# US Defence Cuts Announced: F-35 program delayed AGAIN



## BombTaxi (Jan 4, 2011)

Pentagon Cuts: Defense Spending Expected To Save $100 Billion

Worst news here (for a Brit like me) is that the F-35 could be delayed by two more years, leaving our new White Elephant-class megacarriers with nothing but Merlins and Lynxes until god-knows-when. Anyone fancy fitting Sidewinders to a Lynx?  Or a £10 flutter on the F-35 going the way of Skybolt?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 4, 2011)

Its that damn STOVL version that the marines insist they have. Personally I think STOVL is a waste in our current non-coldwar, UCAV persistent environment. We should shitcan it immediately.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2011)

Watch what you read from Huffington - they've been known to put a real liberal spin on their articles. 

I saw the article and it actually said this;

"The Pentagon's largest weapons program, the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is facing another restructuring that could extend the program's development phase by up to two years, *said a third source familiar with the plans*."

That third source was not named.

The F-35B is the part of the program running behind because of the complexity of the aircraft. The F-35A flight test program has been running rather smooth and been lumped into some of the bad press of its sister ship. Here's a better article on this...

For Lockheed's F-35, 2011 may be a do-or-die year | Business | Dallas Business, Texas Bu...

Lockheed-martin can't afford any more delays or screw ups and they know this. They already given money back to the government for some of their delays and may face more penalties if they don't comply with their current contract.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 4, 2011)

Agree about the Huffington and Puffington Post, it is a liberal rag. But the F-35B has been developed to fight a war that has not materialized and our means of fighting such a war has changed over the course of its development.

It really boils down to whether an MEF needs F-35s on their light carriers. But are we really gonna send an MEF somewhere alone where we wont have Navy Carrier support nor indigenous runway assets? I think the likelihood is very low and cannot justify the huge costs and performance hit to the airplane. With these manned assets and the predator follow-on, Orion, having a 5 day loiter with 1500lb of ordnance I can't believe that there are not other alternatives.

The cost of the F-35B is killing the Marine's budget. If they continue to choose to stick with it, they will be forced to make some rather serious cuts to other weapon systems that are equally important, if not more, to their mission.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 4, 2011)

Understand about the spin from HuffPo. I read it with the same neutrality/cynicism that I do Fox  Still, any more delays are, from this side of the pond, an absolute nightmare. If it weren't for the political impossibilities, I would be advocating QEII and PoW sailing with Rafale's on deck...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 4, 2011)

You guys gave up on the B, right? Or was that just a MoD Quadrennial Review recommendation? I thought you had already decided upon shifting to the C version and modding your carriers appropriately?


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 13, 2011)

I think it is a correct observation that it is the B version which is problematic, but that it unfortunately will spill over to the A and C versions. Bad press may kill the entire project.

That said, cracking spars and having Mr. Gates to put it on probation does not instill any confidence in it.

Maybe one of the major problems facing all the a/c developments is the very long development cycle.

Maybe we have got into the habit of expecting this development to take 15+ years, whereas we should perhaps look at a paradigm shift here.

Developing a new car is not 15+ years (yes, I do know there is a difference between a Ford Ka and an F-35), but why do we accept such long development times?

I do understand the need for "joint" programmes and development of common goals, etc. But have we sacrificed effectivenes and responsivenes on the altar of the politically correct "jointnes"?

Looking at the Super Hornet, having buyers without even a hint of a carrier, it is a more wholesome project as it was designed for a specific environment (I think). The F-35 comes across as a compromise in any way possible.

Modern software integration is a major part of all a/c developments, but could it be cut down?

Imagine fielding a new a/c in 2 years? 3 years? 5 years max? That would do something for fielding the right solution at the right time instad of fielding the right solution to a 15+ year old situation (which obviously has moved on anyway).

Maybe the brits will have to go back to the Harriers or find something else to fly. The ripple effect can turn into a tsunami.

Yours,


----------



## The Basket (Jan 13, 2011)

What's more impossible...having carriers without fighters or Rafales?

The super carriers are such a nonsense in the first place I expect no joy from them. Bad ideas lead to bad ideas.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> Maybe one of the major problems facing all the a/c developments is the very long development cycle.



There is some truth to that. Poor programmatic oversight is surely an issue that DoD is fully aware of. But another is that aircraft integration (both military and civil) are taking on a different mantra wrt development lifecycle timelines. F-35, A400M, A380, B787, A350, Sukhoi Superjet, etc. There are discussions that the typical 5yr "approval" cycle needs to be 7-10 in the future generations. And that does not include the engineering development and prototype phases.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 14, 2011)

...and that may be our undoing.

We may have to look at a paradigm shift in development cycles. otherwise we may design equipment now, which we ASSUME will be ok for the changed world situation in 15+ years. Who can predict the world 15+ years from now? and get it right?

Maybe we have become too obsessed with a goal of 100% where less could do?

An analogy is the building of the Liberty ships. Maybe not 100% but who could have imagined that a ship could be built in days? ...and they did the job there and then, not two years down the line.

The moon programme is another example (at least to a layman). Going through Mercury, Gemini and Apollo in a decade was an achievement.

Compared to that, why must the F-35 be a total of closer to 20+ years?

Another example is the German MP40 machien gun (the Schmeisser). fantastic and good, but the AK47 is still around, becuase it works, can be operated by novices and is cheap and moderately effective.

The nation to cut development cycles by a magnitude may be the winner in having equipment solving the issues NOW rather than solving the CURRENT issues in 10 years time. Maybe at a lower cost and at less functionality than desired but still within reason?

It also touches on all the "jointnes" of all programmes. If everything has to be designed by committee, have we then sacrificed other things on altar of the correctnes of the jointnes?

Just more thought into it.

Yours 
Ivan


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 14, 2011)

I think joint programs are about much more than politics. The UK does not possess the infrastructure to develop a combat aircraft alone, thanks to disastrous government interference in the aviation industry during the 60s and 70s. The raw skill may or may not be there, but we lack the factories to build the finished product in, and what private company will invest in new plant unless it is guaranteed a large, multi-national order pool? The current government will not foot the bill, for both financial and (sorry mods) ideological reasons.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 14, 2011)

I think that joint development will make more sense IF we have users with very similar requirements.

The entire F-35 comes across as disparate requirements (USN, USAF, USMC, RN) pooled together because it MUST be "joint" for political reasons.

As a layman looking into the "tent", the Super Hornet comes across as a more "wholesome" a/c, not because it is not "joint" but because it had to fulfil requirements form users with similar wishes (I think that is fair to say).

My entire point is as well, as you also stipulated: Nobody can go it alone--> and my addition: AT THE CURRENT PRICE LEVELS.

If the heavy pricing is also because of the long development cycle and trying to perfect systems (beyond what is really clled for), no wonder nobody can do it alone.

Now, I am not saying the F-35 can be turned into a low-cost machine, but have we gone too far in perfecting things?

The development of the Harrier did not take 15-20 years, and i don't thnk the cost was as high as the F-35, so where did we go wrong (if we did go wrng indeed).


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 14, 2011)

All good points gents, but we are comparing disparate animals.

The Harrier was a phenomenal leap in airframe and propulsion integration. And it was a success.

But nowadays, airframe and propulsion integration is passe'. Virtually anybody can do that. Compound that with airframe, propulsion, sensor fusion, avionic, LPI data link, and ISR. The engineering complexity is magnitudes greater.

We can argue that such integration is not necessary, but we are not fighting the cold war wherein one side might throw masses against the other (with the exception of China perhaps in 25-30yrs). We are talking about nation states with relatively sophisticated anti-air defenses networked into their command/control supported by 4th gen air assets.

So should we build the modern version of the F-5 or MiG-21? In my opinion, no. Not with the foreseeable threats. But I do question the need for a $$$$$ STOVL airplane given the ability to establish air dominance for virtually any theater of war we car imagine in the near future. Especially if that same airframe will sacrifice the ability to field other airframes or warfighter weapons due to budget constraints.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 15, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> But I do question the need for a $$$$$ STOVL airplane given the ability to establish air dominance for virtually any theater of war we car imagine in the near future. Especially if that same airframe will sacrifice the ability to field other airframes or warfighter weapons due to budget constraints.



The term is "putting one's eggs in one basket" I believe.

So, certain things have become "run of the mill" stuff in terms of airframe intrgation, etc, and other things have evolved and become more complex. That cannot be surprising. 

The key question is still: why do we accept such long development cycles where equipment is near obsolete when finished?

Has it got something to do with utilising non-industry standard components, where everything has to be developed from scratch? That will typically push any development cost through the roof.

I am thinking specifically in terms of software development and this I don't know. 

Maybe the solution is not to have the F-35 running Windows 7 and TCP/IP, but it will surely cut down on costs (It is TCP/IP now?).

Yours


----------



## evangilder (Jan 15, 2011)

If any airplane were running Windows, it'd be in serious trouble. You don't use a consumer grade OS on a complex machine. Most likely it is a stripped down version of BSD or something similar. I would venture to guess it is some kind of hybrid UNIX OS that is set up with only the functionality it needs. THEN the software is developed for the needs of the aircraft.

Is there "out of the box" software for it? I doubt it. Besides, each generation of aircraft has newer and more complex systems that demand more programming and processing power. 

Maybe a more modular approach to the software is the key. Once you have basic building blocks that all work, adding a module is less labor and time intensive.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 15, 2011)

But if the development of a new a/c is more a matter of software (and i can imagine that is more and more key) then integration issues will be the hardest job.

Storm Shadow could be an example as I would imagine that MBDA would develop it according to their goals and THEN offer the right API's for integration purposes. Anything else woud not make sense.

Now, if each vendor for the F-35 systems (and I realise of course that there must be quite a few systems) will come with standard API's, sure, there is work to do.

If every interface must be written from new, I wouldn't even consider buying the equipment but go somewhere else. In the example of the Storm Shadow, I could buy something else which is easier to integrate to. 

Now, surely the software engineers must have software tools, API's, OS's etc to choose from and be building in a modular approach, anything else would not make sense. Then it still remains: Software development measured in years and billions cannot even be compared to any other industrial commercial development, so have we got it wrong (insofar as military development, although unique, must still have the same elements as any other industry).

Airbus A-380 started development in 1994, but probably 2000 was a better start date for the "real" work to begin. It flew first time in 2007.

Of course it is different, but is the amount of *software integration *of different supplier's systems very different? 

It is probably still "paradigm shift". If we expect it to take 15+ years, it will take 15+ years. But what if we try something else?

We have another thread "how would you design a better (WWII) a/c".

well, if it could be a *modern demonstrator *only (agree, I would not like to see Windows 7 in F-35. "blue screen" in the middle of a dog fight would be outright boring, really).

Imagine that we TELL the sub-suppliers to use TCP/IP, NETBios, standard API's, 100MBIT/s network, etc etc. Basing it on Linux, Oracle DB, or ipod interfaces, etc,etc. As a demonstrator (in terms of integration only), what would be the advantages? lessons to be learned? 

There must be reasons for not having gone down this route somehow (as the engineers would be pretty bright).

Ivan


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 15, 2011)

Because structural testing would be nightmare, development assurance would be impossible to determine and ensuring protection from security/malicious intrusion (a modern threat that is being exploited by even the least technical nations) would leave the airplane a deathtrap.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 18, 2011)

evangilder said:


> If any airplane were running Windows, it'd be in serious trouble. You don't use a consumer grade OS on a complex machine. Most likely it is a stripped down version of BSD or something similar. I would venture to guess it is some kind of hybrid UNIX OS that is set up with only the functionality it needs. THEN the software is developed for the needs of the aircraft.
> 
> Is there "out of the box" software for it? I doubt it. Besides, each generation of aircraft has newer and more complex systems that demand more programming and processing power.
> 
> Maybe a more modular approach to the software is the key. Once you have basic building blocks that all work, adding a module is less labor and time intensive.



I believe the program language for military aircraft is ADA. It is designed for reliability and lack of errors. I believe the programming is already typically modular. A major effort and cost of aircraft software is testing. It has to be intensive. Every variable value, every combination, possible or impossible, has to be tested.

Here is an example of how a simple software glitch can get you. I was responsible for the Avionic Controls and Displays on the B-2. I was pushing to remove the standby instrument because I had proven that my quad interconnected computer system and eight multifunctional displays was far more reliable than any other aircraft flying including their standby instruments. I lost that argument to the AF. One day I got a report. The B-2 on a test flight had lost all of its displays and had to return to base on the standbys. I was in the hot seat. After analysis, it turned out to be in the main processors (not my responsibility). It turned out that one part of my system did fail, an electromechanical display select switch, which selected the display the cursor was to operate on. The main operating system, the flight management operational flight program (FMOFP) had growth, per contract, for a third crew station, which was not activated. The failed signal the main computers received from the display system was a selection for a display that did not exist, one for the third crew station. The main computer, on receiving this false signal, could not find the non-existent display. With faulty programming, it decided it must have failed and shut itself down. The back up computer immediately recognized the main processor had shut down and took over. Unfortunately it went through the same logic, and it also shut itself down, which turned off all avionics except the flight controls and emergency systems, which include those backup instruments. The software was not tested completely enough. I thought and still do, that it was incompetence. It should have tested out of normal range performance. No normal operating avionics on a two billion dollar aircraft because of simple switch failure. It was fortunate that I had lost that argument.

I would not nor do I think anyone else would bet there life on Windows working flawlessly, or any other commercial operating system.

While we developed the B-2, I always felt that the initial emphasis should be on the airframe and the avionics should be delayed to a later date. Avionics for the B-2 was designed in the early 80s with now, very primitive, avionics. You can develop the requirements, develop the software, and test the software (except hardware integration), and then buy the hardware. Indeed, by the time the B-2 was fielded, in 1993, several generations of computers had elapsed.  We wanted to upgrade the computers with basically off-the-shelf computers but the software was not compatible with commercial processors. We spent lots of money trying to transfer the software. Redoing software was prohibitively expensive. An example of the changes in avionics occurred in the late 90s. We had communications upgrade that required an upper antenna and a lower antenna. These had to be selectable so we had to have a switch. The aircraft had a multiplex data bus (mil-std-1553) that provided communications. This switch needed a small processor with some memory that would read the bus and command a switch of the antennas. We soon found out that this simple processor and memory to do this simple task would have, IIRC, ten times the throughput and fifteen times the memory of the rest of the thirteen main processors of the avionics system combined. We started downloading task to the antenna switching unit.

Sorry for the rambling. I probably have posted some of this before.


----------



## looney (Jan 19, 2011)

Tactical Aircraft Force Structure 

The committee will continue to focus on the size and composition of the tactical aircraft force structure. Continued delays in the initial operational capability of the F-35 aircraft have the potential to result in future tactical aircraft force structure shortfalls if service life extensions for legacy aircraft cannot be accomplished.
With an operational requirement of 1,056 strike fighters, the Department of the Navy projects it can manage a peak strike fighter shortfall of 100 aircraft in 2018. The committee will focus on inventory objectives of F/A-18E/F and EA-18G procurement, the effect of delays in the procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, F/A-18 A through D service life limits, and mission capability of the AV-8B aircraft. 

The Air Force has stated a strike fighter operational requirement of 2,000 aircraft, and, under current procurement and retirement plans, the Air Force does not project a strike fighter shortfall. However, delays in deliveries of the F-35A aircraft will affect the Air Force fighter aircraft inventory. In the 112th Congress, the committee will continue its oversight of: aircraft retirement plans; the F-22 and F-35 aircraft programs; and life extension and modernization programs for the F-15, F-16, and A-10 aircraft. 

F-35/Joint Strike Fighter 

During the 112th Congress, the committee will continue oversight of the F-35/Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, particularly issues related to the propulsion system. The committee will also continue to exercise oversight of program cost, schedule, and performance of the program.
With the JSF approximately two-thirds through a 14-year development process, the committee believes that there is still risk in completing JSF development within currently projected cost, schedule, and performance parameters. In the 112th Congress, the committee will continue to receive JSF annual reports and receive testimony and briefings from both the Department of Defense and the Government Accountability Office.

Bron: Armed Services Committee/Buck McKeon

Thought it was a good idea to post the text. I found this on a dutch site JSF Nieuws.nl the site keeps track of my countries interest (our airforce wants the JSF) on the JSF.

Even for the non dutch reading people here, the scource text is useally in there.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 19, 2011)

Good point.

I worked in a software company where a small piece of the shuttle software was developed. If you recall, the first shuttle launch was delayed at approx 20 minutes before take-off. More or less as our software was supposed to kick in and run for 5 minutes. The entire space division (I did payroll software ok) hit their knees, and the usual prayer of software developers: "pleaseeee, not in my code".

It wasn't by the way, but it was a software fault where something wanted to divide by "0".

These things will happen. I think I remember ADA. Developed in the 70's. Based on a Pascal compiler if my memory serves me right (we wrote compilers ourselves in those days, even OS and micro-code). Probably just as fault prone as anything else, really. Not too many users.

My point is that if you have a sufficient amount of developers of the tools, the OS, etc, etc (in essence commercially available software) the less faulty the thing will be and the less faults your software will encounter.

"blue screen" in the middle of a dog fight would be boring, no doubt. Not really time for ctrl-alt-del.

But there must be some middle ground. Developing even tools from scratch seems to be too much work.

I would also imagine that the component manufacturers would sell on ease of integration--> standard tools?

I will still contend that unless we get into a paradigm shift instead of meakly accepting 15+ years of development, we may still have a/c developed for a world that does not exist anymore.
Ivan


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2011)

Thanks for the input, davparlr, I had a feeling things might be modular as a lot of things on the civilian side have gone to that for costs. Looking at projects that I have been involved with in the past, writing new code will always be quicker and cheaper in the long run than porting code to a new system. It sounds simple enough in the short term until you get chest deep into the project and find a bunch og unknowns, traps and god knows what else.

Having more programmers or developers doesn't always make things faster. Even with thorough design specs, how one interprets that and codes to it can sometimes lead to one piece not playing well with another, or providing contention for memory/processor, etc. Granted that having more eyes on a problem is not a bad thing, just that sometimes having too many engineers on something can lead to a mess.

Testing and QA cycles are also a big time resource. While I certainly see the need for thorough testing and "negative tests", that is probably where a big chunk of time is taken.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 19, 2011)

Evan, yes integration and testing is and will always be a huge task, especially in these environments.

My analogy is the development of the Airbus A380, which must have a similar degree of complecity (although different systems).

That did not take 15+ years, neither did the software development take billions.

The degree of safety, etc must be similar (maybe not identical), wherefore we should be able to compare.

After all, I cannot imagine trhe supplier of , say Storm Shadow not providing some API's for the software development and integration. That would enhance the sale I should think.

Or have I missed something?


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2011)

Britain and several other nations spent a lot of money to develop the Eurofighter. To me it appears a pretty good aircraft.

Why didn't Britain fully support the Eurofighter program by designing a CV version and designing their new CV(s) to use that aircraft?

Too late now but Britain should have considered these things during the 1990s.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 19, 2011)

Integration testing is important, but you cannot possibly test all the millions and millions of SLOC to V and V its solution space. This is why there is now such a huge emphasis on development processes and tool qualification. As a systems engineer, I would argue that the getting the high level requirements and the HW/SW derived requirements correct to begin with is likely more important than simple exhaustive test techniques. The military is finding itself in a real bind by wanting to use commercial off the shelf (COTS) HW/SW to minimize cost, but cannot ensure that this same COTS HW/SW does not contain additional functionality which cannot be assessed via traditional process assurance, and thus may introduce an unsafe condition. There is a whole industry rising up around this discussion and the answers are not readily available to choose a path amicable to everyone's business case.

Eurofighter? I think that folks are staying away from it because it is a platform that really will not have a viable air-gnd capability until Tranche III. Thus it is only an air superiority platform from the outset.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 20, 2011)

Without turning it into a discussion on software, there must be a reason why developers develop for Windows/DOS/NT and not for CP/M. Cost, functionality, market demand and support.

The key question is still in my mind: do we need a paradigm shift in development cycles or is it handed down from high altar that developments cannot be done faster?

I still like the liberty ship analogy: nobody could imagine that a ship could be built in days. When somebody did it, it had an impact on everything.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 20, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> Evan, yes integration and testing is and will always be a huge task, especially in these environments.
> 
> My analogy is the development of the Airbus A380, which must have a similar degree of complecity (although different systems).
> 
> ...



You are missing a lot. Comparing the A380 development to the F-35 development is like comparing Toyota building the Avalon to General Motors building the Volt. Airbus already had much integration experience in building the large, four engined A340, and I would be surprised if less than 60% of the integration effort was transportable to the A380, including the flight control programs, tailored of course. Very little integration is transferable to the F-35 from any previous programs.

The same can be said about the difference between commercial airliner and military fighters. I am going to make up a thumb rule, I’ll call the “davparlr estimating factor” (there probably is a real one out there somewhere). The complexity of design, integration and test of a system is a geometric progression of its component subsystems. For example, the design, integration and test of a system that has twice the subsystem components of another system, will be four times the effort required for the other system. So lets compare commercial aircraft to a military aircraft, this list is not meant to be all inclusive but representative.

*Commercial systems*

Crew station
Engines
Fuel
Electrical
Hydraulic
Landing gear
Flight controls/w computers
Environmental
Navigation
_Global Air Traffic Management
GPS
VOR
ILS_
Communications
_VHS or UHF (military)
Satellite
IFF_
Radar
_Weather_

*For a modern military fighter, all the above plus the following, I think these are typical*

Radar
_Air to Air

Search
 Track (including multi-target)
 Air to Ground 

Moving target indicator (MTI)
 Synthetic Aperture (SAR)
 Ground Map
_

Electro-optical target detection systems
IR target detection systems
Weapons
_Air to Air

Targeting
 Sidewinder
 AMRAAM
 Air to Ground

Targeting
 JDAM
 Air to Ground Missiles
 Dumb Bombs
_

Defensive systems (most of this stuff is classified and I don’t know except it is complex}
_Threat Detection

Rf
 IR
 Countermeasures
Rf

Active
 Passive
 IR

Active 
 Passive
_

Communications
_Satellite Data Link
Local netted data link_ 
Navigation
_Automatic carrier landing systems (Navy)_

Now, stick all that on a 30,000 lb airframe and make work from negative gs through 9+ gs, incredible vibrations from 20mm cannon fire and opening weapons doors at high subsonic to supersonic speeds, stress from landing on a carrier (Navy), et.al. 

I think this gives some idea of the complexity of the modern fighter aircraft.

Hmm, more rambling


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 21, 2011)

You are starting to convince me. 

Yes i see there is a magnitude of complexity.

Let us take it one step further, though:

How many new systems will the F-35 carry, things never been used before? Known systems must have been integrated on other platforms; hence API's and code must be available (The cannon is not new, is it?)

So, how much would be ported from previous platforms?

What I am really aiming at is: by using more 21 century software tools and technology and integration technology, can the entire development phase be cut dramatically?

I am also seeing, thanks to this forum, that the "raw" engineering efforts are becoming less problematic as flight engineering knowledge is becoming more deep and sophisticated (let's forget the broken spar. it is not fair to harp on it I think. Bad engineering can be found in many places)

The software integration among sub-systems will then be key to any successful fighter programme.

If software development takes years and billions due to "old" technology, and ADA is "only" 40+ years old, will a quantum leap be for any country to utilise modern tools?

It has been mentioned that the CPU's in most flight environments are a bit old, the communication, based on MIL-STD bus, instead of TCP/IP, is slow and difficult to interface to. etc, etc.

I am not so hot on the "what-if" scenarios as they tend to get carried away, but i could imagine a technology demonstrator built using commercial software. Linux and iPhone interfaces, etc etc. Going overboard in IT technology, really. Can it be done? will it work? will it be safe (I don't believe in 'blue screen" in the middle of a dog fight either. difficult to re-boot or debugging, really).

What if China should use modern integration software on their new fighter? Or India, having millions of PhD programmers?

Am I totally off on a tangent? Should i accept defeat and go for conventional thinking that developments must be 15+ years as a minimum?


Ivan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2011)

Last night I had a talk with my buddy who was on the X-35 program and has been on and off the current program. According to him the media is making the problems bigger than what they are. He says there have been over runs and delays but many of those have been driven by the government due to changes in the program induced by the agencies purchasing the aircraft. On the F-35B, as he puts it, "every nut and bolt is being scrutinized after every flight" so the flight testing is slow and tedious. As my friend puts it "there are more things that are right and that have exceeded expectations than are wrong with this plane." He thinks the media is clouding the waters to make everyone believe that all versions are in trouble.

From a LMCO employee - take it for what its worth....


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 21, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> Known systems must have been integrated on other platforms; hence API's and code must be available (The cannon is not new, is it?)



Ivanotter,

You are broadly right but there isn't one set of code for one thing and another set of code for something else. Coding has to be ultra-efficient, partly to facilitate safety testing and partly because onboard processors are always several generations behind the power available on the latest generations on the street. This means that code is reused extensively but perhaps not in the way you think. For example, I know of one aircraft where a customer decided to change the engines from those originally specified. Everything was going fine until they tested the software and it was found that the weapons controls had been affected...yes, by changing the engines. There are multiple feedback loops in control systems that can cause all sorts of problems if components send out signals that are not expected by the rest of the system. 

Another factor is the need for (apparently) instantaneous response within operational flying constraints. You don't want to be in an aircraft where there is a noticeable lag between control selection and function of that subsystem or where a combination of switch inputs "blue screens" the system. This need for high throughput but with extreme levels of reliability, low power consumption and resistance to radiation (not something you find in your everyday laptop) promotes extensive use of Field Programmable Gate Array processors that are configured for specific roles within the onboard systems of which they are part. This certainly was the case when I did my flight trials training a few years back and I doubt things have changed very much.

If it was easy, anyone could do it...

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 21, 2011)

Mark,

Yes you are spot-on. It it was easy everyone would do it.

Do you foresee a quantum leap in this area? What if somebody surprises us all and actually doing it? India has a huge IT sector, China could maybe?

Would this then be the next bigger achievement in a/c development rather than "raw" engineering and fancy paint? (I am building a 1/72 Raptor and the sheen is a curse I think)

Comments on this tangent?

Ivan


----------



## Glider (Jan 21, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Last night I had a talk with my buddy who was on the X-35 program and has been on and off the current program. According to him the media is making the problems bigger than what they are. *He says there have been over runs and delays but many of those have been driven by the government due to changes in the program induced by the agencies purchasing the aircraft.*
> 
> From a LMCO employee - take it for what its worth....



I hae not been invovled in the development of any aircraft system but have been the Senior Project Manager on a number of IT Projects and I am willing to bet anything that the above as highlighted is a major part of the problem.

Projct Creep as its called, is always a huge factor. I wanted this and now I want that, or can you add this to it, or it was spec'd missing out a couple of 'features' to get the numbers down and now we need it. The F35 and F22 couldn't share data together or talk to each other and now we think its a good idea. Or the client didn't check that what the developer was building actually met their requirement. 
What the people in power who make these requests forget is that every time you add or change something everything has to be retested resulting in a massive duplication of effort. 

The list of examples available some of which I have been invovled with and others I have read about is unending.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2011)

Glider said:


> I hae not been invovled in the development of any aircraft system but have been the Senior Project Manager on a number of IT Projects and I am willing to bet anything that the above as highlighted is a major part of the problem.
> 
> Projct Creep as its called, is always a huge factor. I wanted this and now I want that, or can you add this to it, or it was spec'd missing out a couple of 'features' to get the numbers down and now we need it. The F35 and F22 couldn't share data together or talk to each other and now we think its a good idea. Or the client didn't check that what the developer was building actually met their requirement.
> What the people in power who make these requests forget is that *every time you add or change something everything has to be retested resulting in a massive duplication of effort. *The list of examples available some of which I have been invovled with and others I have read about is unending.


I seen this on an "epic scale" when I worked on the B-2.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 21, 2011)

I used to be in IT, so yes, I can vouch for those things.

Building state-of-the-art engineering, fancy paint and basing it all on 80186 chips coded in ADA (which came with the ark) simply does not really make sense. 

Sure, it must be safe and tested and working, but how many developers are maintaining ADA? Just because it is old (ancient, really) does not imply it works.

Does anyone want to guess on development times if it was all based on up-to-date state-of-the-art IT technology? never mind flying it, but as a demonstrator? 

ivan


----------



## jamierd (Jan 21, 2011)

I heard all the problems started when the test pilot couldnt reach the ashtray because he was left handed.so then they swapped it over but he couldnt reach the PS3 because the ashtray was in the way then the pop out mug holder got stuck and all hell broke loose.after this the Marine Corp found out about the PS3 and complained coz they wanted XBox live in theirs.then Mrs Burgess responsible for sewing the upholstery went on maternity leave so the whole thing is on hold till she delivers her little bundle of joy


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 21, 2011)

very good, very...

Sad, but it could be so true. Reminds me of a new mini computer the company I worked for received from nobody knows. No OS, no drivers, nothing. We had to write it all from scratch. disks, tape, card, printers, screens, comms, all of it. Developing an OS from new is character building, and then someone comes along and asks for: "can we also just use this new screen please? the client likes it"? and this before TCP/IP, API's, Windows, CP/M. all in assembler. Thank you.

Yes, i can see it


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 24, 2011)

I know this isn't really relevant to all of the discussion going on in this thread, so I apologize.

If it is indeed the Marines' version causing the issues, would they not be able to release the other two independently from it? I know the CAF is supposed to have theirs by 2020, and they are needed by then as our CF-18s are on their last legs as is.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2011)

Catch22 said:


> I know this isn't really relevant to all of the discussion going on in this thread, so I apologize.
> 
> *If it is indeed the Marines' version causing the issues, would they not be able to release the other two independently from it?* I know the CAF is supposed to have theirs by 2020, and they are needed by then as our CF-18s are on their last legs as is.



YES! But the media and those against the F-35 program in a whole are lumping all 3 versions into one basket. One thing LMCO is not mentioning are the issues driving the cost over runs like government induced changes and a vendor base that his also partically directed by the government. I'm told some of the foreign suppliers are on their butts and there's little or nothing LMCO can do about it.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 24, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> YES! But the media and those against the F-35 program in a whole are lumping all 3 versions into one basket. One thing LMCO is not mentioning are the issues driving the cost over runs like government induced changes and a vendor base that his also partically directed by the government. I'm told some of the foreign suppliers are on their butts and there's little or nothing LMCO can do about it.



Thank you sir! That's what I suspected, but didn't know if there were other possible contributing factors that I'm just not aware of.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2011)

Catch22 said:


> Thank you sir! That's what I suspected, but didn't know if there were other possible contributing factors that I'm just not aware of.



The F-35 will always carry the reputation of being a money pit, thanks to the media. They did the same thing to the F-15 back in the early 1980s. The only thing that worked in the F-15's favor was the Soviet threat at the time silenced many of the critics. What the media and skeptical public miss is, yes these toys are expensive, but they're going to be around for the next 40 or 50 years. Think about how cost effective the B-52 has been!


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 24, 2011)

Yeah, there just isn't the aircraft turnover anymore. Upgrades sure, and that also will add costs, but that theoretically won't be until the reasonably distant future. If in 30 years the F-35 is still nowhere near retirement, the media will be saying that they were a great bargain.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2011)

Catch22 said:


> Yeah, there just isn't the aircraft turnover anymore. Upgrades sure, and that also will add costs, but that theoretically won't be until the reasonably distant future. If in 30 years the F-35 is still nowhere near retirement, the media will be saying that they were a great bargain.



Yep - Just like the same way they said the F-117A was the "worst kept secret of the cold war" because models were made of it when it was still classified. Tell me, would you think this was the same aircraft?


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 24, 2011)

Looks more like the SR-71 to me.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 25, 2011)

Flyboy, correct me if I am wrong:

are the cost over runs caused by changes to the specs as the project is going along (scope creep)? 

Those must be serious changes to the specs, but Ihave not seen that.

If the B version is causing the "bad press" you are spot-on in suggesting that it should be "released" from the A and C versions. 

If that is the case, does it not confirm that we have tried to be "all things to all men" and building an a/c by committee, a compromise of all kinds of requirements to the point where it is not a compromise, but compromised.

I think we would all like to see just one smooth-running project in our life-time, but...

However, the problems reported seem to be of a more basic nature. Broken spars, over-weight, etc etc, should not occur with the type of design tools we have now, really. Are there fundamental issues with the specs, only showing up in the implementation in your opinion?

Ivan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 25, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> Flyboy, correct me if I am wrong:
> 
> are the cost over runs caused by changes to the specs as the project is going along (scope creep)?
> 
> Those must be serious changes to the specs, but Ihave not seen that.


Some of them are. LMCO is also to blame for some of the delays as well, and then you have just normal production teething pains that would be inherent in the design and production of any modern warplane, let alone one as sophisticated as the F-35.


ivanotter said:


> If the B version is causing the "bad press" you are spot-on in suggesting that it should be "released" from the A and C versions.


Perhaps - what also has to be examined is the need and the cost to kill that part of the program if necessary. If it is decided that the "B" version should not be produced, more than likely LMCO will receive cancellation fees and a good chunk of the planned workforce will be furloughed. It could also drive the cost of the other models up. All that has to weighed to see if it would be cost effective to kill that segment of the program, and of course most of the media is too stupid to cover any of this.


ivanotter said:


> If that is the case, does it not confirm that we have tried to be "all things to all men" and building an a/c by committee, a compromise of all kinds of requirements to the point where it is not a compromise, but compromised.


No, not really. I believe the aircraft could work if properly managed by the contractor and government. The problem in the aircraft manufacturing industry is there are too many bean counters and not enough people who really know how to build and fly airplanes.


ivanotter said:


> I think we would all like to see just one smooth-running project in our life-time, but...
> 
> However, the problems reported seem to be of a more basic nature. Broken spars, over-weight, etc etc, should not occur with the type of design tools we have now, really. Are there fundamental issues with the specs, only showing up in the implementation in your opinion?
> 
> Ivan



Broken spars? I don't know where you came up with that one. Weight has been an issue with the aircraft since the X-35 days, but the concept aircraft shows the design is viable. I don't think there anything wrong with "specs" in general - its a matter of getting all the technologies going into the aircraft to "blend." The F-117A had similar problems but that program was successful because a lot of the normal red tape and the press were kept off the program.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 25, 2011)

It does show that the F-35 is hugely complex.

As also Glider is stating, project creep is a danger in all major technology projects. F-35 is probably also there.

That said, are we closer to "bleeding edge" than "leading edge" with the F-35?

As a layman looking in (and I have been project managing some rather big IT projects), it looks as though we should re-look the B version and maybe just get A and C finished.

How much impact will it have if the USMC gets "dropped" (and the RN maybe)?

Dusting off the Harriers could be an idea?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 25, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> It does show that the F-35 is hugely complex.
> 
> As also Glider is stating, project creep is a danger in all major technology projects. F-35 is probably also there.
> 
> ...



Again, all food for thought, its going to be a matter of need and dollars. I do know that in the past several weeks the "B" model has been doing quite well during flight tests at Pax River, and on prototype completed a 4 hour flight. The USAF will sell its sole for the F-35. I think you''re going to see a day where the only manned combat aircraft in the USAF inventory will be the AC-130, F-22, F-35 and the B-2


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 25, 2011)

F:

I also read that the B can start to hover, etc, doing what it was supposed to do.

Somehow, I think the bad press must be countered as a priority. That could be done by admitting the severituy of the problems (honesty is typically very good) and to have a more rigid action plan.

That could involve things like:

Delay the B until the A is flying
Dust off the Harriers - telling USMC and RN to start contingency planning
Increase the pace of the flight tests on the A version
Ensure total buy-in from the overseas customers (they must be looking at contingencies, no doubt about it. I would if it were me sitting in Europe and looking at it)
Get the weapons integration stepped up.

Wold that be an action plan or am I "smoking funny cigarettes"

Ivan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 25, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> F:
> 
> I also read that the B can start to hover, etc, doing what it was supposed to do.



The F-35B been hovering for a while.


ivanotter said:


> Somehow, I think the bad press must be countered as a priority. That could be done by admitting the severituy of the problems (honesty is typically very good) and to have a more rigid action plan.



The only way the press will be squelched is when you see the F-35B complete its flight testing program and break some records, but even then you'll still have critics. As far as admitting problems - I think that's been done to a point. There is a tremendous amount of oversite on this program and hiding something will be extrememly difficult. I also think LMCO knows the consequences if they don't get this right. 


ivanotter said:


> That could involve things like:
> 
> Delay the B until the A is flying
> Dust off the Harriers - telling USMC and RN to start contingency planning
> ...



I would guess there are some thinking on the same lines, but until the F-35B can be proven to not meet its design intent, the only limiting factors are cost and schedule.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 25, 2011)

Breaking records would be nice to see. The only way to redeem itself.

I still think the B is dragging the project down. It is creating uncertainty and doubt where there should not be.

PS: I may be biased against the F-35 as I find it "ugly". 

Did they go out of the way to design something ugly? it is nearly as bad as the X-32 which takes the prize. Could theyhave designed something like F4, Super Hornet (my all-time favourite) or just something not so ugly.

Ivan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 25, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> Breaking records would be nice to see. The only way to redeem itself.
> 
> I still think the B is dragging the project down. It is creating uncertainty and doubt where there should not be.
> 
> ...



Ascetics are in the eye of the beholder, I know that functionality went into the design and it has a lot in common with the F-22. 

As far as the F-35B dragging the program down – that has yet to be seen. Remember, there are so-called “problems” and cost over runs, but none so far that would give justification for pulling the plug. LMCO probably has about 6 months to get program back on track; personally I think they can do it. Now it’s a matter of foreign sales and need to justify the aircraft.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 25, 2011)

Let's see if LM can get it out of probation.

Have we seen any confirmations on numbers for break-even? is it still into the 2,000+?

PS: I shall be starting a new thread: the "ugliest" a/c ever designed. My nomination: X-32. 

Ivan


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 27, 2011)

I picked this from another forum:

Pentagon Cuts $6.9 Billion by Delaying Lockheed F-35s - Bloomberg

Comments?

reg,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2011)

All points are on the mark but the delay is more of a shell game than anything else. The DoD will cut $6.9 Billion from *THIS* year's budget but tack in on or spread it out in futute budgets. LMCO gets impacted as any slowdown on the line will more than likely affect employment numbers. At least the article seperates the problems with the F-35B from the other versions.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 27, 2011)

It is indeed a factual article, but also what would be expected from Bloomberg.

What about the dwindling numbers? how big an impact will that now have on the total programme? never mind the profit clause in the contract, but more on the confidence level?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> What about the dwindling numbers? how big an impact will that now have on the total programme? never mind the profit clause in the contract, but more on the confidence level?


A matter of need. Some of the spares and after production support may increase in price.

As far as confidence? I'm not sure what you mean but also remember there were supposed to be 123 B-2s. I don't think those flying the aircraft today are that worried.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 28, 2011)

Picked from aviation week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:21f23df4-ab3b-4042-aea9-04cb1f727f9d

It looks a bit all over, but their conclusion is that it is still within the envelope of problems to be expected.

The bulkhead/spar problem does sound a bit extreme, though.

Comments?


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 28, 2011)

JPO on STOVL F-35 Design Issues

sorry


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2011)

Having inspected machined titanium parts, this isn't too uncommon and it sounds like an easy fix on production models. I've similar situations on smaller parts when I briefly worked on the early C-17 program.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 29, 2011)

it seems to be a bit late in the day to find those types of problems.

One would expect that such things on main components would be found in the design phases, with all the great design software we now have around.

These fixes look strange: 

Oops, titanium too heavy:
Fix: chuck in aluminium spar

Oops, not strong enough
Fix 1: machine it a bit
Fix 2: re-desgin it to dilude stress

It does come across as fixes with no thought-through planning of consequences.

All the other stuff sounds like engineering quests.

The big question looming: do we find bigger things as we go along now as it is finally coming off the ground (x'cuse the pun).

Ivan


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 2, 2011)

This is becoming a really odd thread, ivanotter. I can't tell if you have a point or just want to blog.


----------



## ivanotter (Feb 3, 2011)

Could be both, Matt.

OK. jokes aside.

The F-35 programme is a very costly and involved project. The info about it is, to me, rather "all over".

I am a layman but very interested in all things flying. This forum is one of the few one's with very clued up people; hence my bloggings.

It is one of the biggest technology orders for a lot of European nations and will surely set the agenda for years to come.

That said, there are simply too many things in this programme that I cannot understand can go wrong. 

I am desperately trying to understand whether it will be a flop or a success. My questions are from an IT project and general management viewpoint.

I am not trying to be more clever than the combined US defence and LM people.

Ivan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> it seems to be a bit late in the day to find those types of problems.


Not at all - it's common in even out of production aircraft to find structural flaws. the F-15 just went through a major mod because of bulkhead cracks.


ivanotter said:


> One would expect that such things on main components would be found in the design phases, with all the great design software we now have around.
> 
> These fixes look strange:
> 
> ...



What you describe is the common fix, unfortunately all the computer designing in the world will not mitigate the risk of such flaws emerging either during flight testing or when placed into service. The fact that these flaws were found during this part of the program is actually a plus as it is early in the production cycle.

Again, flaws like this are common and to expected during this phase, but it also serves as more fodder to opponents of the program


----------



## Crimea_River (Feb 3, 2011)

How about mid air refueling?

Canadian military can't refuel controversial fighter jet in mid-air


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2011)

Crimea_River said:


> How about mid air refueling?
> 
> Canadian military can't refuel controversial fighter jet in mid-air



Bush!t article with no specifics - it’s a matter of what type of drogue is being run from the tanker. The CAF are running A319s as tankers, I don't think the CC-137 is used anymore. This sounds like an excuse to either stop the purchase of F-35s or make an argument for the purchase of new tankers. Tanker hose reels and drogues are cheap when comparing to modifying or purchasing new aircraft, but I do know that some of the hose reel and drogue manufacturers have propriety rights on which aircraft their units can go on. There's many ways around this problem.

Here ya go - I actually worked on one of the 707s this company operates. The refueling package is a bolt on modification and I'd bet dollars to donuts can be put on any airframe the CAF wishes, including the 319s.

http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/vms/


----------



## Crimea_River (Feb 3, 2011)

I agree with you. There's a vocal opposition to the sole-sourcing of this purchase and the political opposition is always looking for ways to scuttle this deal or make it look bad.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 3, 2011)

Even if we didn't want to change the tankers, could we not purchase Navy F-35s, with normal landing gear?


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 4, 2011)

How would that make any difference?


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 4, 2011)

Lucky13 said:


> How would that make any difference?



Because USAF tankers hook into the planes they're refueling, while Navy fighters have probes that come out of them.

Navy:






USAF (or USAF withe Japanese mixed in, but with an F-15):


----------



## Crimea_River (Feb 4, 2011)

I think Jan was wondering what you meant by the landing gear remark. Doesn't make sense to me either.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 5, 2011)

Oh, sorry. Well would the land based gear not be lighter as they won't need to be strengthened for deck use, or does that matter anymore? Sorry if it doesn't.


----------



## Torch (Feb 5, 2011)

Regarding my post about the Chinese bidding on the the US military,The perfect solution is let the Chinese build the F-35, it will be cheaper and they'll make a copy of it anyway in the near future.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 8, 2011)

Many weapons developments have been criticized for cost and performance. A few would include the M-1A tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Humvee, and F-15 and we were fortunate to have these weapons. In my opinion, the F-35 will be a great weapon system and all of this talk will disappear into history.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 9, 2011)

I believe that statement to be a proven fact.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2011)

If only we could afford enough of them.


----------

