F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[MarkOttawa]

From long-time program critic Bill Sweetman of AvWeek:

…
Canadians were surprised when a leaked Oct. 27 briefing from the Joint Strike Fighter program office director, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, referred, almost casually, to a proposal under which Canada would receive four F-35As next year. The plan was due to be formalized this month with a letter of intent from Canada and notification to Congress.

September’s decision to start a life-extension plan for the Canadian F/A-18 fleet seemed to confirm reports this summer that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was close to announcing a non-competitive F-35 buy, but that the government then decided that it would be bad for its chances in next year’s elections. But Bogdan’s disclosure has made people wonder.

The proposal was puzzling. The letter of intent would require multiple ministerial sign-offs in Canada, and that, according to the Canadian government, had not happened by Nov. 7. Crews of any F-35s delivered to Canada would be restricted to training at U.S. bases until their country bought more aircraft, which would not be handed over before 2018.

Any aircraft to be delivered to Canada in 2015 were funded by the U.S. Congress on the grounds that they were essential to the program’s goal of reaching initial operational capability (IOC) with the U.S. Air Force. Indeed, aircraft availability is still a risk factor for hitting the August 2016 IOC target. Why transfer them to Canada, where they would not provide any operational capability? The only clear effect would be to give Harper a way to lock in the deal before the election, but that’s not the Pentagon’s job…

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-pentagon-moves-complicate-fighter-plans?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20141117_AW-05_483&YM_RID=%27email%27&YM_MID=%27mmid%27&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

OGBD, while carrier landings look extreme, they involve load paths going through the densest of structures and thus are, from an engineering perspective, less damaging over the life of an airplane than extended, high-G manoeuvring.  High Gs put incredible stress and strain (hopefully elastically) throughout a much larger portion of the airframe.  The absolute worst (twisting-wise) on an airframe, the likes of which may be the kind of forces to have factored into the failed stator shroud, is "rolling-G", or high positive G with a concurrent high roll rate.  The aerodynamic forces asociated with combinations of high pitch rates associated with rapid onset of Gs and high roll rates tend to create very powerful force-couples that can greatly challenge the rigidity of any airframe.

Still not as wonky as any aerodynamics associated with a bumble bee helicopter, but definitely out there.

Regards,
G2G

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Thanks for the info G2G.

I knew for sure that the landing gear is strengthened, but I always thought the structure as well. I can see now how high-G manoeuvres would stress the structure more.

 

[CougarKing]

A milestone: F-22s train jointly with F-35s for the first time.

Fox News

Fighter milestone: F-22s and F-35s train together for the first time

The Air Force got a glimpse of its high-tech future recently as the costly and controversial new F-22 Raptor aircraft undertook its first training mission with next-generation F-35A Lightning strike fighters.

Four F-22s from Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia joined F-35s from the 33rd Fighter Wing for integration training at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida earlier this month.

The training allowed the Air Force to gain “operational familiarization and capture lessons learned to improve future exercises,” according a statement released earlier this week.

Rebecca Grant, president of Washington D.C.-based defense research firm IRIS Independent Research, told FoxNews.com the training mission marks a milestone in the evolution of U.S. air power.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MilEME09]

I've been reading articles that Boeing is worried the life extension to bring the CF-188 operating until 2025 is just to give breathing room for Lockheed to work out the F-35 kinks. Personally I'm a super hornet advocate, especially the Newest Advanced Super Hornet, I see it as the more logical choice then the F-35, but this has long ceased being a kit issue and become a political one. Not choose the F-35 and the CPC will be admitting they made a mistake, choose it and open Pandora's box again of criticism unless it happened via fair and open competition (which i doubt will happen)

 

[SupersonicMax]

Buying an aircraft for which support will end soon and a variant that hasn't been selected by anyone (not even the States!!) combined with the fact that any SH technology is from the 90s with little room for future improvement make it an illogical choice.

Buy into an all inclusive platform and send LOs at the US WSM equivalent so we have our say in the development is a far better and cheaper solution...

 

[RyanHealy29]

Buying an aircraft for which support will end soon and a variant that hasn't been selected by anyone (not even the States!!) combined with the fact that any SH technology is from the 90s with little room for future improvement make it an illogical choice.

Buy into an all inclusive platform and send LOs at the US WSM equivalent so we have our say in the development is a far better and cheaper solution...

Aside from the built-in low observable features, what is it that makes the Super Hornet's 90s technology any less upgradeable than the F-35s 2000's technology? Boeing has already stated that F-35 like sensor fusion could be added to the Super Hornet in the future. They've shown with the advanced Super Hornet that they can do an F-35 style widescreen/touchscreen instrument panels. They've shown that the engines can be upgraded, radar can be upgraded. Etc.

I've never understood what it is specifically, from a technological standpoint, that makes the Super Hornet less upgradeable/improvable than the F-35? The built-in stealth features of the F-35 are the only major thing that Boeing doesn't seem to indicate could be built in to Super Hornets, and that technology isn't improvable on the F-35, it's all locked in to the airframe.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Aside from the built-in low observable features, what is it that makes the Super Hornet's 90s technology any less upgradeable than the F-35s 2000's technology? Boeing has already stated that F-35 like sensor fusion could be added to the Super Hornet in the future. They've shown with the advanced Super Hornet that they can do an F-35 style widescreen/touchscreen instrument panels. They've shown that the engines can be upgraded, radar can be upgraded. Etc.

I've never understood what it is specifically, from a technological standpoint, that makes the Super Hornet less upgradeable/improvable than the F-35? The built-in stealth features of the F-35 are the only major thing that Boeing doesn't seem to indicate could be built in to Super Hornets, and that technology isn't improvable on the F-35, it's all locked in to the airframe.

A lot of the technology on the JSF was developed and tested in late 2000s.  This is 15 years after what the SH has...

Sensor fusion is a lot more than having a couple of windscreens in a cockpit.  A lot of it is software.  We fly pretty much the same software the US flies with (on their Hornet/SH) and it is FAR from being fused.  Saying it can be fused and actually doing it are 2 very different things...

Once SH support stops (when the US stops flying it essentially), we are on our own.  JSF support and upgrades will be available for its whole life.  Growth for the SH isn't going to be much more than what it is right now.  You can bet that radars and engines won't be developed for 65 aircraft....

 

[dapaterson]

Sensor fusion is a lot more than having a couple of windscreens in a cockpit.  A lot of it is software.  We fly pretty much the same software the US flies with (on their Hornet/SH) and it is FAR from being fused.  Saying it can be fused and actually doing it are 2 very different things...

Hence one of the big outstanding issues with the JSF - sensor fusion remains on the "we're working on it list", and not on the "capabilities that we've delivered" list.

Any major developmental program like the JSF includes significant technological risk, which implies schedule and cost risk as well.  Just ask the Cyclone project team about that...

 

[RyanHealy29]

A lot of the technology on the JSF was developed and tested in late 2000s.  This is 15 years after what the SH has...

Sensor fusion is a lot more than having a couple of windscreens in a cockpit.  A lot of it is software.  We fly pretty much the same software the US flies with (on their Hornet/SH) and it is FAR from being fused.  Saying it can be fused and actually doing it are 2 very different things...

Once SH support stops (when the US stops flying it essentially), we are on our own.  JSF support and upgrades will be available for its whole life.  Growth for the SH isn't going to be much more than what it is right now.  You can bet that radars and engines won't be developed for 65 aircraft....

My point re: sensor fusion wasn't the screens, nor that our current Hornets have anything resembling sensor fusion. What I said is that Boeing has clearly stated they could offer sensor fusion capabilities for the Super Hornet. If we're to believe LM that they can do it (which they haven't yet), then why not believe Boeing if they claim to be able to do it as well?

And if the argument is about support and lines being closed, then that's a funding issue, not a technology issue.

So again, I just don't see, from a technology standpoint (not a funding or production life issue) what it is that makes the F-35 any more upgradable than the Super Hornet. I hear it said a lot, but like I mentioned, the only aspect of the F-35 that Boeing hasn't indicated could be included in the SH is the built in LO capability, and that capability is built into the airframe and baked into the skin, so it can't be improved.

So it would seem to me that from an improvement standpoint, there is really nothing about the F-35 that makes its technology more capable of being improved or upgraded than the technology on the Super Hornet. I've yet to ever see anyone actually explain what it is about the improvable systems in the Super Hornet (i.e. engines, avionics, radar, etc) that makes them less-so than those systems on the F-35.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I can't talk about a bunch of the "whys" because of classification...  Remember that hardware is only one factor in the equation.  Fusion not only within your own sensors but also amongst a network of aircraft is also something I do not see the SH match the JSF within its lifetime... 

While total sensor fusion hasn't been achieve as per the Capability Definition yet, the JSF has some level of sensor fusion as it is, something that can't be said of the SH.  JSF development in terms of sensor fusion is 10 years ahead of the SH (actually, nothing other than sales pitch have been done on that front....)

Another thing to consider is the bus architecture used in the JSF which is different (more modern) than the SH, opening the growth options.

 

[RyanHealy29]

I can't talk about a bunch of the "whys" because of classification...  Remember that hardware is only one factor in the equation.  Fusion not only within your own sensors but also amongst a network of aircraft is also something I do not see the SH match the JSF within its lifetime... 

While total sensor fusion hasn't been achieve as per the Capability Definition yet, the JSF has some level of sensor fusion as it is, something that can't be said of the SH.  JSF development in terms of sensor fusion is 10 years ahead of the SH (actually, nothing other than sales pitch have been done on that front....)

Another thing to consider is the bus architecture used in the JSF which is different (more modern) than the SH, opening the growth options.

Didn't the first phase of the sensor fusion upgrade for the Super Hornets start in 2013?

 

[SupersonicMax]

I have doubts, especially knowing the sensors on the SH, that it will be anything like the JSF.  We too have "sensor fusion" of some sort.  Nothing like the JSF though.

Same words, different capabilities.

 

[RyanHealy29]

I have doubts, especially knowing the sensors on the SH, that it will be anything like the JSF.  We too have "sensor fusion" of some sort.  Nothing like the JSF though.

Same words, different capabilities.

Are they not adding sensors though? For instance I believe a full spherical missile warning system was one of the systems that was going to be part of the upgrade package (not in the first phase though I don't beleive).

 

[HB_Pencil]

My point re: sensor fusion wasn't the screens, nor that our current Hornets have anything resembling sensor fusion. What I said is that Boeing has clearly stated they could offer sensor fusion capabilities for the Super Hornet. If we're to believe LM that they can do it (which they haven't yet), then why not believe Boeing if they claim to be able to do it as well?

And if the argument is about support and lines being closed, then that's a funding issue, not a technology issue.

So again, I just don't see, from a technology standpoint (not a funding or production life issue) what it is that makes the F-35 any more upgradable than the Super Hornet. I hear it said a lot, but like I mentioned, the only aspect of the F-35 that Boeing hasn't indicated could be included in the SH is the built in LO capability, and that capability is built into the airframe and baked into the skin, so it can't be improved.

So it would seem to me that from an improvement standpoint, there is really nothing about the F-35 that makes its technology more capable of being improved or upgraded than the technology on the Super Hornet. I've yet to ever see anyone actually explain what it is about the improvable systems in the Super Hornet (i.e. engines, avionics, radar, etc) that makes them less-so than those systems on the F-35.

The Super Hornet avionics isn't upgradable to anywhere close to the F-35 without a massive engineering effort. In short, it would likely be cheaper to make it a low observable aircraft than upgrade the F/A-18E architecture to the level of the F-35 (remember avionics is about 50% of the F-35's cost, structure is about 20%) (edit: that's a bit of hyperbole... but it would be exceptionally expensive).

Within the F/A-18, much of the data shared is of the plot and track type. Federated sensors will often process raw data then send its analysis to the central hub to be displayed to the pilot. Advanced Mission Computer III (the newest iteration of the F/A-18E/F's avionics core) gave some limited fusion abilities that are displayed on a large touch screen, but its still largely a federated architecture. The pilot still needs to process data from different sensors as well.

The F-35 architecture operates on a much more granular level. First there are just more sensors: DAS, EOTS, Radar, RWR, etc., which would be difficult to retrofit onto the F/A-18E. Next, these sensors send raw data to the core processor for analysis, which is then provided to the pilot in an integrated "picture" of his or her surroundings. The quality of the output is much much higher, but one could describe that as an incremental improvement. What is revolutionary is that this system is integrated with new high bandwidth communication systems like the MADL datalink. Thus F-35s will also transmit and receive raw data for analysis. In other words, the aircraft's central processor accumulates data from all these different sources and gives it to the pilot through the helmet mounted display. That will vastly improve the fidelity of sensor systems, while reducing the workload on the pilot.

The F/A-18E/F does not possess computing power/architecture to integrate such a system. The F-22 and F-35 are the only aircraft with a IEEE 1394 firewire data bus that can handle the sort of data that is required to make such a system a reality. In addition AN/APG-81 radar utilizes the aircraft's central processor to analyze the data (as does the APG-77 on the F-22), which gives it more power and facilitates the data fusion The Super Hornet uses a Milstd1553 data bus, which would not be able to handle the volume required to make what the F-35 does a reality. Some test F/A-18F attempted to run firewire cable from optical pods to back seat laptops in order to improve the quality of data pilots could observe, but this was a stopgap measure and never adopted in operational service AFAIK.

The other side of sensor fusion is the programming, which is an even larger challenge. Basically the algorithms need to be able to identify items from very different sensors with a very high reliability. While I can say it in one sentence, this was the largest challenge facing Lockheed Martin and the most significant source of delays. Updating the F/A-18E to this standard would be a multibillion development effort requiring recertification and a whole host of other issues. It would require completely rebuilding the avionics system from the ground up, programming it from scratch and going from there. Certainly Boeing will continue to update the Hornet and improve its capabilities, but it will not be able to match the capabilities enabled by the F-35... and neither will the money be there to do so. Remember the world;s total F/A-18E/F Fleet is around 600 aircraft? There will be over 2400 F-35s in the U.S. alone, and that's where the US government will spend its upgrade dollars.

 

[RyanHealy29]

Now THAT was a detailed answer!

So, for those of us who went "guh-wah?", basically what you're saying is the actual sensors and on-board fusion ability is less the showstopper than the ability to communicate that mass amount of data at high speeds between aircraft, and that the Super Hornet won't ever be able to match that because of bandwidth limitations caused by the bus, which would be impractically expensive to upgrade? Is that correct?

What is it about the bus system that makes it so impractical to upgrade the SH bus system to the type used by the F-22 and F-35?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Brits:

UK orders first operational F-35 combat aircraft

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has signed for its first four operational Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft as part of the Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP 8) production lot, it was announced on 21 November.

The order marks an initial buy from the MoD's Main Gate 4 acquisition approval process for 14 jets to equip the Royal Air Force's (RAF's) 617 Squadron, which is scheduled to stand-up as the UK's first operational F-35B unit in 2016.

The UK already has two operational test and evaluation (BK-1 and BK-2) and one training aircraft (BK-3) delivered and flying out of Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. A third test aircraft (BK-4) has been signed for and is due to be delivered in early 2016...

The government will approve the UK's bulk F-35B buy (the final number minus the 14 aircraft of Main Gate 4 and the four test and training aircraft) in its Main Gate 5 announcement in 2017. Numbers are yet to be decided, but with the UK having so far committed itself to just 48 aircraft it is highly likely that the final order will be substantially less than the 138 programme of record [emphasis added]. Following Main Gate 5, the overall cost of the programme will be published...
http://www.janes.com/article/46164/uk-orders-first-operational-f-35-combat-aircraft#.VHNWa7ZGWkI.twitter

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Israelis (usual copyright disclaimer):

Israeli Panel Rejects Proposed Increase Of F-35

An Israeli cabinet panel has rejected a decision of the defense minister to procure an additional 31 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and limited the procurement of Israel’s second batch of JSFs to only 13.

It is unprecedented that the ministerial committee on defense procurement would reverse an air force requirement that was already approved by the defense minister, the former government and the National Security Council. The Israel air force, which currently has 19 F-35s on order under a $2.74 billion contract, will have to be satisfied with a total of 32 aircraft in the coming years, and will not be able to complete two full squadrons as planned.

Defense Minister Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon, who had already concluded with the Pentagon the terms of a $4.4 billion contract for an additional 31 F-35s, is now asking the DOD to maintain the same terms for a smaller number of aircraft. The U.S. has agreed to grant Israel $2.4 billion in credit for the deal as well as to conduct offset procurement totaling $5.3 billion, under the expectation that Israel will acquire a total of 50 F-35s. The JSF procurement is financed through the $3.1 billion annual military aid that the U.S. provides to Israel.

It is unclear, though, whether the U.S. will agree to provide Israel with the same terms for the smaller deal. “Minister Ya’alon will try to convince the Pentagon that this is a minor delay and that eventually Israel will procure the 50 aircraft,” a senior defense source told Aviation Week…

"For maintaining stealthiness, this aircraft has compromised maneuverability, shorter operational range and significantly less payload capability," a senior Israeli official told Aviation Week. "We shouldn’t be buying so many of them when it is unclear whether the stealth is effective, or there is a countermeasure that would negate it. There are vast gaps in performance between the F-35 and fourth-generation fighters."..
http://aviationweek.com/defense/israeli-panel-rejects-proposed-increase-f-35

Mark
Ottawa

 

[HB_Pencil]

Now THAT was a detailed answer!

So, for those of us who went "guh-wah?", basically what you're saying is the actual sensors and on-board fusion ability is less the showstopper than the ability to communicate that mass amount of data at high speeds between aircraft, and that the Super Hornet won't ever be able to match that because of bandwidth limitations caused by the bus, which would be impractically expensive to upgrade? Is that correct?

What is it about the bus system that makes it so impractical to upgrade the SH bus system to the type used by the F-22 and F-35?

ITs a two part problem. One, its the mass amount of data generated organically within the aircraft,... the fact that you have MADL streaming in additional data just adds to it. Buses are the most obvious issue since they are the backbone for the avionics, but in reality almost everything would need to be reworked because the system isn't designed to operate in this fashion.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-to-add-sensor-fusion-to-super-hornet-fleet-376973/

Note how "sensor fusion" here means correlating tracks from federated sensors, that means most sensors would either self generate them or need human input to identify... though some systems will work automatically (like RWR, Radar and missile warning systems). There are ways to improve the avionics and create the semblance of fusion, which is what the US Navy is attempting to do. However its not the raw data correlating way that the F-35 operates, which requires a staggering amount of work.

I guess the best way to quantify this is to look at the first attempt to upgrade the F-22's avionics architecture, which is extremely outdated. This was to entail basically taking the F-35's architecture and modifying it for the F-22. This effort was initially estimated to be at least 3.8 billion dollars. However it was made before 2005 when the JSF's troubles began. They then canned the effort when it became clear that the estimate was unlikely to be met... and this was seen as the "easy" upgrade.

The final question is why would the US Navy undertake such an effort. F-35 has significantly better range, payload, sensors and flight performance than the F/A-18E at about 20% greater cost. Porting over the F-35's avionics would narrow that gap considerably, making it cost prohibitive and still deficient in all those other categories. It just doesn't make much operational sense at all. 

 

[Kirkhill]

HB_Pencil:

Is it inaccurate to suggest that part of the capital cost differential between the F35 and its competitors could be offset by comparing it to the costs associated with recruiting, training, maintaining and flying a Backseater in each aircraft?

Adding a backseater usually means either a bigger aircraft and/or shorter legs, I believe.