F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Feanor]

IMHO, the US development system and the procurement budget is so large and varied, that it is very difficult to generalize. Therefore, I prefer to refer to a specific program. Again you have clarified a conceptual issue (which Robert Gates has also identified) without drilling down to any specifics.

So in other words Gates agrees with me. He might not be as blunt about stating it, but it seems like the problem I'm referencing is quite out in the open.

Are you referring specifically to the JSF program?

No. Like I said, I agree with what Grand Danois said. In the context of other programs which tend to over run much more, and have much bigger problems, the F-35 does indeed look like "a choir boy".

The initial intended build volume of 2,600 F-35s allows the program to easily absorb the projected variance in development costs (compared to any other current fighter development program), currently estimated at $5 billion more than projected. The US is a open democracy and is relatively open about fighter development progress (compared to other fighter developers). Their intention is to enable good governance via transparency and to address concerns. Their decision makers are also fairly well informed and served by various audit and research bodies.

Again procedurally. I'm not going to get into the details of the US government, though I disagree about it being a democracy. (or about the whole concept of a demos kratos in the first place, if you wish pm me, or make a thread in the off-topic and we can talk about it ) As for it being open, do you think information on the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class program, in terms of projected costs vs. actual costs is available publicly? Just to take a specific example. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I look at the results and see a set up that systematically puts multiple programs over budget and late due to initial low-balling of the estimates.

Bill Sweetman commenting on the March 2009 GAO report states that the JSF office is optimistic about flight testing and software development, which indicates that the $5 billion estimated cost over run will grow. In fact, it was reported last year that the USN estimated that the cost over run for the JSF to be up to $13 billion. However, do not mistake JSF program transparency for weakness.

I do not mistake it for weakness. So we see that even the "choir boy" JSF program is over budget. If not by a lot, this is projected to increase. Gf0012-aust you said that it's ahead of schedule in the development? But when you say GAO changed their mind, do you mean there are now new figures for whether it is over the cost or not?

Yes but compared to what other international developmental program?

I mean that international projects are more pressured to stay within budget and on time vs. domestic projects.

Unlike the European aircraft developmental model (which requires intergovernmental consensus), the Americans are clearly in charge and hold veto power in the JSF program. The troubled A400M program comes to mind. :shudder

:shudder indeed. Looking forward to your reply.

 

[Sea Toby]

While I was in the Coast Guard, we had sea trials for certain newly built ships in our area of operations. I know for a fact many of the naval ships go faster than the stated 30+ knots, but I would have to kill you if I said how much, or what the top speed was.

You will find such limitations in any society, whether democratic or not. I am sure the people who need to know know the facts, the same goes with the JSF. Every nation has secrets.

While many report the GAO or CBO has written a report damning the JSF, in fact, both agencies have given the program a green light to continue. If not, the program would not have proceeded to this point in the program.

Several military projects have been killed when they fell behind or costs rose too much. The watchdogs are watching. The JSF program is lily white compared to others. For instance in Europe just about every military program have seen larger cost overruns and have fell further behind schedule. Airbus A-400 has rewritten the page for both, and the Typhoon program was not as steady as many Europeans high nose over the Americans.

And as for the JSF's flight envelope is concerned, its BVR status is unchanged. Its software development is ahead of schedule. Its testing may have fallen behind a bit, but Lockheed expects to catch up when more test aircraft have been built. Both the CBO and GAO agree Lockheed can catch up.

Nothing big is holding this multi-national program, the JSF back.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

People shouldn't be so trusting of GAO and other auditor reports. Its important to look at the methodology behind what they say. In the case of the F-35 the GAO's methodology is to compare the development project to that used by the F-22 and Super Hornet. According to the GAO the F-35 would be in a lot of trouble if it was developed in the same way the F-22 and the Super Hornet were. Which is probably a fair call, but does it have any relevance? The F-35 is NOT being developed in the same way as the F-22 and the Super Hornet, it is being developed with a 10-15 year advance in technology which is allowing for far more precise computer modelling and software writing. The GAO says using simualtion for 83% of the aircraft's development is unproven but the F-35 PEO are saying that every flight test is validating the simulation assessment in ways that have never been seen before. So either the accountants at the GAO are out of date or the thousands of engineers at F-35 are misleading everyone else. There are some people willing to beleive the later but I would suggest the former is far more accurate.

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't trust the bean counters, they know nothing whatsoever about engineering. While the engineers may not be bean counters, they do know quite a bit about engineering. Frankly, I trust the pilots who fly the damn plane.

Electronic attack is real, the Typhoon can't play in that arena, and the Gripen can't play in that arena, the cutting edge belongs to the F-35. It is superior in sensor suite to even the vaunted F-22 but the detractors won't see it. Others trump up other aircraft, nevermind the strengths of the JSF. Gripen? We all know better. Typhoon? Lets get real, they can't even get the upgrade production schedule together. Want to talk dogfighting??? REALLY??? In the age of AIM-9x's, ASRAAM, Derby and Pythons does anyone really believe that those missiles -used in conjunction with helmet mounting cuing- won't change the face of visual range air to air combat??? The gun mounted on these planes will most likely be used to strafe surface targets in the future...

 

[OPSSG]

So in other words Gates agrees with me. He might not be as blunt about stating it, but it seems like the problem I'm referencing is quite out in the open.

I don't disagree with you on this point.

I do not mistake it for weakness. So we see that even the "choir boy" JSF program is over budget. If not by a lot, this is projected to increase. Gf0012-aust you said that it's ahead of schedule in the development? But when you say GAO changed their mind, do you mean there are now new figures for whether it is over the cost or not?

I have read the GAO report again and I think I understand what Gf0012-aust, Abraham Gubler and Sea Toby are saying on the JSF program, which now makes perfect sense to me. There is some difference in the audit perspective (as represented by GAO and CBO reports) and the JSF's engineering perspective. My betters have expressed the difference better than I could and I differ to their subject matter expertise.

:shudder indeed. Looking forward to your reply.

BTW, I really enjoy our discussions / disagreements.

 

[FutureTank]

People shouldn't be so trusting of GAO and other auditor reports. Its important to look at the methodology behind what they say. In the case of the F-35 the GAO's methodology is to compare the development project to that used by the F-22 and Super Hornet. According to the GAO the F-35 would be in a lot of trouble if it was developed in the same way the F-22 and the Super Hornet were. Which is probably a fair call, but does it have any relevance? The F-35 is NOT being developed in the same way as the F-22 and the Super Hornet, it is being developed with a 10-15 year advance in technology which is allowing for far more precise computer modelling and software writing. The GAO says using simualtion for 83% of the aircraft's development is unproven but the F-35 PEO are saying that every flight test is validating the simulation assessment in ways that have never been seen before. So either the accountants at the GAO are out of date or the thousands of engineers at F-35 are misleading everyone else. There are some people willing to beleive the later but I would suggest the former is far more accurate.

This is only partly true. One does not need thousands of engineers to know both are high performance military aircraft. In that sense they are very comparable in terms of development. The fact that one will serve as a replacement for an F-15, and the other for the F-16 does not mean the project teams for either can say they are a special case. Both legacy aircraft are capable of performing in each other's roles if need be to some degree, and in the case of the participant countries of the F-35 project this is a rather large hope given they are locked out of the F-22 production.

What GAO has said over the years, decades in fact, is a constant theme in its reports: the US defence industry and its domestic clients are notorious for project scope creep and cost overruns. And, because of the former, the time taken to bring a new combat system to a combat unit is now running at 20 years in the case of the F-35, an entire generation. The F-18 took six years to go from new program funds allocation to initial production. By the time it is replaced in Australia, the type will have served for 32 years. Will the F-35 serve for 96 years to reflect the thrice longer development? Somehow I don't think so. Will the F-35 replacement take 60 years to develop? I hope not, because in that case someone had better start now

PS. GAO employs engineers as well as accountants AFAIK

 

[gf0012-aust]

PS. GAO employs engineers as well as accountants AFAIK

If they have then they're a bit short on engineering concepts. GAO also had the same problems in comprehending how Virginas were benched against the 688's. The technology development and engineering model was completely out of their comprehension set.

they've done the same with JSF and comparisons against an F-22 production line - and even against a Hornet production line.

Certainly my awareness of how GAO comprehended Virginas development and build cycle showed that they were straight off the Buick/Oldsmobile school of manufacturing thought.

 

[FutureTank]

And?

I appreciate that some people are insinuating that comparing F-22/F-35 with F-15/F-16 is really comparing apples and oranges (maybe). But, now the manufacturers are saying that even comparing F-22 and F-35 is like comparing apples and oranges.

There is a bottom line though, and it is written by accountants not engineers. If it was otherwise, the projects would be ongoing, and going and going like the proverbial Duracel rabbit

The question seems to me to be this, what's wrong with delivering a generation 4.5 aircraft, following by its generation 4.75 version, followed by the generation 4.83 version, ect. until one hits 5? That is how I get my software, and I bet that's how F-35 software is tracked also.

That is not how engines are delivered though, so its taken 12 years to do what? You can't tell me they have been testing engines for 12 years. Is that how they got them to be so loud? The F135 started from an F119, not from scratch, in 2001. So 8 years to develop the engine from their F119 turbofan which powers the F-22 Raptor?
Most of the airframe technology as I (the uninformed) understand is early 1990s technology.
Many control systems are fairly standard by the virtue of needing to comply with milspec standards going back to the 60s.
And its not like they are writing code from scratch, or that the code going into the F-22 applications is radically different from the F-35. Terabytes probably came from the existing F-16/F-15 packages and the sharing is mandatory since the aircraft are going to be part of the same air force, never mind NATO in the case of F-35. Ok, so they have something like Microsoft Vista (in terms of complexity) running in the cockpit. That came out after five years in development.

Would any pilot have complained if they were told they would be flying F-34.5 in 2002?
Of course I won't be flying them, so I don't care if I wait another decade or more hwell

So you say they are months ahead after doubling the development time from the legacy F-16...

 

[gf0012-aust]

After some time away, I would have hoped that you'd smartened up a bit rather than come back as a smart arse and be combative.

Some of us do work in procurement, some of us are engineers, some of us have worked in military tech development, and some of us do have a clue.

Having been through a number of Govt audits and even Senate Estimates where I had to help explain cost models and the manufacturing and/or development process to some - well I have less than a favourable impression that they do know with greater confidence how to cost out new development concepts.

They didn't do it with Virgina, and they more or less admit it after some reluctance now with JSF.

Maybe its the way you seek to engage to get your view across, but I think you need to seriously find another way to play in here.

edit. re the F-22. code cutting and manufacturing development for the JSF is different from any other military aircraft developed to date. The Virgina analogy is approp as it's very very similar to how JSF has been misunderstood by a large section of the population. High speed comms suffers from the same disease where people make assumptions about development cycles etc when the beasts built today are nothing like even 4 years ago.

a plane is not a plane, a ship is not a ship - and thats unfort how Govt accountants tend to dumb things down. There are about 5 other people in here who have experienced the same grief as me - so its not unique

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This is only partly true. One does not need thousands of engineers to know both are high performance military aircraft. In that sense they are very comparable in terms of development. The fact that one will serve as a replacement for an F-15, and the other for the F-16 does not mean the project teams for either can say they are a special case. Both legacy aircraft are capable of performing in each other's roles if need be to some degree, and in the case of the participant countries of the F-35 project this is a rather large hope given they are locked out of the F-22 production.

What GAO has said over the years, decades in fact, is a constant theme in its reports: the US defence industry and its domestic clients are notorious for project scope creep and cost overruns. And, because of the former, the time taken to bring a new combat system to a combat unit is now running at 20 years in the case of the F-35, an entire generation. The F-18 took six years to go from new program funds allocation to initial production. By the time it is replaced in Australia, the type will have served for 32 years. Will the F-35 serve for 96 years to reflect the thrice longer development? Somehow I don't think so. Will the F-35 replacement take 60 years to develop? I hope not, because in that case someone had better start now

PS. GAO employs engineers as well as accountants AFAIK

This post sums up everything that is wrong with people with little or no knowledge base about a topic thinking they can pass judgement on it. There is almost nothing actually correct in this post but it is presented in a way as if great insight and analysis has driven it. Nothing could be further from reality.

Projects like the F-22 and F-35 are not defined based on what they may replace. They are defined by a set of capability and technology requirements established by the various stakeholders. It doesn't matter that Unit X will transition from F-16 to F-35 in determining the F-35's capability.

No international partner entered the F-35 project as a hedging strategy over F-22 access. The whole concept of JSF was to have international partners build an affordable, survivable, lethal air combat platform.

GAO have not been saying over the years projects are getting longer as a general theme. If you build a ship in the 1950s that contains 1,000,000 components of course it is much easier to build than one in the 1990s that contains 15,000,000 components. This kind of gross simplification of reality is typically useless pontification of the ill informed and intellectually lazy. It is pointless!

The F-35 development program began in 2002. It will deliver F-35A Block III full warfighting capable squadrons to international partners by 2015. 13 years from first cheque signing to bang-bang is not so bad. Yes there were a range of technology development programs before the start of SDD in 2002 but if you want new stuff you have to build it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

There is a bottom line though, and it is written by accountants not engineers. If it was otherwise, the projects would be ongoing, and going and going like the proverbial Duracel rabbit

The question seems to me to be this, what's wrong with delivering a generation 4.5 aircraft, following by its generation 4.75 version, followed by the generation 4.83 version, ect. until one hits 5? That is how I get my software, and I bet that's how F-35 software is tracked also.

Nothing. I'm sure Boeing would love to sell you one.

Unfortunately every F-35 buyer wants a clean sheet design.

That is not how engines are delivered though, so its taken 12 years to do what? You can't tell me they have been testing engines for 12 years. Is that how they got them to be so loud? The F135 started from an F119, not from scratch, in 2001. So 8 years to develop the engine from their F119 turbofan which powers the F-22 Raptor?

Nope. Wrong again.

F-135 IS a new design, that uses certain components from the F-119.

F-136 is a completely new design.

Most of the airframe technology as I (the uninformed) understand is early 1990s technology.

This means what? When it was designed? When it was tested?

We still haven't seen a production representative airframe. We have only seen SDD features. The airframe will continue to evolve, just like the F-16 and F/A-18 models differ through the years.

Many control systems are fairly standard by the virtue of needing to comply with milspec standards going back to the 60s.

F-35 has a HUGE number of systems, even for flight control tasks, that have NEVER been used on a fighter before.

Electro-mechanical actuators, instead of hydraulic actuators, is one of the big ones...

And its not like they are writing code from scratch, or that the code going into the F-22 applications is radically different from the F-35.

For god sakes. If you are going to make such ridiculous claims, at least bother to do the google search, I've had to explain to others, in this very thread.

The code being written for F-35 is not even in the same LANGUAGE as earlier jets.

Terabytes probably came from the existing F-16/F-15 packages and the sharing is mandatory since the aircraft are going to be part of the same air force, never mind NATO in the case of F-35. Ok, so they have something like Microsoft Vista (in terms of complexity) running in the cockpit. That came out after five years in development.

Wrong. See above.

Would any pilot have complained if they were told they would be flying F-34.5 in 2002?
Of course I won't be flying them, so I don't care if I wait another decade or more hwell

So you say they are months ahead after doubling the development time from the legacy F-16...

For some reason, Governments don't WANT to hand over money to risky development projects. They WANT the bulk of their money to be spent on a SAFE, developed project...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Back in the real world here is some real flight test data of the F-35's APG-81 radar in action. This isn't even running on the actual processors that will be used in combat squadron F-35s. The performance is amazing, with the final processors it will be even quicker, by a factor of 10!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFXJuHYvFAg"]YouTube - F-35 Radar Fight Test[/ame]

 

[FutureTank]

Ah right, I remember. I'm an idiot and therefore have no right to speak, and although I might be a smart-ass, you can be just openly abusive thanks to administrator role.

So lets see, because I don't work in the Defence environment, I know nothing.

That must be why Defence only employs project team members designated to work for them from birth, and not marred by the commercial sector 'civilian' work?

F-35 is a designation of an aircraft. It is also a program. Like any other program. Its a bit more complex of course, but only because the capability spectrum keeps moving. That's called scope creep. Every program and project manager knows it. There is nothing different from your experience to that of anyone else.

All the information I get though is of course from open sources rather than Defence briefings, so of course I can's speak with same authority.

However, the dates are public knowledge since they come from official records of when the program started. The F-35 development program did not begin in 2002. Its not like there was an empty office and they started putting desks in in 2002. Just to verify I looked in of all places Wikipedia since I was told to Google. And it says, "The actual JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996." With my bad memory I thought it was 1997, but you will forgive me since its been over a decade.

At the onset (day 1) the F-35 development program probably already had like 1,000+ people on its network from other projects that flowed into it because little (brass) birds told Lockheed Martin (and others) well ahead of time what's on their minds. Then there are the always ongoing experimental development teams that become subordinated to the sub-project and program offices on the 17 November 1996.

You make F-35 sound like something from the Encounters of the third kind :alian2
If it flies, and it has a jet engine, and a cockpit with a pilot, and a gun and some missiles, well, its a combat aircraft. If F-16 pilots can fly it, its something that is not too far from their cognitive capabilities....and constraints.

Sorry if I don't drop to my knees Mr.Gubler, but "Projects like the F-22 and F-35 are not defined based on what they may replace. They are defined by a set of capability and technology requirements established by the various stakeholders." is just wrong! What, the generals in Pentagon called up Lockheed and said "build us something we can't relate to"? The average "stakeholder" is probably an officer that is not only just barely qualified on the F-16 or F-15 because of the rank, and has been flying since the Star Wars days (the George Lucas one, not Ronald Reagan). Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis is the Program Executive Officer for the F-35 Lightning II Program Office, Arlington, Va. He was certainly not new to it (see his bio.) because as we find in JANE'S

Origins of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme vested in separate USAF/USN Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) projects of early 1990s; designation X-32 then assigned to planned CALF demonstrator (see US Navy entry in 1997-98 and previous editions of Jane's for more details of JAST and CALF programmes).

Projects merged in November 1994, as JAST, after Congressional directive in mid-1994; programme renamed JSF in latter half of 1995. Previously, formal request for proposals (RFP) for preliminary research contracts released on 2 September 1994, stipulating industry response by 4 November and issue of contract awards by 16 December.

("In 1994, the JAST program was criticized by some observers for being a technology-development program rather than a focused effort to develop and procure new aircraft.")http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30563.pdf
This was due to an even earlier Congressional report which later became the QDR Review.

Lt. General George Muellner, USAF, was the program’s first director in 1994, BUT, he was from September 1989 - December 1990, assistant deputy chief of staff for requirements, Headquarters Tactical Air Command, Langley Air Force Base, Va., and except for a brief departure for the Gulf he stayed there until September 1993 (deputy chief of staff for requirements) at which time he became for four months (September - December) 1993, mission area director, tactical, command, control and communications (C3), and weapons programs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, (Acquisition), Washington, D.C. That had to be one of the shortest high level assignments ever, or a required step-up. The nadir of the F-35 was therefore even earlier that 1994. It was a Cold War requirement by a range of senior USAF/USN/USMC officers that were in all likelihood all Vietnam vets like Muellner And where is he now (ret.1998)?

George Muellner is president of Advanced Systems for the Integrated Defense Systems business unit of the Boeing Company, responsible for developing advanced cross-cutting concepts and technologies, and executing new programs prior to their reaching the System Design and Development phase.

And why is former general Muellner at Boeing? You won't find it in Wikipedia, but "The F-22 is built by Lockheed Martin in partnership with Boeing and Pratt & Whitney".http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/2777/Boeing-F-22-Maintenance-Schoolhouse-Opens-at-US-Air-Force-Base.html So much so that Norman Polmar in The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (United States Naval Institute, 2004) calls it the "now the Lockheed/Boeing F/A-22 Raptor" (p.402)

They just want something better than what the Russians can build, that's all. No need to wrap it all into a mystery for the initiated only.

Lockheed alone had US$19.9 million from that date to work with aside from the further US$28 million allocated for associated avionics, propulsion systems, structures and materials, and modelling and simulation shared by the four developers. Its all history I'm sure you all know, but why make me out to be a fool? http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa010103_1_n.shtml What you meant is that the SDD started in FY02, but that was not from scratch either of course. The entire program was revised to an 18 year durationhttp://navy-matters.beedall.com/imagesbig/jsf-dev.gif, or 21 years from perspective of lesser partners (LRIP 6/7).

Ok, so I'm an ignoramus, but "If you build a ship in the 1950s that contains 1,000,000 components of course it is much easier to build than one in the 1990s that contains 15,000,000 components."?! The average 1990s integrated circuit is using surface mounted components all put together by an automated production line, or semi-automated at worst. In the 1950s a subsystem that performed the same function was put together by hand! I would be very surprised if it was more complicated to build a ship with 15,000,000 components. In fact I'll even make it 150,000,000 and still come out in front In most other ways warships have not changed greatly. The guns are automatic now, but there are fewer of them. They have helicopters landing on them, which is new, but not drastic. Other than that its just generational enhancements made possible by advances in technologies. Same applies to all military hardware.

AD, please accept my appologies if I have it wrong, but the manufacturer says that "Propulsion system support and maintainability are further enhanced by the F135's maintenance-focused design. It has approximately 40 percent fewer parts [than F119], which also improves reliability." To me this means that they share 60% of the technology. I call that a running start, no? And they had to make that F135 lighter to allow for the performance constraints, not because they could. The dreaded "weight problem" I suspect was realised way before the Tiger Team got to it. The original plan as I understood was to use same engine for both aircraft. Even the USN says that its a Pratt and Whitney F135 (F119-PW-100 derivative with scaled-up fan and additional low-pressure turbine stage) reheated turbofan. Doesn't sound like a major redesign to me.

And so what if the applications are in a different computer languages? It is routine in the commercial sector to port (recompile) applications from language to language based on the architecture requirements. There is probably an operation at Lockheed (not a project) that routinely does this for all sorts of reasons within their libraries. They do after all work on all sorts of systems for all US and foreign armed services that use all sorts of computer languages. And then they have to write help files in Baluchi, or Thai In any case, the software is being integrated at Eglin's Joint Mission Environment Test Capability (JMETC) facility. Supporting the Test & Training Enabling Architecture (TENA) there are over 27 industry participants
AMTEC
Anteon Corporation
BAE Systems
BMH Associates
Boeing
Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC)
Cubic Defense
DRS Technologies
Electronic Warfare Associates (EWA)
Embedded Planet
EMC
Jacobs Engineering
Johns Hopkins University
Lockheed Martin
MAK Technologies
NetAcquire
Northrop Grumman
Raytheon
Samoff Corporation
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
Scientific Research Corporation (SRC)
Scientific Solutions, Inc. (SSI)
SRI, International
Trideum Corporation
Weibel
Wyle Laboratories
Virtual Technologies Corporation

I think they will work something out between themselves.

Yes, most of the airframe technology as I (the uninformed) understand is early 1990s designed and tested technology. It has been significantly improved and supplemented for sure, but it is not revolutionary. At least not that I would know from open sources, so maybe that was a spurious suggestion to make on my behalf.

I think that is the crux of the matter that "For some reason, Governments don't WANT to hand over money to risky development projects. They WANT the bulk of their money to be spent on a SAFE, developed project...", but they also don't want to keep spending the money. Almost every major defence program in the US in the past, 50 years?, had gone into over-time over budget mode. And, any time some 'civilian' like me pipes up, I am told that I should leave it to professionals Need I remind the august company here about "War is too important a matter to be left to the military." In any case the intent with the F-22/F-35 (JSF) program was

...a family of aircraft, which uses a mix of components, systems, and technologies with commonality projected at 70 to 90 percent in terms of production cost. Many of the high-cost components are common, including engines, avionics, and major structural components of the airframe. Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated that the JSF’s joint approach “avoids the three parallel development programs for serviceunique aircraft that would have otherwise been necessary, saving at least $15 billion.”

and

Performance features in regard to radar signature, speed, range, and payload will be determined on the basis of trade-offs between performance and cost, with the latter being a critical factor. Program officials have emphasized that such cost and performance tradeoffs are critical elements of the program and were the basis for the joint-service operational requirements that determined the selection of the Lockheed Martin contractor team for the SDD phase of full-scale development. The 1997 QDR report observed that “Uncertainties in prospective JSF production cost warrant careful Departmental oversight of the cost-benefit tradeoffs in design to ensure that modernization and force structure remain in balance over the long term.” In other words, production costs must be low enough that these aircraft can be bought in sufficient quantities to maintain desired force levels. Thus, the parameters of the JSF’s performance and operational capabilities are subject to change for reasons of cost, technological developments, and future threat assessments.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30563.pdf

There is that accounting bottom line again.

Was it Petraeus who recently has called for increasing the State Department’s budget. That's unheard of in US history.

gf0012-aust, I didn't think I was 'combative' by the way. I'll be happy to be shown the wrongs of my statements, but I understand there is only so much that can sometimes be said in an open forum.

Am I twisting things again?

Cheers

 

[OPSSG]

1. FutureTank, initially, I was going to try to be neutral in my post but after working on it for the last 15 minutes, I found that it was too difficult - so I chose to be direct and hopefully clear.

2. I'm going to give you some negative feedback and I hope you can take it. My intention is not to abuse your point of view, rather, it is to share with you another point of view.

(i) Our Need to Be Right: Like all intelligent people, you rarely think you are wrong. But you must know that, no matter how intelligent, we are all wrong at some time in our life.

(ii) Our Harshness in Tone: I also disagreed with a Mod in this thread but we have no problems getting along. I'm milder. Please note that you equally are harsh in your tone as your responders. If you play rough, expect some push back.

(iii) Our inherent Bias: We all have different backgrounds. Your background will predispose you to a certain comfort in a particular type of routine. Our thinking reasoning skills are likewise developed the same way. Therefore we have a bias. Can you see your own bias?​

3. Now that we have got the concepts I need squared away, I can deal with certain aspects of your post.

Ah right, I remember. I'm an idiot and therefore have no right to speak, and although I might be a smart-ass, you can be just openly abusive thanks to administrator role.

So lets see, because I don't work in the Defence environment, I know nothing.

That must be why Defence only employs project team members designated to work for them from birth, and not marred by the commercial sector 'civilian' work?

4. You know that you are not dumb and your long post is an attempt to show why you are not. From my point of view, it is not necessary, I know you are smart. However, if you are a civilian, you would tend to certain mindset. It is not wrong, it's just different. Since you are well read, you do know that military men do not think like civilians; and I'm fortunate in that I am currently civilian but formerly military. As it were I have bi-focal lenses to help me understand different perspectives.

F-35 is a designation of an aircraft. It is also a program. Like any other program. Its a bit more complex of course, but only because the capability spectrum keeps moving. That's called scope creep. Every program and project manager knows it. There is nothing different from your experience to that of anyone else.

5. Really, the JSF program is to design 3 fighters. If you are technically inaccurate, there would be some impatience and I can see that in the responses. And what is the point of the lecture to other well read individuals?

6. Keep that in mind and that there are some slight but important differences between civilian project management and military development. In fact, when the military project scope is insufficiently adventurous, often times, there is a need to go back to the drawing board and do it again. So think about how this affects the development process and risk.

7. Can you name specific failures of this sort? I have seen that happen in my own country in even our little military projects. I also been privileged have participated in military trials to test new concepts.

All the information I get though is of course from open sources rather than Defence briefings, so of course I can's speak with same authority.

8. Yes, I agree. Adopt a more humble tone please.

However, the dates are public knowledge since they come from official records of when the program started. The F-35 development program did not begin in 2002. Its not like there was an empty office and they started putting desks in in 2002. Just to verify I looked in of all places Wikipedia since I was told to Google. And it says, "The actual JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996." With my bad memory I thought it was 1997, but you will forgive me since its been over a decade.

At the onset (day 1) the F-35 development program probably already had like 1,000+ people on its network from other projects that flowed into it because little (brass) birds told Lockheed Martin (and others) well ahead of time what's on their minds. Then there are the always ongoing experimental development teams that become subordinated to the sub-project and program offices on the 17 November 1996.

9. Yes? How about trying to get you facts right when you are being critical? It's distracting to read, when facts are wrong. Just note that you can be equally critical when you feel others are wrong too.

If it flies, and it has a jet engine, and a cockpit with a pilot, and a gun and some missiles, well, its a combat aircraft. If F-16 pilots can fly it, its something that is not too far from their cognitive capabilities....and constraints.

10. Please, the wright brothers invented the aeroplane. If they carried a gun on the flight, would you call it a fighter? Sorry about making a joke out of your point but can you see? Please also see point 2 (i) on your approach.

They just want something better than what the Russians can build, that's all. No need to wrap it all into a mystery for the initiated only.

11. If that was the case, there is no need to develop new jets and a new concepts at all (since the F-15SG armed with an AIM-120C7 is good enough to kill an Su-30). That's not how we think about developing military capabilities. Since you are well read and hold opposing views, the recourse by fellow forum participants is to use sarcasm.

Ok, so I'm an ignoramus, but "If you build a ship in the 1950s that contains 1,000,000 components of course it is much easier to build than one in the 1990s that contains 15,000,000 components."?! The average 1990s integrated circuit is using surface mounted components all put together by an automated production line, or semi-automated at worst. In the 1950s a subsystem that performed the same function was put together by hand! I would be very surprised if it was more complicated to build a ship with 15,000,000 components. In fact I'll even make it 150,000,000 and still come out in front In most other ways warships have not changed greatly. The guns are automatic now, but there are fewer of them. They have helicopters landing on them, which is new, but not drastic. Other than that its just generational enhancements made possible by advances in technologies. Same applies to all military hardware.

12. And you can stretch and port civilian and past analogies to everything (especially for new operational concepts)? What's the point of this lecture? Learn to live with the fact that you also can be wrong...

AD, please accept my appologies if I have it wrong, but the manufacturer says that "Propulsion system support and maintainability are further enhanced by the F135's maintenance-focused design. It has approximately 40 percent fewer parts [than F119], which also improves reliability." To me this means that they share 60% of the technology. I call that a running start, no? And they had to make that F135 lighter to allow for the performance constraints, not because they could. The dreaded "weight problem" I suspect was realised way before the Tiger Team got to it. The original plan as I understood was to use same engine for both aircraft. Even the USN says that its a Pratt and Whitney F135 (F119-PW-100 derivative with scaled-up fan and additional low-pressure turbine stage) reheated turbofan. Doesn't sound like a major redesign to me.

13. Who cares what you think, since you admitted that like me, you don't have current access to classified military data (sorry about being harsh). Please also see point 2 (ii) on your tone.

And so what if the applications are in a different computer languages? It is routine in the commercial sector to port (recompile) applications from language to language based on the architecture requirements. There is probably an operation at Lockheed (not a project) that routinely does this for all sorts of reasons within their libraries. They do after all work on all sorts of systems for all US and foreign armed services that use all sorts of computer languages. And then they have to write help files in Baluchi, or Thai In any case, the software is being integrated at Eglin's Joint Mission Environment Test Capability (JMETC) facility.

14. Would you want to port a computing language and not test it before putting it in a fighter plane? If in doubt see point 2 (i), you may be wrong. Check your facts, please don't try to confuse me with irrelevant points.

Yes, most of the airframe technology as I (the uninformed) understand is early 1990s designed and tested technology. It has been significantly improved and supplemented for sure, but it is not revolutionary. At least not that I would know from open sources, so maybe that was a spurious suggestion to make on my behalf.

15. Unless you tell me that you are an aerospace engineer, I could not care less what you think about airframe technology. Opinions are just that opinions. Why should yours be more important? Please see point 2 (iii) on bias too.

There is that accounting bottom line again.

Was it Petraeus who recently has called for increasing the State Department’s budget. That's unheard of in US history.

gf0012-aust, I didn't think I was 'combative' by the way. I'll be happy to be shown the wrongs of my statements, but I understand there is only so much that can sometimes be said in an open forum.

Am I twisting things again?

16. Need I say more, or would you say that I have been too harsh?

17. Just take a step back please and know that:

(i) You are valued and you are smart but you don't have to try and prove it all the time. I like reading some of your posts as it gives me pause to think about things too.

(ii) There is also a chance that you/we might be wrong too.​

 

[Grim901]

AD, please accept my appologies if I have it wrong, but the manufacturer says that "Propulsion system support and maintainability are further enhanced by the F135's maintenance-focused design. It has approximately 40 percent fewer parts [than F119], which also improves reliability." To me this means that they share 60% of the technology. I call that a running start, no? And they had to make that F135 lighter to allow for the performance constraints, not because they could. The dreaded "weight problem" I suspect was realised way before the Tiger Team got to it. The original plan as I understood was to use same engine for both aircraft. Even the USN says that its a Pratt and Whitney F135 (F119-PW-100 derivative with scaled-up fan and additional low-pressure turbine stage) reheated turbofan. Doesn't sound like a major redesign to me.

I'm not going to wade right into this argument, I simply don't have the technical understanding to hold my own. I will however point out one glaring issue that even someone with no idea what an F35 even is could point out. I also think that most of your ideas have been pretty well analysed by others.

The part of your statement that I have put in bold would to me, have suggested that you have misread or misunderstood the part you put in "quotations" (first bold bit).

The statement says that the F135 has 40% fewer parts than the the F119. Ok, that's fine, but why does that then mean that 60% of the technology is transferable. The parts that are still in the engine could be completely different between the F119 and F135, it makes no mention of interchangeability.

It's like saying that HMS Ark Royal has 40% fewer parts than USS Nimitz (military forum, I had to find an analogy to fit the bill) but it doesn't mean that the other 60% of the parts in Nimitz could be used in Ark Royal , although i'm sure some could, it's not what the statement is saying.

Feel free to correct me but it seems more like a misunderstanding on your part than any debatable technical point.

On a slightly related note here's a general question for anyone, is the main engine directly linked to the V/STOL capabilities of the F-35B like the Harriers thrust vectoring or is the Lift fan independent and the sole provider of lift?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So lets see, because I don't work in the Defence environment, I know nothing.

Not at all. What proves you know nothing is despite writing a mini essay you are yet to sustain a single fact that supports your thesis. I'm afraid your conspiracy theory level analysis of the history of the F-35 and a few of the people involved in it does not mean that the aircraft is designed as a type for type replacement or that Defence acquisition programs are spiraling out of control thanks to malicious corporate intent.

The reality is the F-35 is designed to meet a specification that covers the hole gamut of air combat missions. It is also conceived to be developed to a timetable that despite the various demonstrator and technology development programs started in 2002. It is yet to have a single significant delay on this timetable and as in 2002 is still tracking to deliver full spectrum combat worthy squadrons to international partners (like Australia) by 2015.

If you can't accept that, find someone who cares - I doubt there will be many here who do.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Here is more video about the F-35's sensor capability. In particular the fusion of multiple sensors and how it will work in the air:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnqeqEtbvo8"]YouTube - F-35 Data Fused Sensors[/ame]

 

[energo]

The dutch released a new study on F-35 noise levels today:

"According to the National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR), there is almost no perceptible difference between the JSF and the Saab Gripen NG. This is evident from a report published Monday by the NLR on the assessment of noise data from the two candidates for the succession of the current F-16. The difference in maximum noise level of the JSF and the F-16 is small (5 dB).

With full power, the maximum expected noise 109 dB for the Saab Gripen NG and 110 dB for the JSF. With afterburner the values are respectively 114 dB and 115 dB. For the current Dutch F-16, the results are from 104 to 107 dB in full power and 111 to 114 dB with afterburner."

Orginal link: http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1398197/JSF+en+Saab+Gripen+NG+maken+bijna+evenveel+herrie.html

Translated link:

http://translate.google.com/transla...+maken+bijna+evenveel+herrie.html&sl=nl&tl=en


B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yeah a new noise study using improved techniquqes actually found that the F-35 noise level is in between different models of the F-16 (depending on the mark of P&W engine). Further the Dutch study showed that only 17% of takeoffs will need to be flown with afterburner, compared to 100% with F-16, so noise will be significantly lower. I wonder if the F-35 Hate Lobby will be removing all their comments about the too loud to base aircraft?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I remeber reading somewhere that the F-35 will be twice as loud as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon.