those nations they would not replace the F-16 one to one. The program knows this and has therefore projected sales to between 3000-4000 as opposed to 4500+ F-16's they have sold to customers. In the future add the Mid east countries (block 60 replacement, F-15 replacement for Saudi Arabia etc).

We are all looking at a 2008 scenario only thing is it would be far more worse , that far part being an understatement

Lets talk when something actually happens.

[Austin]

If the US economy wasnt in bad shape they wouldnt have gone for Sequester ....No one wants to cut defence budget in the US MIC unless forced to.

The country you have listed are in no better shape but the worst is Japan.

In the end it boils down to its the Economy Stupid and you can easily bet as of today the main question to ask would be which takes first the IOC of JSF or US Economy Collapse.