F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

Brumby

Major
F-35 Full Combat Capability Will Be Four Months Late

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


WASHINGTON – The F-35 will not get its full combat capability package until late fall of 2017, a delay of about four months from the original plan, according to a top general.

Testing of two earlier versions of the F-35 software, Blocks 2B and 3i, took longer than expected, Joint Program Office (JPO) Chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan wrote in his March 23 written testimony before the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces. The Marine Corps declared initial operational capability (IOC) with Block 2B last summer; meanwhile, the Air Force needs Block 3i to declare its jets operational this year.

Testing of Block 3F, which will give the jets full warfighting capability, started later than planned because the program office had to spend more time fixing Blocks 2B and 3i, Bogdan wrote. As a result, Block 3F will likely be completed about four months late, and will be delivered in late fall of 2017, Bogdan told lawmakers.

However, Bogdan noted that this delay is an improvement over the JPO’s projection a year ago, and is not expected to impact the Navy’s ability to declare its F-35C jets operational in 2018. The four-month delay will also have no impact on coalition partners’ capabilities, he wrote.

The schedule risk is primarily due to software “stability” issues, seen in both Blocks 3i and 3F. In essence, a timing misalignment of the software of the plane’s sensors and the software of its main computers are causing a “choking” effect, where the jet’s systems shut down and have to be rebooted. However, the JPO and contractor Lockheed Martin have identified the root cause and plan to flight test an updated software load at Edwards Air Force Base, California, sometime in the next few weeks, officials have said.

The program office has established a “Red Team,” made up of experts from the Navy, Air Force and outside the Pentagon to take an in-depth look at the issue, Bogdan told reporters after the hearing. The Red Team has already begun its study and will report back in about a month, he said.

“We brought them together and we’re sending them down to Lockheed to try to figure out, do we have the root cause analysis right on these problems? Are we going after the right issues?” Bogdan said. “Because it’s very easy to just make a fix to the software, but if you don’t fix the fundamental issues going on those fixes only will last so long and they will pop up again.”

Success of Block 3F mission systems hinges on the program office resolving the problems with Block 3i, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore wrote in his written testimony. The stability and functionality problems in the initial versions of Block 3F, inherited from Block 3i, were “so significant that the program could not continue flight test,” he wrote.

While Bogdan stressed the Block 3F delays will not impact IOC, he acknowledged they could affect how ready the jets are for the formal initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) phase of development, currently planned to start in 2017.

Gilmore estimated Block 3F capabilities will not be ready for IOT&E until 2018 at the earliest.

“The Block 3F schedule, even with significant improvements in software stability, deficiency resolution, and flight test rates, still appears to extend into 2018 before the capabilities will be ready and certified for IOT&E,” Gilmore wrote.
The official timing to deliver Block 3F was always at risk based on all the progress reports to-date and it was unlikely to be met. This is the first time the program is officially admitting it. The risk is about 10 months and so 4 months may still be aggressive.

Software stability issues normally suggest that the program is being too aggressive with software fixes which typically requires a controlled methodology to fixes so that outcome can be isolated without triggering a series of chain reaction. Stability issues comes about when too much risk is being taken using concurrent fixes to accelerate timetable.
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
Software fix readied to prevent further F-35 delay

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Flight tests starting next week will determine whether a key milestone for the US Air Force version of the Lockheed Martin F-35A will be delayed only four months or perhaps even longer, programme officials say.

The USAF had planned to stand-up the first F-35A squadron and declare initial operational capability (IOC) in August. But a planned computer processor upgrade late last year destabilized the software that connects mission systems, such as the radar, to the flight computer.

“What the pilots are seeing is when they take-off and they need to use the sensors, particularly the radar, the communication between the radar and the computer is mistimed,” says Lt Gen Chris Bogdan, the F-35 programme executive, speaking at the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces on 23 March.

As timing delays pile up, the radar enters a degraded mode or shuts down completely, he says, requiring several minutes to restart. The software causes a sensor to shut down an average of once every 4h, he adds.

The US Marine Corps declared IOC with the F-35B model last summer with Block 2B software, offering the bare minimum of weapons and manoeuvring authority. A few months later, Lockheed introduced the Block 3I standard, which re-hosts the Block 2B software on a more advanced computer processor. The USAF plans to announce IOC with the next software upgrade called Block 3I. A follow-on upgrade called Block 3F would enable the F-35 to carry a full complement of weapons and enable the full flight envelope.

Although no new functionality was added, rehosting the Block 2B software on the Block 3I hardware caused the failure rate to soar from once every 30h to once every 4h. “The complexity of that re-hosting should not be understated,” says Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the navy for acquisition.

In the long-term, the programme hopes to return to the Block 2B level of stability, but in the interim the goal is more modest. For IOC, the USAF would accept Block 3F software with an average system failure rate of once every 8-10h, Stackley says.

A software patch developed for the Block 3I standard will enter flight testing next week. If failure rate improves to the 8-10h threshold, the impact on the USAF IOC schedule will be “minimal”, Bogdan says.

But the next challenge will be introducing the Block 3F software, which adds significant new functions for operating the sensors, weapons and flight controls.

“We are wary that further issues will emerge,” Stackley says.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
In short expect more delays I've said time and time again if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck it might be a duck stop trying to make it useable cancellation is the only option
 

Brumby

Major
In short expect more delays I've said time and time again if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck it might be a duck stop trying to make it useable cancellation is the only option
What you are suggesting and so had many others is in my view highly misplaced, misguided and simply ignorant of the bigger picture. The F-35 program is incredibly complex in its attempt to excel in SA through its avionics and sensors. Such a feature is software centric and is not a surprise that the issues and delays are emanating from it. There are no feasible alternatives out there. 6th gen is simply an incomplete vision with no body to it. If you think the F-35 is costly and complex, what makes you think 6th gen will be any more affordable and some how magically be on schedule (whatever that timetable seems to be)? It is easy to criticise but viable solution is limited. LM may have oversold its capability to deliver on time and on budget but complex programs will have problems. The truncation of the F-22, B-2 and Seawolf were in hindsight shortsighted and ill considered. As it is often said, the only thing we failed to learn from history is to learn from history.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
You may be right but at what cost in pilot lives when and if it enters the fight against a so called inferior enemy remember in theory the F4 was superior to the migs it was against but those aircraft managed to beat it on many encounters
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
And no we haven't learned any lessons we have to develop specialized aircraft for specific needs and missions remember the legacy aircraft were each designed for such missions how many 15,16,18 have been shot down due to enemy aircraft the still stands at 0 and that's the point I'm trying to make
 

Brumby

Major
You may be right but at what cost in pilot lives when and if it enters the fight against a so called inferior enemy remember in theory the F4 was superior to the migs it was against but those aircraft managed to beat it on many encounters

What has your comments got to do with the F-35 program? I suggest you refer to post #3198 of which some of the more relevant contents are reproduced below. In essence, there are a bunch of critics making assertions that are either unfoundered or ill considered but have gained media traction vs. those who have access to specific data including classified materials and drawing a different conclusion.

As well, I have had good access to the F-35 program during my time at ASPI. I have had briefings from our own Department of Defence, Lockheed Martin and discussions at the Pentagon on the subject. Most of the discussions were at the unclassified level, but I had the opportunity to discuss the modelling and simulation work that underpins the concept of operations for the F-35 with the practitioners. My conversations with those involved in modelling work suggested that I was dealing with careful analysts who well understood the nature of their business. They could explain their assumptions and, critically, how they tested the sensitivity of their conclusions to variations of those assumptions and of input parameters.

Which brings us to the nub of the question that anyone wanting to understand the F-35 inevitable comes up against—who is right? On one hand you have a very active group of critics who have managed to get traction with the media and with elements of governments in Australia and Canada at least. As the submissions show, their view is that this program is a fiasco of extraordinary magnitude. On the other hand, you have the acquisition organisations and air forces of some of the most professional and competent operators of combat aircraft in the world—I include in that list Australia, Canada, Japan, Israel, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. Those groups have access to classified data on the aircraft, and the partner nations also have good internal access to the program. Their collective judgement is that the F-35 is the way ahead for their air combat capability.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
The very idea that the F35 is not and should not be classified as a fighter the same way a 15,16,18 is and the high cost of all the new systems in whole makes them unaffordable thus the low number of such systems maybe the term combat aircraft would be better after if a A10 or F16 can out fly it then technology won't matter in a dogfight in case we actually remember those things that every body thinks are a thing of the past once again
 

Brumby

Major
The very idea that the F35 is not and should not be classified as a fighter the same way a 15,16,18 is and the high cost of all the new systems in whole makes them unaffordable thus the low number of such systems maybe the term combat aircraft would be better after if a A10 or F16 can out fly it then technology won't matter in a dogfight in case we actually remember those things that every body thinks are a thing of the past once again

What is the end point are you trying to make? Is it that the US made a wrong strategic choice in consolidating its platform into the F-35? If so why is it wrong? Saying it is wrong doesn't make it so. You actually have to make your case. Is it that you think the F-35 will perform poorly in air combat? What is your comparative evidence for it? If you wish to make a cogent argument I am all ears. The problem is so far your comments are neither coherent nor meaningful relative to the subject.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Yes from everything I have read it can't outfight the very planes it was designed to replace unlike the 22 which is in a class all by itself and that technology isn't always the answer for every advance there is an answer on the other side to negate that advance
 
Top