• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
PuckChaser said:
We're making money on some of those modifications, because they were so useful.

That's great.

Anyway, this is what I was referring to (I don't just make things up, though sometimes I don't remember thing correctly:

Those continued to change, and by March 2007, Boeing informed DND that the additional requirements would create both a delivery delay of 12 months, and cost increases of about USD 360 million in one-time engineering costs. CH-147 changes from the standard CH-47F included enlarged ‘fat tanks’ developed to give US Special Forces Chinooks longer range; a new electrical system based around twin 60KvA generators, producing 2x the electrical power; a new cockpit avionics suite; and “standard” special forces additions like a rescue hoist, surveillance and targeting turret, etc.

DND responded by trying to stay within its authorized spending limits, and didn’t finalize its requirements until 2009, when the contract with Boeing was signed. That contract includes a provision for Canada to receive some royalties, if a future customer purchases the Canadianized CH-47F version.


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/on-the-verge-canadas-47b-program-for-mediumheavy-transport-helicopters-02390/

So, the contract took extra time to get signed, and delivery took longer because of modifications.  However, if the modifications were as worth while as everyone claims, then I'm glad we went that way.

BTW, I'm not sure what it is with this website and needless insults.  I have no problems like this in either of the other discussion forums I frequent.
 
What does any of this have to do with the F-35?

Those other forums must not need you to substantiate opinions.
 
PuckChaser said:
What does any of this have to do with the F-35?

If you'll recall, this discussion started as a result of the difference between the currently not fully operational F-35 and the other aircraft that can be considered out of the box if purchased with few modifications.  Those projects, such as the C-130j and the C-17, have generally gone very well.  Then there are other things that don't go so well, and come in on time or on budget.  This includes things like holding armoured vehicles to a standard that none have ever been tested for, and disqualifying all of them anyway.  Apparently, industry feels that Canadian procurement staff lack knowledge and experience in many areas.  It spiraled downwards from there as people don't bother to look into things before flinging various insults and condescending remarks.   

Those other forums must not need you to substantiate opinions.

I can think of a few other reasons.
 
And before we move on, I feel that this should be posted:

According to National Defence, the seven high-level mandatory requirements could have been met by a basic Chinook model (emphasis added). However, in the process of detailing its specifications with Boeing, National Defence also drew from the set of rated operational requirements, effectively treating extended-range fuel tanks, an upgraded electrical system, and aircraft survivability equipment as mandatory requirements, though none had been originally identified as such. These additional modifications resulted in significant changes to a basic Chinook model and also had an impact on the timing and complexity of certification for airworthiness…

http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.ca/2014/07/the-canadian-ch-147g-chinook-great.html

What this tells me is that we have to a ) define our requirements, and b ) actually use those requirements, incorporating as few modifications as possible.
 
So that brings us to the F-35.  The F-35 is still an operational unknown.  It's timeline, despite projections that have constantly moved, is an unknown.  That's a good enough reason to disqualify it from any competition that we might run, if we run it in the next few years, before the jet is actually operationally capable in a way that it can be used as a sole air resource.
 
Progress ongoing, despite what the usual naysayers at the "Best Fighter for Canada" Facebook group say against the F35.

Defense News

First Operational F-35A Squadron Finishes IOC To-Do List
Valerie Insinna, Defense News 8:40 p.m. EDT July 27, 2016


WASHINGTON — The Air Force’s first F-35 squadron has completed all preparations necessary to declare the joint strike fighter combat capable, and sources say an initial operating capability declaration could be made early next week.

Twelve jets have received the modifications necessary for IOC, 21 combat-mission-ready pilots are available, and the maintenance infrastructure is ready to support the Hill Air Force Base’s 34th Fighter Squadron, said some of those operators on July 27. With paperwork filed, all that’s left is for Air Combat Command head Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle to sign off.

“We have achieved all our milestones,” said Lt. Col. Steven Anderson, deputy commander of the 388th Maintenance Group. Anderson, along with several other maintainers and pilots from Hill Air Force Base, spoke to reporters over a conference call. "We have submitted all of the data to ACC for General Carlisle's consideration on making that declaration."

(...SNIPPED)
 
jmt18325 said:
And before we move on, I feel that this should be posted:

According to National Defence, the seven high-level mandatory requirements could have been met by a basic Chinook model (emphasis added). However, in the process of detailing its specifications with Boeing, National Defence also drew from the set of rated operational requirements, effectively treating extended-range fuel tanks, an upgraded electrical system, and aircraft survivability equipment as mandatory requirements, though none had been originally identified as such. These additional modifications resulted in significant changes to a basic Chinook model and also had an impact on the timing and complexity of certification for airworthiness…

http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.ca/2014/07/the-canadian-ch-147g-chinook-great.html

What this tells me is that we have to a ) define our requirements, and b ) actually use those requirements, incorporating as few modifications as possible.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of (then) High Level Mandatory Capabilities (HLMCs), now referred to as High Level Mandatory Requirements (HLMRs) even within the offices of watch dog/audit organizations, let alone the general public, and that is the belief that once a project HLMCs/HLMRs are established, that there must/should be no other further detail added to the defined capability.  That is not the case, nor was it ever meant to be the case, and that goes back to when the procurement process was modernized/refreshed/etc... back in the Chretien/Martin era.  Previously, capabilities were defined as: Essential - Highly Desirable - Desirable.  The "essential" requirements often were numerous and interwoven into a complex net that inadvertently caused confusion and made the contract tendering process take on monumental timelines to ensure that the myriad of essential capabilities could actually be met.  Then came the Highly Desirable and Desirable requirements.  Overall, a daunting and complex process.  The fundamental change was moving to the new system, where the intent was not a direct mapping of Essential to HLMC/HLMR, Highly Desirable to Rated 1 and Desirable to Rated 2 requirements, but the HLMC/HLMR being significantly reduced in number (most often less than 10) as a major filter that would still allow competition, in general, and if not support competition (directly or indirectly), that the justification was clear to all.  Thereafter, the Rated requirements would be used to ensure that the overall capability could then meet specific operational and sustainability requirements for the intended lifetime of the capability.  There was never any expectation on those who refreshed the procurement system in the early-2000s that Government could simply "stop" at the HLMC/HLMRs and be done with it...write the check for the cheapest thing off the shelf.  The development of the 'Rated' 1 & 2 level requirements was and remains a critical step to ensure the viability and relevance of the capability for tis lifetime.  That takes time to do, anyone who would say otherwise isn't being realistic.

In the case of MHLH, of all the HLMCs, three were known to be significant influencers to an eventual aircraft selection: 1) minimum lift capability (based on the Army's M777 howitzer), 2) delivery timeline (based on the Government's requires to use the capability operationally for the CAF), and 3) the sustainability of the aerospace capability to Western aerospace/aviation standards.  #1 ruled out Airbus Super Puma, Agusta-Westlands EH-101 and Mil's 'Hip' Mi-8/17 - none could lift the required mass.  #2 ruled out Sikorsky's CH-53K King Stallion as the USMC won't even have theirs until 2019-2021.  #3 ruled out Mil's Mi-26 'Halo' as both the avionics and aero-engineering/sustainability failed to meet accepted western standards of airworthiness and sustainability.  That left the Chinook as the remaining compliant aircraft, thus the Advance Contract Award Notification (ACAN) released by PWGSC.  It was not a sole-source directed, it was granted to the only aircraft that met all HLMCs.  That still did not mean that DND did not have the obligation to produce the Rated 1 and Rated 2 requirements, it did, and that's what took the additional time.  Every other project that follows this process will have those steps to follow, unless things are clearly directed by government in an un-tenedered manner.  It is people's expectations that are developed without fully appreciating the process, and there are some very good reasons why many of the steps exist, even if the actually implementation of the process and some decision-making process therein are unwieldy and should be improved to result in less delays.  Without those Rated 1 & 2 requirements, for example, Canadian Chinooks wouldn't have the extended range fuel tanks, and so Canada would have to reverse its work over the decades to clean up the environment and all the fuel sites that had been cleaned up and removed from the arctic, by putting fuel caches back up into the North so that small-tanked Chinooks would have been able to operate throughout the North.  So today, the CAF can operate with greater operational responsiveness, yet with greater regard for the environment because of the additional investment that some folks thought (rightly so, I would say) was operationally and environmentally the right thing to do.  Did that take a bit more time to then get to contract, yes.  Right thing to do, especially for its benefit for the next 20-40 years?  Also yes, I would say.

So, as it applies to the future fighter capability project (FFCP), we actually saw a procurement that was intended to be aligned with greater emphasis placed on the HLMRs, and that many will say (and for which I see the logic) was intended to leverage on a Program (JSF) that back in the 90s held a competition between the YF-32 and the YF-35, selected the YF-35, and proceeded to build a program that was essentially the 5th Generation version of the 4th Generation F-16 multi-role fighter.  The initiators (Chretien's Liberal Gov't) of the Canadian project were most focused on the industrial benefits of the program to Canada's aerospace industry, then ADM(Mat) Alan Williams is on record saying this was a major focus, although his later attestations that there were no expectations that Canada would actually BUY the aircraft were never something he stated publicly during his tenure as ADM(Mat).

Folks seem to believe that guessing what unit costs (which I have said before, don't exist as a real number, there are only ever total program costs. If you choose to divide total cost by airframes, you can.  In a free society, we are allowed to do arithmetic, and taking a number (total cost) and dividing it by another number (qty) can mathematically yield a per/unit figure, but it is not like a country goes to a big vending machine, looks at the price of the various flavours of jet you can buy, then keeps dropping the change it has in its pockets to get as many jets as it can until its pocket is empty.

What we do know, is that by resetting the process to an (almost?) open and transparent competition, there will be a large amount of detail (operational requirements and sustainability-related) that must be "un-packed" in order to conduct a wholesome assessment (if that's the true goal) of what aircraft best meets the balance of all the competing factors for Canada.  That will take time to be done right.  If I were a betting man, I would say that if the 'pure' system (HLMRs, Rated 1 and Rated 2 requirements) were to be followed, for all the right reasons, there will no longer be a decision taken during the current sitting Government's mandate -- I'd say 2020-2021 at least...anything less, and you know there will be compromises somewhere down the road.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
 
Great info - thanks for breaking everything down.  I'm not disappointed we got a better helicopter in the end.
 
Looks like any day now for USAF:

F-35A Looks A Lock For IOC OK; CAS As Good As F-16
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/f-35a-looks-a-lock-for-ioc-ok-cas-as-good-as-f-16/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Marines test the gun pod on the F-35B.

http://www.businessinsider.com/video-f-35b-tests-gun-pod-first-time-2016-7


https://zippy.gfycat.com/FlickeringWeeAyeaye.webm
 
IDF receives its first F-35's (which is extensively modified compered to the regular F-35). The major sticking point is not the ability of the aircraft to do the job today, but rather Lockheed's control of the software.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/215613

Israel's new F-35 'Adir' takes to the skies
The new fighter jets, AS-1 class, herald a new age for the Israel Air Force.
Rachel Kaplan, 27/07/16 12:42
Share

F-35 Lightning II AdirF-35 Lightning II AdirLockheed Martin

On its maiden flight at US manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, Israel's first F-35 Lightning II "Adir" (Hebrew for "Great One") passed all tests, and is due to be delivered in December.

A lighter version of the F-22, the F-35 Lightning II Adir has top-of-the-line stealth technology, highly sensitive sensors of every kind, and fuel-optimizing computer systems to keep it in the air.

Israel was the first country to buy the fighter jet under the US's Foreign Military Sales process. A Letter of Agreement was signed in October 2010.

On June 22, 2016, the Israeli Air Force welcomed the first F-35A Adir for Israel at a ceremony at the factory in Fort Worth, Texas. Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman attended the 400-strong ceremony, along with US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, and several other military and political figures.

“We’re honored to partner with Israel and help strengthen the deep and lasting partnership between our two nations,” said Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin Chairman, President and CEO at the ceremony. “The F-35 will help Israel remain a beacon of strength and stability in the region and support a safe and secure homeland for generations to come.”
 
Less than 6 years with extensive "Israelisation" and the first A/C is delivered. Pretty fast timeline for a jet that doesn't work.
 
PuckChaser said:
Less than 6 years with extensive "Israelisation" and the first A/C is delivered. Pretty fast timeline for a jet that doesn't work.
How long do you plan to be butthurt over this?
 
Altair said:
How long do you plan to be butthurt over this?

Probably not as long as those preaching the, "told you so, it'll never be ready enough" line...  ::)

G2G
 
Definitely "not working"...

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/07/31/f-35-so-stealthy-produced-training-challenges-pilot-says/87760454/

The F-35 is so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says

Phillip Swarts, Air Force Times 5:04 a.m. EDT July 31, 2016

The F-35 Lightning II is so stealthy, pilots are facing an unusual challenge. They're having difficulty participating in some types of training exercises, a squadron commander told reporters Wednesday.

During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, F-35 squadrons wanted to practice evading surface-to-air threats. There was just one problem: No one on the ground could track the plane.

“If they never saw us, they couldn’t target us,” said Lt. Col. George Watkins, the commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

The F-35s resorted to flipping on their transponders, used for FAA identification, so that simulated anti-air weapons could track the planes, Watkins said.

“We basically told them where we were at and said, ‘Hey, try to shoot at us,’ ” he said, adding that without the transponders on, “most likely we would not have suffered a single loss from any SAM threats while we were training at Mountain Home.”

“When we go to train, it’s really an unfair fight for the guys who are simulating the adversaries,” Watkins continued. “We’ve been amazed by what we can do when we go up against fourth-gen adversaries in our training environment, in the air and on the ground.”

Watkins said he can take four F-35s and “be everywhere and nowhere at the same time because we can cover so much ground with our sensors, so much ground and so much airspace. And the F-15s or F-16s, or whoever is simulating an adversary or red air threat, they have no idea where we’re at and they can’t see us and they can’t target us.”

“That’s a pretty awesome feeling when you’re going out to train for combat,” Watkins concluded, "to know that your pilots are in an unfair fight.”

The pilots and crews at Hill have been putting the new fifth-generation fighter through its paces, in preparation for top Air Force brass declaring the plane operationally ready — a move expected within days.

The Air Force’s variant of the F-35 will make its first appearance at the famous Red Flag training exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, in January 2017, Watkins told Air Force Times. Marine Corps F-35Bs have already reached initial operating capability and participated in the exercise this year.

Lt. Col. Steven Anderson, the 388th Maintenance Group deputy commander, said all the boxes have been checked for Hill F-35s to reach IOC, and that the base will be ready to send six-ship packages of the aircraft wherever they’re needed in the world.

“For most of us, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to bed down a new weapon set and make it employable and bring this capability for the defense of our nation,” Anderson said. “Everyone from the youngest airmen on up through our wing commanders is totally invested in this program. We are all excited and very motivated for what we’ve accomplished over the last year and what we’re going to accomplish in the future.”

Hill now has 21 pilots ready to fly, with another three going through final certification training, Anderson said. Some 222 maintainers are also ready, with another 150 in training. The base has 15 F-35s now, with a 16th scheduled to be delivered in late August. Eventually, the base is looking to set up three full squadrons with a total of 72 aircraft by 2019.

Anderson said the base isn’t expecting any problems with getting enough maintainers or pilots to operate the planes.

“We don’t see any shortfalls in our maintenance and pilots right now,” he said. “We can project up to 18 months out to see where our pilots and maintainers are coming from, and we will have enough to stand up this unit. IOC, for us, it’s just getting us out of the starting gate.”

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/11/air-force-pilots-maintainers-f-35-pros-and-cons/84232332/

Air Force Pilots, Maintainers on F-35 Pros and Cons

Lara Seligman, Defense News 8:36 p.m. EDT May 11, 2016

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — As the Air Force races to declare its F-35 jets operational before the end of the year, observers are still warning about schedule delays, a faulty logistics system, and software glitches.

But here at Edwards, the pilots, maintainers and technicians of the F-35 integrated test force say they are happy with the plane — in fact, in many ways the joint strike fighter is a huge improvement over legacy systems.

‘The Burger King jet’

Lt. Col. Raja Chari said the biggest difference between the F-35 and flying legacy platforms is that the pilot, freed from basic “stick and rudder” tasks by the JSF’s automation, is able to focus on mission planning.

“Each plane is its own command and control platform,” said Chari, who began his career flying F-15s and is now director of the F-35 ITF and commander of the 461st flight test squadron. “You don’t have to do as much stick and rudder, just getting to and from, because there are so many automated modes to use on the F-35 ... [It] is almost as easy as breathing.”

Maj. Raven LeClair, assistant director of operations for the 461st flight test squadron, told Defense News May 4 he likes the F-35’s touch screen display, which each pilot can customize to his or her liking.

The “glass,” as pilots call it, looks like two iPads sitting next to each other. Pilots can divide the screens any way they want in order to easily see different systems, Chari said.

Pilots can easily change the display anytime just by scrolling through these “portals” using the “hands-on throttle and stick,” or HOTAS, he added.

“It’s the Burger King jet,” Chari said. “You can have it however you want, your way.”

Combined with the Gen III helmet, the user-friendly display gives pilots a comprehensive picture of the entire battlefield, Chari emphasized.

“In this plane it’s 360 degrees and a much larger range of stuff that you are looking at so that you are not just thinking about what your particular jets doing, but now you are looking at other elements in a notional strike package,” Chari said. “So whether that’s looking at ground targets or emitters or air targets, you are building a much bigger picture than the traditional planes.”

Pilots are also happy with the jet’s high angle of attack, or AOA, capability, as well as its ability to perform high alpha maneuvers, Chari said. As airmen gain more experience flying the JSF, they are learning some “tricks of the trade” for handling a close-in fight, he added. He declined to be more specific because the information is classified.

Chari is looking forward to the integration of the AIM 9X missile, which will come as part of the final 3F software package. The combination of the F-35 airframe, the AIM 9X and the Gen III helmet is “a dogfighting game-changer,” he said.

Maintainers weigh in on ALIS

Officials say ongoing challenges with the F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, is the single biggest obstacle to declaring the Air Force jets operational on time. An internal diagnostic system that tracks each part of each plane worldwide, ALIS has been the subject of frequent criticism over the years, including the recent claim that if a single server goes dark it could cripple the entire F-35 fleet.

But maintainers here say that claim is ludicrous. Even if the power goes out, the team can still use ALIS, said RJ Vernon, supervisor for AF-3. All of the jet’s information is stored in a device called a portable maintenance aid, or PMA, which the team can load to the main ALIS data base once the power comes back on.

“We’ve had that happen multiple times, and we can still use ALIS,” Vernon told Defense News. If the power is out for long enough, the team may have to track maintenance and manage daily operations manually, as legacy systems do. But the chances of that happening are very slim, he added.

For day-to-day operations, the airmen and Lockheed Martin contractors here generally agree ALIS has made their lives easier.

“It tells you everything you need to know instantly,” Vernon said. “ALIS reduces our troubleshooting drastically, it makes my job very easy.”

AF-3 crew chief Staff Sgt. Cody Patters, who previously worked on A-10s and F-16s, agreed, saying the F-35 is significantly easier to take care of than legacy systems. The only thing he does not like is the lag time as he waits for the computer to load a new task.

The system is also very user-friendly, Patters said.

“We could teach you in 15 minutes,” he told Defense News.

Technicians say F-35 is easier to maintain

Unlike many legacy planes, the F-35 is built with access panels to allow technicians to more easily make adjustments. This makes changing out parts “a whole lot faster,” said Tech. Sgt. Chard Wooldridge, an avionics technician.

“For example, instead of taking off the entire nose assembly, it’s just a compartment,” Wooldridge said.

Plus, the computer catches problems the human eye might miss, Wooldridge said.

The computer is especially critical for fixing surface damage to the jet’s stealth coating. Technicians first trace the damage on the plane, then use the computer to zoom in on that specific part of the aircraft, said Staff Sgt. Jason Noyes, a low-observables technician.

The jet’s weapons are also easier to maintain than those on legacy platforms, said Master Sgt. Jason Buffell, the weapons section lead. The F-35’s weapons delivery is “pneumatic,” which means it fires projectiles by means of air pressure, instead of explosive. This saves man hours because the team doesn’t have to spend time cleaning the weapons banks every day, Buffell said.

Patters put it simply: “Our jobs are drastically easier because of the way the jet takes care of itself.”

 
As I have said in this thread many times, this is exactly the same thing that happened during our CF18 development and acquisition process. While it was being slammed in the ignorant, lazy, and agenda-driven media, people were quietly working away in the background solving problems that were a natural part of the developmental process.

The media and other critics got how much of that story right, again?
 
And like I've always said, it will be great.  I'm just not sure when we go from non functional to great. 
 
jmt18325 said:
And like I've always said, it will be great.  I'm just not sure when we go from non functional to great.

I'd bet a beer on "Faster than our procurement process can get a contract awarded."
 
Back
Top