Kendall: F-35 no longer a "problem program"

This will likely ruin the day of many of the program's critics, but it seems DoD is of the opinion that the F-35 program is both viable, desirable and making good progress. That's certainly the impression Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition left in a talk with F-35 stakeholders:

“Unless there’s a major surprise, I think we will be able to increase production,” said Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. In a wide-ranging conference call with reporters, Kendall lauded what he described as a major turnaround for the program over the past year, saying the F-35 Lightning II is no longer one of his “problem programs.”

He also said negotiations for a sixth batch of the fifth-generation fighters are going “more smoothly” than past negotiations, and the government intends to drive a hard bargain with contractors Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney.

Even LTG Christopher Bogdan was positive:

Also on the call was Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, head of the military’s F-35 Joint Program Office who made headlines in February when he accused Lockheed and Pratt of “trying to squeeze every nickel out of that last F-35 and that last engine.” And he was unapologetic on Thursday, saying his past comments “were heard by our industry partners.”

The general praised Lockheed and Pratt for leadership shakeups that he said have led to better communication between the Pentagon and the two companies. In March, Larry Lawson, former head of Lockheed’s aeronautics business, stepped down — a move industry consultant Loren Thompson said might have been the result of “tense relations with the government customer.” 

How important is this program?  Critical.  And it appears the Pentagon has made the decision to go all in on the fighter:

Kendall also suggested the F-35 would emerge as a winner if the Defense Department were forced to absorb large spending cuts in the coming years as a result of sequestration, saying the “department will probably have some additional flexibility in how it moves resources around” and that “the F-35 is our highest priority conventional warfare weapon system.” 

Graff

F-35: The effect of sequestration on the program

In a little noted article, Bloomberg points out the effect sequestration is having on the F-35 program (and others):

The Air Force’s $2.5 billion to buy 19 F-35 jets made by Lockheed reflects a sequestration cut of $503 million, according to the report. The Navy’s final $808 million to buy four carrier-model F-35s incorporates a $157 million cut, and its $1 billion for six Marine Corps short-takeoff-and vertical landing fighters reflects a $146 million reduction.

While the report doesn’t spell out the number of weapons cut in each program, defense companies will be able to use the report to determine “what funding is available for that particular program for the fiscal year,” John Roth, the Pentagon’s deputy comptroller for programs and budgets, said in an interview.

One of the major concerns among critics of the program have been the costs of the aircraft.  As we've pointed out here, as long as we see the aircraft bought in small batches, like the LRIPs, economies of scale aren't likely to be realized.   And, if you cut the small batches even smaller, one certainly won't see lower prices.  It is simple economics as USMC BGen (Ret.) Cheney explains:

Buying fewer F-35s is a tempting solution to the affordability issue. But reducing the buy creates problems too. Buying fewer aircraft means each one costs more. And the more each plane costs, the more risky it becomes to use them.

The B-2 bomber, developed and produced in the 1980s, is the textbook case of poor management. Attempting to cut costs, planners reduced the buy from 132 to 21, driving up the unit price to $2 billion per copy. The result was a bomber that the military was reluctant to use. “If it does badly, and it crashes, you’d have a $2 billion smoking hole in the desert, which could be a bit embarrassing,” one Air Force official explained. 

Or said another way, we've seen and done this before (let's include the F-22).  Let's not make the same mistake a 3rd time with a fighter absolutely critical to the future of our national defense.

Graff
 

F-35: Retrofit cost projections drop by almost half a billion dollars

Something the critics were sure would break the bank as the program used concurrency to both develop and field the F-35 seems to be turning out less expensive than expected:

The Pentagon now expects to pay $480 million less than it had figured on only eight months ago for retrofits to the first 90 F-35 fighters, based on revised cost projections of changes predicted to emerge through the end of development in 2017.

The updated cost figures were sent to Congress last month in its second review of so-called concurrency costs for the Lockheed Martin F-35 program. Because the program was crafted in 2001 to conduct production in parallel with testing activities, officials are tracking the concurrency costs, i.e., the price of retrofits that must be made to bring early production jets to an operational standard based on findings in ongoing testing. One example is a fix to the fuselage station 496 bulkhead, which was found to experience unexpected cracking.

As of last year, Pentagon officials estimated the total concurrency cost for the first 90 aircraft, including all on contract in low-rate, initial production (LRIP) lots 1-5, at $1.71 billion. However, since the first report was issued to Congress on these costs last September, the F-35 Joint Program Office, in concert with experts from Lockheed Martin, have reviewed more closely the “actuals,” or costs already known from work on earlier LRIPs, as well as refined how models of retrofits from past fighter programs (the F-22 and F/A-18E/F, for example) are applied to the F-35 moving forward, according to an official from the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO). 

Note that last sentence.  If you read the critics you'd think the F-35 was the only program ever that has required retrofits. In fact, retrofits are quite common in all fighter programs.

Additionally, not all the retrofits identified may be necessary:

The retrofit estimates include non-recurring engineering for the fixes. Though foreign F-35 buyers will not have to pay for these non-recurring costs (those are included in the U.S.-specific development contract), they will have to pick up the tab for the actual retrofits if they decide to install them on their aircraft, according to the JPO official. Additionally, the U.S. services have the discretion of which retrofits to install. The program office is categorizing them by those that are essential to operate the aircraft (such as safety or durability issues) versus those that are “nice to have,” the JPO official says. 

Each service will have the discretion to decide on which of the retrofits are essential and which aren't.

Graff

Video: First F-35 live missile launch

And, here's the video:

Graff

F-35: First in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 C5 AAVI

Another successful milestone for the F-35 project:

An F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 C5 AAVI (AMRAAM Air Vehicle Instrumented).
The flight was conducted by U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. George "Boxer" Schwartz. The aircraft, known as AF-1, launched the missile over the Point Mugu Sea Test Range from the internal weapons bay.
This is the first launch where the F-35 and AIM-120 demonstrated a successful launch-to-eject communications sequence and fired the rocket motor after launch - paving the way for targeted launches later this year in support of Block 2B fleet release capability.

Graff

F-35: Amendment to limit funding for F-35 fails in committee

Politico's Morning Defense is reporting today:

An amendment offered by Rep. Tammy Duckworth that would have limited funding for the F-35 Lightning II failed. Duckworth said she supported the continued development of the F-35 but wanted to "fence the funding" until the Pentagon reports to Congress on the testing of some technical components that have a troubled past.

 In my opinion this is a good thing.  Holding up the whole program while someone in Congress  decides whether or not they are satisfied with the progress being made on some of the components is foolish.  Certainly progress should be both stressed and demanded.   But this isn't the way to go about it.  We need this aircraft in the field as quickly as it is safe and capable.  Holding up it's progress because night vision acuity isn't quite where we want it yet isn't how one does that.

Graff

Does Syria make the case for why we need the F-35?

That's the argument Loren Thompson makes in Forbes.  Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, points out that Syria is likely more typical of those sorts of military situations we'll face in the future than is Afghanistan or Iraq.  Syria's airforce isn't so much of a concern as is it's soon to be top of the (export) line integrated air defense system based on the Russian S-300 air defense system.  This is a system Russian does indeed export to various states like Syria and they are a cause for concern when talking about penetrating them and taking them out.  Why? There are multiple reasons:

It would also be hard to use unmanned aircraft or cruise missiles to take out the system, because it has been designed to track and target them even if they are flying close to the ground. Because the S-300 is highly mobile and only takes five minutes to set up, it would probably have to be taken out by manned aircraft receiving continuous target updates while conducting search-and-destroy missions. But such planes would have to be highly survivable, because the S-300 can track up to 100 targets at the same time from a hundred miles away, simultaneously targeting a dozen.

However, in order to impose air superiority, air dominance or even a no-fly zone, those type systems need to be neutralized.  Thompson goes on to explain that existing airframes within the 4th generation of fighters simply are no longer up to the job - at least not without prohibitive loss.

Which brings me to the subject of fifth-generation fighters. Over the years, U.S. fighters have gradually evolved to assimilate new technologies like smart bombs and digital flight controls that would keep them useful and survivable in a world of diverse threats. The latest, fifth generation is defined by advanced stealth features that make the aircraft very hard to detect; high maneuverability enabled by new propulsion technology and materials; fusion of on-board sensor collections; and high-capacity datalinks facilitating comprehensive situational awareness.

What these features mean when flying into hostile airspace is that friendly pilots can see the enemy, but the enemy can’t see them. The radar returns and other “signatures” such as heat and radio signals emitted by fifth-generation fighters are so faint that they typically can target defenders before their presence has even been detected. When you combine advanced stealth with the accuracy provided by precision-guided munitions and awareness afforded by fused sensors and secure datalinks, you have a prescription for suppressing enemy air defenses within days.

The key, of course, is who is able to detect who first.  The chances of that with 4th generation aircraft, who are anything but stealthy (regardless of how many "stealthy" components have been added) compared to the F-35.  As Thompson points out and many critics seem unable to comprehend, stealth - or low observability - has to be designed in from the beginning.  There's really no such thing is "add on" stealth.  It has to be an integral part of the initial aircraft design.  Otherwise you're fooling yourself if you think any 4th generation fighter has the low observable capabilities of the F-35 or can be "upgraded" to that point.

Then you add all of the other advanced capabilities on top of that and it should become clear as to which fighter has the best chance of successfully executing a SEAD mission in the near future and surviving it.  It certainly won't be found in the 4th generation of jets.

Graff

Critic unhappy with good news for the F-35 program

As is always the case, every program the DoD embarks upon gathers it's usual quota of critics.   With some programs, the critics have a case.  Certainly the F-35 has had it's moments worth criticism.  But it has also been a program that has made critical changes on the fly and has begun to fulfill its promise of a "game changer".

That, of course, is anathema for critics who are always ready to assure us that they know exactly why any program should be scrapped or is a failure.  In the case of one critic, Winslow Wheeler, who has never set foot in a jet fighter and has made his reputation by being a congressional aide who analyzed costs, he would have you believe that a) he knows what everything is really worth and b) nothing is worth what we plan spending on it.

Wheeler has, in the past, called the F-35 a "flying piano".  He runs with a group who have in the past told us we would suffer on the battlefield from the failures of certain weapons programs such as the M-1 Abrams tank and the AH-64 Apache.

But given Wheeler's past attacks on the F-35, where he has been more than happy to tell us why it won't work, I got a chuckle out of his latest and greatest screed when I read this:

The more-rigorous battlefield testing (the very first and partial phases of operational test and evaluation) will not start until 2016; when the results of those tests are available in 2019, we will be able to move beyond assurances and use actual data to assess just how well the F-35 actually performs. 

Of course the lack of data has never stopped Wheeler from pontificating about how bad a program this is and "assuring" us it is a waste of money.  And he's now back on his heels as the program goes from success to success.  High angle of attack testing went off without a hitch.  IOC dates have been set.   And the leadership is finally realizing what the F-35 brings to the game and they're getting behind it, much to Wheeler's chagrin.

He promises to "enlighten" us today on why all this feeling good about the program is misplaced and, of course, we ought to share his doom and gloom assessments - assessments that to this point have been off target - and he'll tell us again that if we'll only listen to him, we'll save ourselves time and money by sticking with cheap 4th generation fighters while our potential adversaries continue to develop their 5th generation fighters.

Graff

F-35: IOC dates set

Reuters is reporting that the Initial Operational Capability (IOC) dates have been set for the F-35 for all services:

Congress was told the following, according to the Pentagon:

 - The Marine Corps F-35B will reach the IOC milestone by December 2015.
 - The Air Force's F-35A will reach the IOC milestone by December 2016.
 - The Navy's F-35C, attached to carrier air wings, will reach the IOC milestone by February 2019.

In case you're wondering, IOC is usually defined as "the point when the services have enough planes on hand to go to war if needed", and they're capable of combat.  As the Reuters article mentions, "
"[a]ctual deployments usually lag initial operational capability (IOC) dates by about a year."

That last quote is in case you hear the usual suspects trying to make the lag into something more than it is (i.e. the history of how these things have always occurred).

This is big news and good news.  It also strongly alludes to software progress in the final blocks - the warfighter blocks.

Graff

Why South Korea will likely choose the F-35

Thinking about the previous post I wrote concerning South Korea's upcoming choice, I remembered something Dr. Robinn Laird had written in "Proceedings" about the F-35. He mentioned it in his most recent article:

These F-35-Aegis offense and defense bubbles can be networked throughout the Pacific to enhance the capacity of individual nations. They represent a prime example of how one country’s assets can contribute to the reach others, together establishing a scalable capability for a honeycombed force.

Overall, the enterprise lays a foundation for a global capability in sea-based missile defenses and for protecting deployed forces as well as projecting force. Power such as this is increasingly central to the freedom of action necessary for the worldwide operation of the U.S. military and our coalition partners.

Here is the full Proceedings article.

With the "Pacific Pivot" underway, the offensive military build up in China, North Korea's nonsense, a prudent country is going to look for every advantage it can get to leverage it's forces and create a synergy among allies that at worst neutralizes any enemy advantage in numbers and at best gives it and its allies an advantage.

As Laird continues to point out, the F-35, along with other advanced and networked systems provide that synergy and can, properly applied, provide an advantage.  That's what I mean when I continue to talk about those who "get it".   Read about his concept of a "wingman" for the F-35.  It is certainly non-traditional, but when you grasp or "get" the capabilities of the F-35, it makes perfect sense.

Why do I continue to think the F-35 has, or should have the advantage in the contest in South Korea?

As mentioned in the previous post, 'interoperability' will be the key.  And the aircraft which offers the most bang for the buck in that area is clearly the F-35.

Graff

F-35: South Korea's choice?

I mentioned this a couple of months ago, but it is worth an update.  This from a South Korean journalist.

Last month, Seoul made a separate request to purchase Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth fighter or Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle.

The Eurofighter Typhoon of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company is another candidate in the competition, through which Seoul seeks to purchase 60 jets to replace its aging F-4 and F-5 jets. The winner is expected to be announced next month.

Observers said the US products would be at an advantage in the contest given Seoul considers interoperability with US forces and alliance-related factors. But EADS has made attractive offers, such as investing $2 billion in Korea's project to develop indigenous fighters.

Note the key phrase.  While the EADS offer is attractive, with North Korea acting as it has for the past few years, and the history of US/South Korean relations, my guess is that attractive as it is, it won't be enough to swing the deal.  Additionally, remember what aircraft the Aussies, Japanese and Singapore have committed too.

If interoperability is a key consideration, along with 3rd generation stealth, etc., the F-35 is the fighter of choice.  We'll see, but that's how I see it.

Graff

F-35: Costs per aircraft drop as program begins to hit stride

Another sign of progress that will really upset critics who've been more than happy to tell everyone who will listen that what just happened is impossible. In short, what happened is the cost per aircraft has dropped overall:

Overall, the average procurement cost per plane dropped from $109.2 million in 2011 to $104.8 million in 2012. The main driver of the reduction is a drop in the labor rates for Lockheed, Pratt and their subcontractors, as well as revised airframe and subcontractor estimates.

 Unit Recurring Flyaway costs — the total cost for the platform, engine, mission and vehicles systems and engineering change orders — remained fairly steady, with the average of the F-35A variant dropping from $78.7 million to $76.8 million, and the Navy’s carrier variant rising from $87 million to $88.7 million.

The largest drop came from the Marine Corps F-35B jump-jet model, which dropped the average almost $3 million, from $106.4 to $103.6 million.

What does this mean, besides a more affordable aircraft?  It means that the projections and promises the manufacturer made weren't just a bunch of hot air.  It means that if DoD continues to procure F-35's at a pace that allows the economies of scale necessary to drive down costs that the aircraft can continue to see price reductions.

And it also means the critics were wrong. 

Again.

Graff

F-35: An evolutionary fighter jet

Great article on the F-35 that begins with this bit of truth:

It is difficult to discuss the F-35 without actually knowing what the aircraft is and how F-35 fleets will reshape combat. But this is precisely what the budding negative commentary on the F-35 is built on – a lack of knowledge.

Having watched this "debate" for a while, I can only say, "amen, brother".  We've all seen commentary that is founded in a distinct lack of knowledge about the aircraft.  Or as I liken it, "4th generation criticism in a 5th generation world".

Dr. Robbin F. Laird is one of the people who "gets it".  I've called the F-35 an "evolutionary" aircraft, and he does as well.  It is all about what it can do above and beyond the limits of 4th generation critique.  And it is what it can do beyond that which makes the 4th generation criticism so uninformed.

Laird points out the following:

I have had the opportunity over the years to interview many F-22 and F-35 pilots, maintainers and builders as well as the subsystem suppliers of the F-35. Much of the capability of the aircraft, including its multiple integrated combat systems are evolutionary steps forward, and low risk systems, such as the active electronically scanned array (AESA) built by Northrop Grumman for the F-35.

What is radically new about the F-35 is the fusion of data in the cockpit and the shaping of a new decision making capability within the aircraft and the fleet. The aircraft permits situational decision-making, not just situational awareness. It is a C5ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) aircraft, which allows the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) alone to replace three aircraft, including an Electronic Warfare Aircraft with the F-35B. This is also why Singapore has referred to the F-35B as a “cost effective” aircraft.

But understanding the real value of the F-35 one must consider its operation as a fleet, not simply as an individual aircraft. The F-22 was built as an aircraft, which flies in 2, and 4 ship formations, but unlike the F-15, the “wingman” is miles away and not anywhere to be found in visual range. As one pilot put it to me: “When we take off together that is the last time we see each other until we land.”

The F-35 also has the capability to operate miles away from one another, but with a major difference. The individual airplanes are interconnected, operate in 360-degree operational space, and the machines pass the data throughout the network. Each individual plane can see around itself for significant distances in 360 degree space, which has already underscored the need for a new generation of weapons, for existing systems such as Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) operate in half or less of the space which each F-35 can see beyond itself.

 It is the interconnected C5ISR delivered by the fleet, coupled with the ability to work with the off-boarding of weapons, which shapes a new way forward. Target acquisition does not have to be limited to weapons carried on board. This means that classic distinctions between tactical fighters doing close air support, air superiority missions or air defense missions become blurred. The fleet as a whole identifies targets for the various mission sets and can guide weapons from any of its elements to a diversity of targets. The reach of the fleet is the key to the operation of the fleet, not the range of individual aircraft.

These are the parts of the equation and their implication that the 4th generation critics never seem to be able to grasp.  The F-35 works differently and will be deployed and used differently than any other fighter aircraft we've ever had.  And it will have an inherent flexibility to "shape combat capabilities the next decade out" per Laird.  It will also help our side shape the future battlefield, especially in the Pacific where we are now focused.

So as the naysayers wail (see comments to Laird's post - the same old uninformed nonsense), the most evolutionary fighter jet in our nation's history continues to take shape.  Thank goodness for those among our military leadership who, like Laird, also "get it."

Graff

USAF to field F-35 one year earlier than planned

In case you missed the news:

Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be in operational use by the U.S. Air Force in mid-2016, a year ahead of schedule, Reuters reports.

The Air Force said the plane will operate with a slightly less capable software package similar to that of the U.S. Marine Corp. The fighter jet later will see a software upgrade to provide full capabilities. 

The Air Force has obviously taken a look at what the USMC is doing and see's advantages in forming it's tactical squadrons early even with a less capable plane.  This will allow faster training and integration of the pilots and planes when they're fully capable.  It will also allow the Air Force to begin squadron operations early, begin to develop and practice some basic tactics with the aircraft and be a step ahead when the final software is ready.  It also means they've seen enough progress in testing to feel confident in the move.

A smart move in my estimation.

Graff

Video: F-35B executes first ever vertical takeoff

Another first for the program:

A Lockheed Martin F-35B Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing (STOVL) Lightning II test aircraft recently completed the first-ever Vertical Takeoff (VTO) on May 10.

VTOs are one of the many capabilities required for the fielding an F-35B aircraft. While not a combat capability, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance. 

Graff

F-35 completes high angle of attack (AoA) testing

Great video of the F-35 during high AoA testing. It passed with flying colors.

From the Lockheed Martin release:

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., May 16, 2013 – The latest in a series of Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35A high angle of attack (AOA) testing was recently completed. The testing accomplished high AOA beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations. This included initially flying in the stealth clean wing configuration. It was followed by testing with external air-to-air pylons and missiles and then with open weapon bay doors. The F-35A began edge-of-the-envelope high AOA testing in the Fall 2012. For all testing, recovery from out of control flight has been 100 percent successful without the use of the spin recovery chute, which is carried to maximize safety.

This is another test which points significantly to design validation.

Graff

A little ground truth in the F-35 debate

A lot of truth in the following short paragraphs from an article about a LM F-35 cockpit demonstration:

The nation’s fighter jets deter the threat of warfare and defend the nation against threats from other aircraft and missile attacks, said Bob Rubino, director of the Navy F-35 program for Lockheed’s Washington operations.

He added that other countries are developing new aircraft similar to the F-35 and F-32. And, quite simply, the nation’s warplanes are old.

Designed in the 1970s, Air Force fighter jets are an average of 24 years old and require a hefty amount of maintenance, he said. “I can probably count on my hand how many people have a car that’s 24 years old,” Rubino said.

More than 90 F-35s have been delivered to date, with 40 more currently being built and another 37 under contract. Thirty were built and delivered last year, a number that Lockheed plans to improve upon by 20 percent in 2013. Lockheed plans to increase its F-35 production rate from the current three aircraft per month to 180 per month by 2018, Rubino said. Once production is in full swing by 2018, the aircraft will cost an estimated $75 million each in today’s dollars. 

Despite all the wailing, moaning and gnashing of teeth by critics, this is reality, and the reason this airplane must be built (especially given what was done to the F-22).  As Rubino says, our current fleet is old, soon to be out-dated and would not do particularly well against true 5th generation fighters like those being developed in Russia and China (with the very large caveat that China's fills the bill).  Additionally, the cost - which will be equivalent to a mission capable F-16 or F/A 18 -  will only be "an estimated $75 million" if a) the number promised is the number purchased by the military and b) LM can ramp up to full production (that's where the economies are to be found).

For our military, it reminds me of the old Valvoline commercial - "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later".  The later, in this case, might be priced in the loss of troops to enemy air for the first time since the Korean war.

Graff

USMC Gen. Amos testifies before Congress on F-35B

USMC  Commandant, Gen. James Amos, gave testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.  Here's what he said about the F-35B:

As we modernize Marine fixed-wing aviation assets for the future, the continued development and fielding of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Joint Strike Fighter remains the centerpiece of our effort. The capability inherent in a STOVL jet allows the Marine Corps to operate in harsh conditions and from remote locations where few airfields are available for conventional aircraft. It is also specifically designed to operate from amphibious ships – a capability that no other tactical fifth-generation aircraft possesses. The ability to employ a fifth-generation aircraft from 11 big-deck amphibious ships doubles the number of “aircraft carriers” from which the United States can employ this game-changing capability. The expanded flexibility of STOVL capabilities operating both at-sea and from austere land bases is essential, especially in the Pacific. Once fully fielded, the F-35B will replace three legacy aircraft – F/A-18, EA-6B, and AV-8B. Training continues for our F-35B pilots. In 2012, we flew more than 500 hours and trained 15 pilots. Just recently, in November 2012, we established our first operational squadron, VMFA-121, at MCAS Yuma. Continued funding and support from Congress for this program is of utmost importance for the Marine Corps as we continue with a plan to “sundown” three different legacy platforms.

When asked about the status of the software he said:

“…the fact of the matter is that the program officer, program manager, General Bogdan, went on record here just a little bit ago saying that he had confidence that (F-35) 2B software would be ready to go in time to meet the IOC (Initial Operating Capability) of the Marine Corps of 2015. The software in 2B will provide a more capable platform than we currently have in the entire United States Marine Corps today. It will provide an airplane that will deliver more weapons, be more capable, be stealthier, have more capabilities, more information assurance, more information dominance, than anything we're flying today in the United States Marine Corps.” 

Obviously, the Marine Corps is "all in" on the F-35B and ready to spool up and deploy it. As Gen. Amos says, it is a fighter that an airplane that "will deliver more weapons, be more capable, be stealthier, have more capabilities, more information assurance, more information dominance, than anything we're flying today in the United States Marine Corps.” A former aviator himself, he's another one who "gets it."

Graff

Brits fall in love with the F-35

The Telegraph has the story:

The smile on the face of the test pilot as he completed a successful vertical landing of Britain’s newest generation of fighter jets said it all. “This is simply a phenomenal flying machine.”

A British journalist made the trek to Patuxent River Naval Base, Maryland to see what British test pilots had to say about the plane that would be replacing the much loved Harrier. What he found was some pilots who flat love the F-35B:

During last week’s test flight I watched as one of Britain’s prototype F-35 fighters approached the landing area at around 150mph, before the aircraft slowly came to a complete halt. It then hung perfectly motionless in the sky for a full minute at around 100 feet before making a gentle landing on the tarmac.

“This aircraft is light years ahead of the Harrier in terms of what it can do,” said Peter Wilson, 47, the British test pilot who conducted the landing. A veteran Harrier pilot who has flown combat missions in Iraq, Bosnia and Sierra Leone, Mr Wilson, who is now one of Britain’s leading test pilots, said the Harrier was a difficult plane to fly, and required immense skill on the part of the pilot to conduct vertical landings. “We have learnt our lessons and the F-35 has all the Harriers faults designed out of it,” said Mr Wilson, from Whalley, Lancs.

Another former Harrier pilot chimed in:

“It is a joy to fly,” said Lt. Commander Ian Tidball, 43, a former Royal Navy Harrier pilot who arrived in the U.S. four weeks ago to begin test flights. “It is very responsive compared to the Harrier, and has a far wider range of capabilities.”

And the much maligned helmet?

“The helmet is like wearing a laptop on your head, while the cockpit has been designed with its own in-built i-Pad before the i-Pad had even been invented,” explained Group Captain Harv Smyth, 41, another veteran RAF Harrier pilot who won the Distinguished Flying Cross during the Iraq War in 2003 and is overseeing the project. “The main problem we face is that the technology is now so advanced that we have to make sure it fits in with our air worthiness requirements.”

So, the Brits have seen it, flown it and they like it. 

Somehow I'm not surprised.

Graff 

F-35: Recent program highlights

Some data released recently by Lockheed Martin about the F-35 program:

SDD flight test activity totals for 2013 as of April 30, are provided below:

o F-35A Flight Science aircraft have flown 86 times o F-35B Flight Science aircraft have completed 53 flights

o F-35C Flight Science aircraft have flown 73 times

o The Mission Systems Test Aircraft have flown 117 times

Since December 2006, F-35s have flown 4,697 times and accrued more than 7,265 cumulative flight hours. This total includes 91 flights from the original test aircraft, AA-1; 2,924 SDD test flights; and 1,682 production-model flights.

From the last three months:

- Australia recommitted to their program of record which includes purchasing 100 aircraft beginning in LRIP 10 and leaving their IOC date unchanged – great news for F-35. (May 2, 2013)

- VMFAT-501 at Eglin AFB executed an F-35 eight ship launch for air-to-air and air-to-ground training, completed hot refueling and launched again completing 16 sorties in three hours. (April 26, 2013)

- 53rd Squadron flies first F-35 sortie at Nellis AFB (April 4, 2013)

- The first operational F-35B night, vertical landing was completed. (April 2, 2013)

- The third F-35B for the U.K. flew for the first time. (April 1, 2013)

- BF-3 conducted the first weapon separation test from an F-35B. (March 26, 2013)

- The first operational F-35B at MCAS Yuma conducted its first vertical landing. (March 21, 2013)

- The first international student aviator at the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base completed inaugural sortie. (March 19, 2013)

- Three F-35A operational test aircraft were delivered to Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. (March 6, 2013) 

Nice.

Graff

Another reason why the F-35 is so critical to our future

One thing I've noticed over the years among critics of the F-35 who demand the program be scrapped is how incredibly short sighted they are.  What they don't seem to understand, or don't care to understand, is the development of this program isn't just about the F-35. 

"It is not too early to begin consideration of the next generation of capability that will someday complement and eventually replace the F-35,” Kendall says in the memo. “In addition, the F-35 has been the only high-performance vehicle in development in the U.S. for approximately a decade … and I am concerned that our ability to design cutting-edge platforms of this type is already atrophying.”

How does one stay ahead of the power curve of advanced, cutting-edge design of future fighters if it isn't working on one now?  How does one apply these developments in an environment similar to that which they'll be working in at this future date?

To put it succinctly, you don't.  While you can run all the simulations you wish, putting such systems in to an advanced aircraft and testing, tweaking and integrating it is how you are going to eventually develop the 6th generation of aircraft, be they piloted or pilotless.   If you can't do that, then, as Kendall says, you're ability to design, etc. "atrophy's".

That's another very good reason the F-35 is so critical to the US:

Spinning technologies off to the F-35 while continuing toward development of an energy-efficient, sixth-generation fighter with high-power capacity and no thermal constraints will be key to sustaining industry’s capabilities over the next decade. Without a “meaningful opportunity for leading-edge design, build and test,” says Kendall in his memo, the U.S. capability to design high-performance aircraft “will not be preserved, and our technological advantage in [air dominance] will not endure.”

Indeed.  It benefits us in the way Kendall describes as well as providing the opportunity to continually upgrade our other 5th generation fighter, the F-22, with better systems and capabilities proven by the F-35.

Graff

F-35: Weapons load graphic

Here's a nice graphic showing the approved munitions, etc. for the F-35, both internal and external loads:

Graff

F-35: A good status update

Fox News actually has a pretty fair update on the F-35 program.  Of course that will cause them to be challenged as "media hacks" for Lockheed Martin" I'm sure.  On the whole, however, it seems pretty fair and objective treatment of the F-35.

Critics won't like it because it is entitled "5th Generation F-35 Fighters Makes Headway".  We all know that certain among the critical class likely went apoplectic when they saw that.  Articles with verbaige like this are just not acceptable to those who prefer you to think of the jet as a "flying piano" - whatever in the world that means:

Last Friday, the U.S. Marine Corps' VMFAT-501 training squadron in Florida’s Eglin AFB launched its first F-35B eight-ship, flew a mission, hot-pit refueled and went back up again.

This mission is the latest in a series of promising steps forward for the F-35. 

You bet that mission is a "promising step forward" for the program (we reported on it here).  And we've documented plenty more of those steps on this blog.

Give the article a read.  If you're a fan of the program, you'll enjoy it.  If you're a critic you might want to avoid it.  I hear gnashing of teeth leads to tooth enamel erosion.

Graff

F-35: About those lifetime costs

Colin Clark at AOL Defense brings a little sanity to the discussion of operational costs, be they lifetime or flying hour.

The latest stab at estimating the F-35's costs will come May 23, when the benchmark Selected Acquisition Report is scheduled for release. Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the head of the F-35 joint program office, told the Dutch Parliament's defense subcommittee that a key component of the F-35's life cycle costs, cost per flying hour, may be $24,000, just 10 percent more than the F-16 costs. This estimate was developed by the Air Force, working with Fox's shop, the Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation office (CAPE).

But a direct comparison of just flying hour costs will not give you an accurate picture of the overall costs of any new airplane. Here's where we just begin to get at the fragile nature of cost estimates. First, comparing the F-35 to the F-16 isn't entirely apples to apples, given that one is stealthy and the other is not. Add to that the fact that Air Force isn't including the A-10 in the estimate even though the F-35A is designed to replace the A-10 as well as the F-16.

Or said another way, unless you know the basis of the cost estimate, it is practically useless when trying to make a comparison.  Clark intimates here that, in fact, the cost estimate may be high ... for the F-35.  If an "apples to apples" comparison was in fact applied and a combat configured F-16 (the natural configuration for an F-35) was used, we might see a slightly higher cost for the F-16, wouldn't we?

SMSgt Mac over at the "Elements of Power" blog gives us a little perspective on lifetime cost with a great graphic on a weapons system we've had for over 50 years:

Point?  If that weapons system was being developed today, what do you suppose would be said about the unit cost?   And, given that, can you imagine the estimated cost for the program 50 years out?

As detractors continue to use whatever they can find that they deem negative to the F-35 program, it's always good to keep a little perspective on what you are hearing.  We all know the incredible and incalculable service the B-52 has rendered this nation's national defense.  Imagine if we were building it now.  It would indeed make the F-35 seem to be a bargain in comparison, wouldn't it?

Graff

UK and Australia commit to F-35 buys

Some news among the partner nations involved in the F-35 program.  There's been a lot of speculation concerning plans for the F-35 in both the UK and Australia, some saying those countries might back out of buying F-35s for their air forces.  Two reports appear to put that speculation to rest:

Australia's government is expected to affirm plans to buy up to 100 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets, according to a defense blueprint to be released on Friday, easing concerns hanging over the future of the controversial stealth fighter.

And why have the Australians decided to commit to the program in such a way?

Australia decided to stick with the F-35, heartened by recent progress on the plane and its high-tech helmet that fuses all the sensor data from the plane, said three sources familiar with the plan.

Jane's is reporting a similar thing concerning the UK today:

The UK is expected to obtain authority to procure its first squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) before the end of 2013, IHS Jane's was told on 18 April.

Speaking at BAE Systems' Warton production facility in Lancashire, Craig Smith, the head of F-35 Sustainment Programme Development UK/EU, said that military officials with industry support are working on the Main Gate 4 approval process for the procurement of an additional 14 F-35Bs to stand up the UK's first squadron in 2016.

So full speed ahead.  

Graff

F-35: Obvious answers to critical questions

One of the more persistant criticisms of the F-35 can be found in these arguments:

But low observability comes at a cost in speed, endurance and weapons load. Some critics say the F-35’s performance will lag existing aircraft, and that its range and payload are too small. 

The answer, for those who think about it, should be pretty obvious as well:

But Lockheed counters the F-35 can carry 18,500 pounds of fuel — far more than the CF-18, for example — and Flynn has said publicly it will outperform fourth-generation jets with a combat payload.

 Plus, Scott adds, it’s versatile: When you need stealth, say, to “kick in the door” and take out enemy air defences, the F-35A can carry 2,400 kg of missiles and bombs internally. When you don’t need stealth, that jumps to 8,000 kg — “as good or better” than “legacy” jets or competitors — by adding six hardpoints under the wings, two of which can take 600-gallon drop tanks. 

One of the apples and oranges performance comparisons we're constantly given is that of a slick 4th gen fighter compared to a combat loaded F-35.  Or a non-combat configured fighter vs. a combat configured fighter.  When the 4th generation fighter is combat configured, suddenly those performance numbers change pretty radically and we see the F-35's performance numbers shine in comparison.  When everything that is necessary to go into combat is hanging on the 4th gen fighter's wings, suddenly it isn't as fast or maneuverable as without those assets.  The F-35, when combat configured, remains "slick" with nothing hanging from it's wings.

Additionally, what is usually left out of the argument is what the external loading vs. internal loading does to the radar signature.  For a 4th generation fighter it simply makes the fighter even more visible.  The F-35, however, maintains the same low visibility because of its internal loading.

The point, of course, is it really doesn't matter how much ordnance a 4th gen aircraft can carry if it can't successfully penetrate denied airspace and complete the mission while the F-35 can.    And, as mentioned, if low observability isn't a requirement, if we have air dominance for instance, then the addition of hardpoints to the wings of the F-35 make it able to carry as much if not more ordnance into combat than can a 4th generation fighter.

Points to ponder and remember the next time you hear these same old arguments trotted out as a critique of the F-35.

Graff

F-35: The superiority of the F-35's low observability capability

Read an interesting article by a Canadian journalist who went to Ft. Worth to see the F-35 being built and filed a story.  Part of the story includes these paragraphs which help make an important point:

Radar works by bouncing radio waves off targets, like aircraft, which are picked up by a receiver. Stealth technology doesn’t make F-35 invisible to radar, but rather redirects, absorbs or weakens the radar signal to make it harder to “see.”

That’s a “quantum leap” in air combat, says Flynn. “It’s not invisibility, it’s very low observability to the point you can almost act with impunity.” That, he says, will let the F-35 go where existing warplanes increasingly can’t: close enough to destroy air or ground targets defended by state-of-the-art anti-aircraft systems.

The F-35 has gained from Lockheed Martin’s stealth experience: They built the first operational stealth fighter, the F-117 Nighthawk, an aerodynamically unlikely, diamond-faceted flying flatiron that gave Saddam Hussein’s gunners fits in Iraq.

They also built the F-22 Raptor, America’s state-of-the-art fifth-generation air-dominance fighter. “That’s what we use as our stepping stone with the F-35,” says Flynn, who has piloted most fourth-generation fighters and test-flown Eurofighter Typhoon. “That’s our confidence.” “You can’t just apply a coating,” or tweak a few features of an older aircraft to make it stealthy, Scott stresses, perhaps referring to Boeing’s proposals for stealthy versions of its competing F-18 Super Hornet and older F-15 Eagle. “It’s . . . fundamental to the design.” 

This is a part of the F-35 story that often gets short shrift.  The low observability it enjoys is a result of 2 previous generations of stealth technology.  And, as the article points out, you can't just make a non-stealthy jet stealthy.  It's more than a coating.  It is fundamental to the design.   Unless the aircraft is designed to maximize low observability, there's not much a coating can do.  So "stealthy versions" of non-stealthy aircraft, unless that includes a major redesign of the airframe to maximize the low observability in the redesign, is just putting lipstick on a pig.  It may be "more stealthy" than it's unstealthy counterpart, but it is nowhere near as stealthy as the F-35.  Hanging stealthy pods on a non-stealthy aircraft doesn't make it comparable to the F-35. 

Another point to be made here is because the F-35 is a 3rd generation low observable aircraft, it's competition from Russia and China will likely suffer by comparison.  Each of those nations is developing it's first generation stealth aircraft, so we're likely to see much more sophisticated and effective low observability with the F-35 than with the Russian or Chinese 5th generation fighters.

Graff

F-35: VMFAT-501 launches 8 F-35s, does 16 sorties in 3 hours

Lt. Col David Berke, commander of VMFAT-501 at Eglin AB in Florida, recently announced:

Today (April 26, 2013), VMFAT-501 executed an 8 ship launch for Air to Air and Air to Ground training, completed hot refueling on all eight jets and launched them on a second mission.

That's big news.  One of the early but unsubstantiated criticisms of the F-35  was it wouldn't be reliable enough to have a high sortie rate.  8 for 8 is pretty reliable in anyone's book.  In fact, the criticisms we're seeing remind one of the same sorts of criticisms (ironically from many of the same critics) we saw concerning the Apache helicopter prior to Desert Storm (or the M1 Abrams MBT for that matter).  We then saw how well it performed, actually firing the opening shots in that battle.

A reminder - hot refueling is done at the completion of a mission with the pilot still in the aircraft (rearming would also take place during that period).  It is a method the Marine Corps uses to increase the sortie rate for it's aircraft.  The F-35s apparently performed well.

Col Arthur Tomassetti, Vice Commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin said of the event:

The ability for VMFAT-501 to launch and recover 8 jets at the same time shows the increasing capability of the training center at Eglin and the continuing maturity of the F-35 program. 

Indeed it does.

Graff

More F-35Bs headed to MCAS Yuma

The first operational F-35 squadron in the world will be receiving more aircraft in the coming months:

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma's F-35 program seems to be moving forward after a brief stall.

A spokesperson with Lockheed Martin, the Texas based manufacturer of the fighter jet, says the company is scheduled to deliver at least one F-35 a month to MCAS Yuma for the rest of the year. Shipping had stalled due to a government issued precautionary suspension.

MCAS Yuma is home to the world's first operational F-35 squadron and currently houses four F-35's. 

Just a small note on a local media outlet that won't likely get much play but indicates that the program continues to go forward.  MCAS Yuma will be receiving, as noted, an F-35B a month for the rest of the year.

Graff

Israel names it's F-35's

Again I want to emphasize that Israel isn't a country to take on a new weapon's system lightly.  It makes a very detailed analysis of what is available and is very careful about it's choices.  For the country, one loss on the battlefield means the end of their nation.  They're unlikely to put their future on a aircraft they have doubts about.

The name chosen is a bit unusual, given their past naming conventions, but I think it pretty much sums up their belief in what the F-35 brings to the IAF:

On Wednesday, the Israeli Air Force christened the plane Adir, which in modern Hebrew denotes awesomeness, radness and all-around cool (the dictionary definition is a bit more sober).

While Israel’s first F-35 squadron is slated to arrive in 2017, the army has started to prepare for it — readying structures and runways, and training technical crews and pilots — and thus needed to give it a Hebrew moniker.

 The name was chosen from among more than 1,700 suggestions handed in by IAF soldiers and people from the defense industry. Naming the jet Adir reflects its capabilities and emphasizes the upgrade it will provide to the air force’s capabilities, the IAF said in a statement. 

You might say that a name doesn't really denote much of anything and go on to point to weapons systems that never lived up to theirs.  But in the context of the first paragraph, I don't think this name for this aircraft, given who is bestowing it, points to a fighter that won't live up to it's name.

Graff

Chairman of the JCS gets behind the F-35

General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, swung his weight behind the F-35 recently in a session with the Senate's Armed Services Committee:

A self-described "ground-pounder" (soldier), Dempsey told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that he was "open-minded" on the fate of the F-35 until he talked to a Marine officer running one of the first operational squadrons of F-35s at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. Dempsey said that conversation about the plane's performance turned him into an advocate. And then he put his finger on what may be the most important reason for buying the F-35: "We haven't been attacked from the air since April 15, 1953, and I'm not going to be the chairman on whose watch... that's reversed." 

A lot of the critics seem to not understand the importance of that point, especially to America's military.   It is more than a point of pride.  It is a point of critical importance.  What it points to is a military that has been able to establish air dominance and maintain it to the point that enemy aircraft have found it impossible to penetrate our air umbrella and attack our troops on the ground.

That is absolutely critical to victory.  And in modern warfare, the side which is able to do this rarely loses.

Gen. Dempsey understands that point from a very personal perspective.  He's also now convinced that the F-35 is the aircraft of the future that will ensure that record stays intact.

Graff

F-35: Will it cost 10% more to operate than an F-16?

The preliminary answer, i.e. the answer using today's figures and for the time being, seems to be "yes".

The single-engine F-35A is expected to cost about 10 percent more to operate than the F-16 it is intended to replace for the U.S. Air Force and other international military services, according to U.S. government officials. USAF

Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer overseeing the F-35 program, told Dutch lawmakers that the cost-per-flying-hour for the F-35A, which The Netherlands intends to buy, is $24,000, according to an Air Force spokeswoman.

So at this moment, we're looking at about $2,400 dollars an hour more.

Will that change?  Well yes, most likely.  And likely for the better.  For instance, we know that we are likely to have a new engine on the horizon for the F-35:

AFRL calculates adaptive technology will improve engine fuel efficiency by 25% over the F135 powering the F-35, increasing aircraft combat radius by 25-30% and persistence by 30-40%.

Obviously, that might save that 10%.  Then there's also this point to be considered:

Company officials had argued the cost of some subsystems, such as the electro-optical target system, or information technology systems used to support the aircraft, should not be included in the F-35 lifecycle estimate because they are not calculated in the price of operating legacy aircraft. 

Of course there are those who would argue that it should be calculated because it is indeed a part of the cost.  True.  But it is also a capability that doesn't exist on the F-16.  So is the addition of that capability worth "10%"?  My guess is it is worth much more.  If it provides an aircraft able to penetrate contested airspace an F-16 can't, then its worth may be incalculable.

Finally,  remember, this establishes a baseline number while the aircraft is still in development and testing.  It gives the manufacturer a target to achieve through efficiencies, etc.  10% isn't a very high percentage at this point when kept in context and compared to the capabilities the aircraft promises.

Be sure to watch how the critics handle the number.

Graff

F-35: Critics pontificate without enough information

I wanted to point you to another great post on "Elements of Power" where SMSgtMac again takes the critics to task, to wit:

I can’t remember when I saw so many media outlets, bloggers, and just general ‘people’ with their panties in a wad over something they didn’t really understand. Honestly, who among those ‘critics’ bemoaning the Sustained G turn requirement changing from 5.3 to 4.6Gs even know everything they need to know as ‘inputs’ before they could even begin to formulate an informed opinion on the topic? There is STILL insufficient information in the public domain to come to any conclusions, but there’s a heck of a lot of presumption and assumption in spite of it. 

The point of course, and this has been a pretty consistent failing on the part of many critics of this program, is they simply don't know what they're talking about when they criticize many times.  And others, it is apparent that they simply don't understand the concept they're trying to criticize.  Yet they still get press.

Some things will never change I suppose.  Meanwhile, take a look at the cited post.  Very technical, very thorough, but in the end you can't help but conclude that at this point, the critics are just criticizing to criticize without understanding what they're criticizing.

If that makes your head feel like it wants to explode, welcome to the club.

Graff

Navy lines up behind the F-35

You've heard the old saying "attitude is everything?"  Well, it may not be "everything" but it is vitally important, many times making the difference between success and failure.  Part of a winning attitude is overcoming obstacles and gaining success.

No one denies the F-35 program has faced it's share of obstacles, but as the USMC Commandant said, every new aircraft suffers teething problems.   The F-35 program has progressed well the last two years and now enters it's most important phase of testing. While it obviously "has to work",  a winning attitude sure doesn't hurt.

We've all read any number of articles that have intimated that the Navy isn't behind the program.  Well, if that was true, I don't think it is true anymore.  That is, if you believe the deputy program director for that service:

Rear Adm. Randolph L. Mahr, deputy program executive officer for the F-35, said “ We’re not going to focus on the past. What’s past is done. In 2001, the United States government made a choice on which aircraft to develop and we’re going to bring it across the finish line,” Mahr said.

The Marine Corps will receive an operational aircraft in summer of 2015, Mahr said. “Put it on your calendars,” he said.

“The United States Marine Corps is holding us to that date. The United States Air Force is right behind them. Our partner nations are right behind them.”That's the sort of attitude that will put the aircraft in the field on time.  And Mahr isn't the only Navy officer saying that sort of thing:

He's not the only officer saying those sorts of things. Recently the CNO said the Navy was "all in" for the F-35. And the commander of Naval Air Systems Command had this to say:

“We are now in the meat of this program,” said Vice Adm. David Dunaway, commander of Naval Air Systems Command, said April 10 at the Navy League’s annual Sea Air Space symposium at National Harbor, Md. “We’ve come a long way to get here. We’re now to the part that is really important. This is where the rubber is going to meet the road and we’re going to succeed or we’re going to fail.” 

And, unspoken but true, failure is not an option.

Graff

F-35: Israel's "pack of leopards"

If you can beat your way through all the negativity the author of this article tries to lay on the F-35, you'll see that Israel is a country that "gets it" when it comes to the JSF and it's capabilities:

The Jerusalem Post reports that the technological revolution is based on creating a "digital network in the skies" that integrates strike jets, electronic warfare aircraft, in-flight refueling tankers and helicopters into a multitude of real-time data sources that include ground forces, the navy and the intelligence services.

It's called network-centric warfare, and the program's run by the air force's Information Communication Technology branch.

This will give combat pilots an unprecedented view of the battlespace and allow their controllers to direct a variety of combat platforms to the most important strategic and tactical targets.

"We can communicate directly with other platforms," a senior air force officer told the Post. "This acts as a force multiplier...

"It's like a pack of leopards on a hunt. They work together in a network, not as individuals."

The source noted that this move toward wiring the air force into a single digital network was a primary reason for selecting the F-35. The Israeli version is known as the F-35I.

"The F-35I was chosen not because it was the fastest, or because it can carry the most munitions, but because of its network capabilities," the senior officer explained. "All of the information is available to it. It knows what threatens it, its situation at any given moment, and the status of fellow aircraft. It's a network entity."

Those capabilities make it more than an evolution in fighter aircraft.  The F-35 is a revolutionary aircraft.

The quote above, as acknowledged by the author of the article, comes from the Jerusalem Post.  The negativity it is wrapped in is all the authors.  How clueless is this person?  This should help you make that determination:

The aircraft, for now the world's only fifth-generation fighter, is intended to ensure Israel's military supremacy in the Middle East, underwritten by the United States, through the first quarter of the century.

Really?  I'm sure that will come as a complete surprise to F-22 pilots as well as the Chinese and Russians.  He or she goes on to compound their problem by quoting well known anti-JSF windbag Winslow Wheeler.

The point for this post, however, is to give you an idea of why the Israeli's are so high on the F-35.  Unlike most of the critics, they "get it" and they don't talk in 4th generation terms about "dogfights" and other capabilities of that era which will be less and less important in the 5th generation.  They understand what the F-35's capabilities mean.   They see the vast potential this will bring to the skies over Israel and how it will give them the ability to get inside the enemy's decision cycle, see them first and shoot them first.

The network, the sensor fusion, the low observability all will combine to give them one of the most capable fighters in the world as well as one of the most deadly air forces in the world.

A pack of hunting leopards.

Graff

F-35: Tailhook assembly re-design ready for testing

As we're reported here, the tailhook problem appears to have been solved and the entire tailhook assembly is being readied for testing.  The latest news:

“Our original design was not performing as expected,” said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin’s executive vice president for the F35 Lightning II program. Martin said the “toe” of the tailhook, the part that grabs the wire, had been re-designed along with the “hold down damper” gear that forces the tailhook down on the deck.

“It’s now in line with what the legacy aircraft uses,” Martin said of the new F-35 tailhook. She said the new assembly will be tested this summer at the Navy’s Lakehurst, N.J., facility and carrier tests were expected later this year.

 [Head of the Naval Air Systems Command,Vice Adm. David]Dunaway said he believed Lockheed Martin had found the right tailhook fix before he back pedaled and said: “I will be a trust but verify person.” Rear Adm. Randollph Mahr, the deputy Program Executive Officer for the F-35, said “I have high confidence that that tailhook will be catching wires at Lakehurst.” 

The new tailhook design has been in testing for a while.  The other part of the system that was causing problems was the "hold down damper".  They were getting a bounce and a skip when the hook hit causing it to miss wires.  With the redesign of the hook complete as well as the redesigned hold down damper, the entire assembly will now go through testing at Lakehurst.

Another teething problem apparently solved, assuming the testing goes well and, continuing with that assumption, air to ship integration isn't that far off at all.

Graff

F-35 emerges as a "winner" in the latest budget announcements

That is, at least, according to Politico's "Morning Defense" which said this yesterday while speaking of Lockheed Martin in general:

The company's flagship F-35 Lightning II was a clear early winner in the administration's spending plan, which requests 29 aircraft and does not resort to the postponements or "probation" the Pentagon has previously tried with the controversial program. 

That's good news for the program because it keeps production moving, will build on the efficiencies it has already amassed and, as it continues, mean less costly aircraft.

Of course, the program isn't 'controversial' to the warfighters who will benefit from it's advanced capabilities.  It is only 'controversial' to the media, which should come as no real surprise.  The reason the Pentagon didn't "resort" to "postponements or 'probation'" was because there is no reason to do so.

Graff

 

F-35: CNO and USMC Commandant express support for F-35 but say procurement system is broken

I don't think this comes as a surprise to anyone:

The top officers in the Navy and Marine Corps defended their most expensive program, Lockheed Martin's troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, while acknowledging the way the Pentagon buys such weapons is not merely broken but "constipated."

General Amos said of the F-35B:

"There's no alternative for the United States Marine Corps to the F-35B," Commandant Gen. James Amos said at the opening session of the Navy League's annual Sea-Air-Space conference. "I want to make that crystal clear to everybody in the audience." All the great aircraft of the past have gone through teething troubles in development, said Amos, a pilot himself. 

His last statement seems to be lost on certain critics who almost seem to be gleeful anytime the program encounters problems.

Adm. Greenert said:

"Speaking for the Navy," added the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, "I need the fifth-generation fighter, and that [F-35] provides it, so we're all in -- but it has to perform. It has problems; it is making progress." 

The article goes on to say Greenert has "damned" the JSF in the past with "faint praise". I'm not sure what passes for solid praise in the author's world, but "we're all in" does so in most other people's. And the caveat "it has to perform" is an obvious one which clearly is true. All indications are the F-35 will do just fine.

The procurement process, however, is another matter.  Here in a nutshell is a description of the problem:

After years of acquisition "reforms" that have empowered the civilian Department of Defense bureaucracy at the expense of the uniformed services, "the service chiefs need to get back in," said Amos. "Congress doesn't give the program manager a dime, they give the service chiefs the money... It's our money, these are our programs."

Agreed Greenert, "I as a service chief would like to have more authority and more accountability in acquisitions." There are far too many different bureaucratic entities with input into the "requirements" for new systems, but none of them is held accountable for the delay and expense produced by the waffling back and forth over an ever-longer wish list. The buck should stop with service chiefs like himself and Amos, Greenert argued -- which may well require Congress to reexamine the landmark 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act "and consider altering it."

Give the responsibility and accountability to the service chiefs and let them handle the programs.  That would eliminate the ability of "different bureaucratic entities" from inserting requirements into the system that the services don't want and aren't demanding.  That would also help cut the time necessary to field new weapons.

Graff

South Korea indicates it is down to two fighters, F-35 included

Yet another Asian ally is showing indications that its choice for its future fighter might be the F-35:

The US Department of Defense formally notified the US Congress of potential sales of the Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle and Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to South Korea on 29 March. The two aircraft are on offer to the Asian nation as part of South Korea's F-X III fighter competition. The Eurofighter Typhoon is a third contender for the 60 aircraft tender.

For the potential F-35 sale, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) says that South Korea could order 60 conventional A-model aircraft and associated support equipment for $10.8 billion. There would also be provisions for spares including nine additional Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofans. The package would also encompass training-including simulators.

If I had to guess, and that's all this is, I could see South Korea opting for both.  The F-15SE would fulfill it's near future needs, give it a 4th generation plus capability and allow it to begin it's phase out of older fighters.  It might also buy some F-35s which would then give them 5th generation capabilities that go far beyond the F-15SE's and would allow much better joint interoperability among their allies.

To be on the safe side the Flight Global argument includes this caveat:

Lockheed Martin says that it is pleased that the formal Congressional notification process is now under way, but notes that the competing bids are still being evaluated by Korea and price discussions are "on-going".

That said:

While he does not rule out the possibility that South Korea will opt for the Typhoon, Raymond Jaworowski, an analyst with Forecast International, says the contest will most like come down to a battle between the F-35 and the Silent Eagle. "The F-15 and the F-35 are the frontrunners," he says. "South Korea has previously bought US fighter aircraft and it seems likely that's the way they'll go for this buy."

In the Silent Eagle's favour is the fact that South Korea already has the older F-15K Slam Eagle in service. "The commonality factor will come into play," Jaworowski says. "On the other hand, the F-35 is more and more becoming the dominant fighter on the market."

Other factors that play in the F-35's favour are the fact that Japan has already ordered the stealthy fifth-generation jet and growing threats in the region. But given the state of the South Korean tender, "I think at this point it's too early to predict between the F-35 and the F-15," Jaworowski says.

As we've seen with Singapore and Japan, the F-35 ended up being the aircraft of choice.  Don't rule out a mix which includes some F-15SE's but look for the F-35 to go to South Korea in the end.

Graff

Video: F-35B - first night vertical landing

If this doesn't get you fired up, you're dead:

Graff

F-35: The metrics have changed? Sorry, but that's not a bad thing

Over the past few weeks, you've seen various critics get the vapors as they attempt to claim that the changes made in the metrics for the F-35 point to a failing aircraft and a failing program.

Not really.  In fact, not really at all.  But you have to know something about how aircraft (or any other program for that matter) are developed to understand that.   Someone who does, SMSgt Mac over at "Elements of Power", shines some welcome light on the subject.  It is a very technical discussion, however, he sets it up with this perspective:

1. Performance metrics are used as PROXIES for what is important in a Weapon System under acquisition or already fielded. The metrics are NOT important in and of themselves. They are only as important as the degree to which they inform developers and operators on the system’s true versus desired capabilities.

and...

2. Weapon system specifications are initially established based upon what is believed to be needed and what is believed to be feasible within the projected budget and schedule before the development is given the ‘go-ahead’. There are only varying degrees of assumed confidence in the ability to achieve what is seen as feasible, and this depends much on perceived technology maturity. Only after the project is underway will the need and/or feasibility, given the actual maturity and budget, begin to be revealed, and it may be only truly knowable towards the end of development. Adjusting the specifications as new information is acquired, while still meeting Warfighter needs is sound engineering and management. It is NOT (as someone in the POGO crowd or ‘low information media’ might claim) “cheating” or a sign of “failure”. 

With that in mind, go read the whole thing.  It does a great job of explaining why what SMSgt Mac calls the low information media, are in a low hover over the information.  They don't know any better and make no attempt to find out.  And, they're gassed up by the usual suspects among the critics who know about as much as the media they feed.

Of course, in terms of perspective or accuracy and this program, the critics and media have never tried very hard to provide it.

Graff

F-35 called "best choice" by Chief of Japanese Defense Forces

Again I want to point out something that flies in the face of what some critics claim would be sufficient for our future - 4th generation plus aircraft.  Why is it that nations whose future may depend on their aircraft choice of the future - such as Israel, Singapore and Japan - have chosen the F-35?  

Japan's highest-ranking uniformed officer said on Wednesday that Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighters were the best choice for the nation's future operational needs as Tokyo wrestles with tensions with China and increasingly belligerent North Korea.

The vote of confidence in the state-of-the-art U.S. warplane comes amid reports that some nations that have placed orders for the F-35s are reconsidering their plans.

Shigeru Iwasaki, chief of the Japanese Self-Defence Forces' Joint Staff, also said advancement of North Korea's arms technology in a series of nuclear and missile tests posed a serious threat to Japan, but its missile defense system should provide the country with sufficient protection.

"When I was the head of the air force, I spearheaded the decision (to procure F-35s). Or, rather, we drew up a plan, which was then approved by defense minister," said Iwasaki, a veteran fighter pilot who used to fly F-15s, Japan's current mainstay combat aeroplane. "There were various candidates. But I still believe the F-35 is the best fighter, when we think about Japan's future national security," he said in an interview with Reuters.

So evaluating the "various candidates", Japan's highest ranking officer and former F-15 pilot finds the F-35 the fighter of choice.

Again,  putting this in the context of my question above, why, if what the critics claim is true, wouldn't these nations opt for the critic's choice?

I pointed out one reason on Monday.  The other reason is they seem to "get it" when it comes to what the advanced capabilities the F-35 will bring to their defense forces and how those capabilities will be a game changer.

The critics?  Not so much.

Graff

F-35: Manufacturing costs dropping, efficiencies increasing

Another part of the GAO report that I wanted to highlight isn't very sexy, in terms of discussions of fighter jets, but it is very important because of the criticism the F-35 program routinely incurs when it comes to discussions of cost.   One of the points made repeatedly by the manufacturer is as the program matures and as the learning curve became less steep, we'll see efficiencies develop that would help bring down those costs.  That's exactly what the GAO found: 

Manufacturing Is Becoming More Efficient: Analyses of labor, parts, and quality data, observations on the manufacturing floor, and discussions with defense and contracting officials provide signs that F-35 manufacturing and supply processes are improving. The aircraft contractor is moving down a steep learning curve, which is a measure that the work force is gaining important experience and that processes are maturing as more aircraft are built. Other indicators of improvement include the following:

* The decrease in labor hours needed to complete aircraft at the prime contractor's plant as the labor force gains experience. For example, the first Air Force production jet was delivered in May 2011 and required about 149,000 labor hours at the prime's plant to build, while an Air Force jet delivered in December 2012 only required about 94,000 labor hours. Overall, the contractor reported a 37 percent reduction in direct labor during 2012.

* The improvement in the contractor's labor efficiency rate, a measure of how long it is taking to complete certain work tasks against engineering standards. Labor efficiency on the first production aircraft was 6 percent and improved to 13 percent for the 31st production aircraft. While still low, Defense Contract Management Agency officials stated that the rate should continue to improve with increased production due to work force learning and factory line enhancements. * The decrease in span times--the number of calendar days to manufacture aircraft in total and in specific work staging areas. The aircraft contractor is altering assembly line processes to streamline factory flow. As a result, for example, span time in the final assembly area declined by about one-third in 2012 compared to 2011.

* The increase in factory throughput as the contractor delivered 30 production aircraft in 2012 compared to 9 in 2011. During our plant visit in 2012, we observed an increased level of activity on the manufacturing floor as compared to 2011. The contractor had more tooling in place, had altered and streamlined processes, and had factory expansion plans underway. * The decrease in traveled work (work done out of sequence or incomplete items moving to the next work station), parts shortages on the line, and product defects. For example, traveled work declined 90 percent and the defect rate declined almost 80 percent in 2012 compared to 2011. Other quality indicators such as scrap rates and non- conformances also improved from prior years and are trending in a positive direction. These have all been major contributors to past cost increases and schedule delays. * The accomplishment of a schedule risk analysis to improve the contractor's master schedule and related schedules. A schedule risk analysis is a comprehensive evaluation that uses statistical techniques to examine the fidelity of schedule estimates and the likelihood of accomplishing work as scheduled. It provides better and timelier insight into program performance to help identify and resolve schedule roadblocks.

 * The improvement in aircraft contractor manufacturing processes, although not fully mature compared to best practice standards. The aircraft contractor is using statistical process control to bring critical manufacturing processes under control so they are repeatable, sustainable, and consistently producing parts within quality tolerances and standards. The best practice standard is to have all critical manufacturing processes in control by the start of production. Just over one-third of manufacturing processes are currently judged to be capable of consistently producing quality parts at the best practice standard. The contractor has a plan in place to achieve the best practice standard by the start of full-rate production in 2019. We have observed this quality practice on only a few DOD programs.

So as the program and production matures, we should continue to see increased efficiencies and decreased costs.  Just as promised.  Caveat: that assumes that the total buy promised is fulfilled.  Otherwise, we'll end up with much more expensive aircraft just like we did with the F-22 and B-2 and we'll be well short of the capability we need for the future.

Graff

F-35: Reality drives Pacific allies to F-35

That reality is posed in a quote at an Australian news site:

China is also flight testing two stealth fighters, the J-20 and the J-31, although they are not expected to enter service until the end of the decade at the earliest, military aviation experts said.

"It's an open question as to how advanced and sophisticated they actually are," said Andrew Davies, a senior strategy analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, referring to the Chinese fighters.

"But having said that, they make life more difficult for existing types, so the F-35 becomes more important." 

It is indeed "an open question" as to how advanced and sophisticated the Chinese 5th generation stealth aircraft are, but the bottom line is they not only exist, but are being developed for production.  Keep in mind this is China's first generation of stealth aircraft while the US is working on it's 3rd generation.

However the old military dictum comes to mind - one should always prepare for the worst case scenario.  In this case, the worst case scenario is China successfully develops sophisticated and advanced stealthy aircraft. 

Obviously, then, as Davies points out, "the F-35 becomes more important" than it was previously because of what our allied nations could conceivably face.

What should be just as obvious, but apparently isn't, is the F-35 is an aircraft designed with advanced capabilities in both the tactical and strategic sense.  It is designed to be extremely capable in a scenario that would include Chinese 5th gen fighters (i.e. "worst case") and to give us a clear advantage if facing 4th generation opposition.

Our Pacific allies and potential allies seem to hae figured this out.  Japan has committed to the F-35 as has Singapore and Australia.  South Korea, especially given what is going on now, will likely do so too.  They see the handwriting on the wall and realized the best option to counter the worst-case threat is the F-35.

Perhaps some day the critics here at home will come to that realization as well.

Graff