F-35: Pentagon approves purchase of lots 6 and 7

As mentioned in a previous post, the DoD was trying to wrap up its negotiations with Lockheed Martin on production lots 6 and 7 before the end of July.  It appears to have been successful in that endeavor:

Lockheed Martin Corp and the Pentagon have reached agreement on orders for the next two batches of F-35 fighter jets, a deal worth over $7 billion, a person briefed on the discussions told Reuters on Monday.

The deal covers 71 of the radar-evading planes, with 36 jets to be purchased in the sixth production lot, and 35 in the seventh. The total includes 60 F-35s for the U.S. military, and 11 for Australia, Italy, Turkey and Britain. 

This approval will keep the production lines full and help drive the unit recurring flyaway cost down.  Add in probable foreign purchases outside the committed allies and it makes it even better.

However, the article mentions the impact of sequestration on testing:

Furloughs of civilian defense workers will likely result in a month-long delay in flight tests of the fighter plane, according to Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office.

He said the program had caught up with its testing schedule after two separate flight grounding actions earlier this year, but he added the furloughs were taking a toll.

Civilian employees affected by the furloughs work on flight test controls at Edwards Air Force Base in California and Patuxent Naval Air Station in Maryland, so their absence is shaving a day per week off the schedule of possible flight tests. "We don't know yet what the final impact will be,"
DellaVedova said. "We think we'll be at least a month behind." 

Not particularly good news.

Graff

F-35: 100th F-35, the first bound for Luke AFB, in final stage of production

In a milestone for the F-35 program, final production has begun on the 100th F-35.  Coincidentally, this particular F-35 is slated to be the first F-35 destined for Luke AFB:

The 100th Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the first aircraft destined for Luke Air Force Base in Glendale, has entered the last stage of final assembly. The conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft, known as AF-41, is scheduled to arrive at the base next year.

During final assembly, the aircraft structure is completed, and electrical and hydraulic systems are added. Additionally, the systems are tested in preparation for fuel systems checks and engine runs. The final steps prior to acceptance by the Air Force include a series of checkout flights leading to the aircraft entering the service’s F-35 fleet. AF-41 is one of 126 F-35s in various stages of production worldwide.

In June, the Air Force announced its decision to increase the number of squadrons at Luke AFB to six with 144 aircraft, which will make it the largest F-35 base worldwide. In addition to training U.S. pilots, Luke will also serve as an F-35A International Training site. Currently, Luke’s economic impact on the state of Arizona is $2.17 billion. With 14 F-35 suppliers in the state of Arizona, the program has an additional economic impact of $98 million.

Graff

F-35: South Korea reopens bidding for F-X project

In the news today:

South Korea said on Thursday it would hold a new round of bidding next month for its 8.3 trillion won ($7.43 billion) purchase of 60 next generation fighter jets, suspended after bids exceeded the budget.

The Defence Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), the country's arms procurement agency, suspended the auction earlier this month after 55 rounds. None of the entries, Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35, Boeing Co's F-15 and EADS's Eurofighter Typhoon, submitted bids meeting the required price.

Recap: none of the three bids met the "required" or budget price.   So we're back to square one and you might think then that competitors that weren't among the final three might see this as a chance to get back into the bidding by lowering price.   

In fact, that's very unlikely.  The three finalists are the aircraft under serious consideration.  I'd suggest those that were dropped earlier were dropped for other reasons than price.  Lowering the price will likely not put them in the final three.

And, in fact, if you read on a little further into the article, you find that while price is important, South Korea may show a little flexibility with their budget:

"We have decided at the defence project committee meeting to resume bidding for the F-X project," DAPA spokesman Baek Youn-hyeong told a briefing.

 Baek hinted at the possibility of increasing the budget, but offered no further details.

"If there is no entry with price within the project budget after the resumption of bidding, we will pursue the project again through reviews or increase in overall budget," he said. 

So there you have it.  I still think the final decision will be for the F-35, and the hint of a possible expansion or increase in the budget tends to make that a credible guess.

Graff

F-35: Negotiations near end for 6th and 7th production batches

Just to keep you up with where DoD is on the production of the F-35, this story appeared in the Chicago Trib:

Lockheed Martin Co is making "good progress" in negotiations with the Pentagon about the next two batches of F-35 fighter jets and hopes to reach agreement soon, Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson said on Tuesday.

[...]

Air Force Lieutentant General Christopher Bogdan told company officials he wanted to reach agreement on the contracts by the end of July, according to industry sources. It may take some time afterward to finalize and sign the agreements.

The total number of jets involved is 71, with 36 planes to be purchased in the sixth production lot, and 35 in the seventh, said Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 office. He said that number includes 60 F-35s for the U.S. military, and 11 for Australia, Italy, Turkey and Britain. 

So, not only more for the US services, but the Aussies, Italians and Turks will get their first F-35s in these two batches (the UK has already received it's first F-35B).  Look for agreements to be in the news soon.

Graff

F-35: Critic ladles out thin gruel

If you haven't read or don't read the Elements of Power blog, you're missing out on some great analysis on many subjects.  But SMSgt Mac, who runs the place, is particularly harsh with F-35 critics.  Why? Because it is the same old song each time, just a different verse.   In today's verse, Mac takes on an Italian editorialist who thinks he's offering a "banquet" of an argument.  Instead, Mac reveals it for the thin gruel it is.

Highlights:

"The development program for the F-35 is not proceeding well. …"

“Not proceeding well”. One may argue the point using the “as compared to what?” other modern (last 50 years) and similarly advanced technical development efforts or even to simply other large, highly complex, government programs-- as the F-35 program fall into both categories. I would therefore challenge Mr. Albano to name one program in either category that did/has not experienced as many or more challenges than the F-35 program. I also challenge him to name any of them that did a better job of dealing with them than the F-35 program has to-date. This is the kind of simplistic thought that makes my Aerospace Engineer blood boil. But on the plus side, it provides me yet another opportunity to quote a favorite: J. R. Pierce.

"Novices in mathematics, science, or engineering are forever demanding infallible, universal, mechanical methods for solving problems."

And:

"… In any case we are talking about a highly advanced aircraft not only for the use of new stealth technology — which basically means opposing radar has difficulty in detection — but also for new production technologies and the integration of a lot of electronics called sensor fusion — to put it simply, allowing better awareness of the situation around the aircraft. "

Mr. Albano obviously has no idea how important Low Observables and F-35-grade Sensor Fusion are to the modern air combat equation judging by how this entire piece is written. The “difficulty in detection” is a “damning with faint praise” fallacy. Low Observability disrupts the entire kill chain at every step, from attempts to detect to terminal weapon end game, and forces an opponent to have to begin the process all over again when the chain is broken. 

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing, if for no other reason than to learn how to analyze critical reviews from those who think they're presenting reality, but are instead just advancing a position.  Mac utterly destroys this particular critics arguments in detail.

Graff

F-35: Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL)

A question that is continually asked by many curious about why we need the F-35 is "what makes it so special"?  The short answer is "its advanced capabilities" such as MADL (among many others).

I wanted to take this opportunity to feature a write-up about the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) made by Northrup Grumman.  We featured the EOTS and jamming system previously.  What MADL does is allow the F-35 to share data securely without compromising its position.  That allows an ability to build unparalleled situational awareness that is a distinct advantage.

So, here's the short version of what MADL is:

MADL is a digital waveform that is designed for secure transmission of voice and data between F-35s, with the potential of linking F-35s to ground stations or other aircraft, Northrop said.

Think of the system as a computer. The communications, navigation and identification (CNI) system on an F-35 can manage 27 different waveforms, including MADL. The data comes through the antenna, is turned into digitized bits, and is crunched by the on-board systems to get the relevant information to the pilots.

Okay, you say, sounds great.  But why is that so special? 

What makes MADL more than just a communications tool is its ability to connect with other planes and automatically share situational awareness data between fighters. The more planes in the network the greater the data shared and the more comprehensive a picture is formed.

Picture a group of jets flying in formation. The pilot farthest to the right will have a different situational awareness picture than the pilot on the left. But once they’re networked together, all the information is automatically shared amongst the pilots.

Prior to takeoff, planes would be designated with partners to form the network. When a plane gets within range, the network is automatically created.

“Like on your computer, your network into the local area, we’re building that network in the sky and it’s keeping up with all the dynamics and spatial changes,” said Bob Gough, director of CNI technology and programs at Northrop, said. “MADL has the smarts to keep up with all of that and keep the network in place so they can share the same data.”

 Gough declined to say how close jets need to be to trigger the network link but did say tests have shown “very fast” acquisition times once within range.

Live flight system tests at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., began late last year and have continued throughout this year. Initially, the tests involved networking a pair of planes, but recently, test pilots began regularly flying four-shipplane networks. Those tests are proceeding smoothly, said Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the Pentagon’s Defense Department’s F-35 JSF Joint Program Office.

“MADL testing is performing as planned,” DellaVedova wrote in an email. “Development of the advanced data link is currently tracking to deliver the phased capability expected by the end of development.”

The system is designed for plane-to-plane communications only, something Gough expects to continue for the near- term. But he did not rule out experimenting with data transfer to other terminals.

So, advanced situational awareness that is currently available for other aircraft with the obvious possibility of being shared with any number of other platforms in the area.  A definite advantage over, one would assume, potential enemies.

Another of the advantages the F-35's advanced capabilities will give our pilots (and military) in the future.

Graff

F-35: Who can foretell what our future wars will be?

Certainly not any of us and certainly not a particular former Congressman:

"The F-35 is a great plane with only one problem - it has no enemy," former U.S. Rep Barney Frank, D-Mass., said last month at the NetRoots conference in San Jose. "We aren't likely to get into a war with China or Russia."

Really?  Says who?  How in the world, watching China and Russia both build up their militaries, can one make such an assured statement?  How can one watch each of those nations build 5th generation fighters and pretend we don't need them too?  Does Mr. Frank think that the sophisticated equipment that the Chinese and Russians create, such as a 5th gen fighter, won't be exported to proxies?  And does Mr. Frank actually believe that if a nation believes it has a perceived advantage and a grievance it won't act on that?

And what about treaties?  It doesn't require either Russia or China to attack the US for the US to end up in a shooting war with either of them.

As Gen. Petraeus said at his retirement, the US must be prepared for a wide spectrum of conflict from high intensity to low intensity.  Mr. Frank would eschew that advice, but my guess is that in 1999, Mr. Frank never even imagined we'd be fighting in Afghanistan today.

His sort of thinking is dangerous.  It's how you get behind the power curve and stay there.  It's also how we could easily lose our ability to impose both air superiority and air dominance - critical to winning whatever type fight we find ourselves involved in in the future.

Lockheed Martin F-35 senior manager Bob DuLaney said after Monday's briefing that threats change, and major powers could supply others with sophisticated equipment to deny U.S. air superiority. " You cannot predict the next combat," the retired Air Force lieutenant general and F-16 and F-4 combat pilot said. 

That is correct.  Mr. Frank, on the other hand, suggests a dangerous course that could ultimately lead to defeat.

Graff

Italy approves purchase of 90 F-35s

In good news for the F-35 program, Italy's Senate voted to approve the purchase of 90 F-35s:

A majority of Italy's Senate approved the plans to buy F-35 jet fighters in a vote Tuesday but said future purchases should be approved by parliament. The controversial purchase passed by a vote of 202 in favour, 55 opposed and 15 abstentions. Having already passed the same vote in the Lower House, the purchase plans are now final. 

What that means, of course, is a) Italy will be a valuable ally in the future with its own fleet of 5th generation jets and the interoperability that comes with them, and b) more immediately, with this order they will help produce those economies of scale that has been talked about and make the F-35 less costly for everyone.

Graff

F-35: The beat goes on

Not much in the news these days concerning the F-35, however it is worth noting that the program continues to progress:

A US Air Force major has become the 100th pilot to fly the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. Maj Robert Miller, assigned to the 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron at Edwards Air Force Base, undertook the 90-minute familiarisation flight after academic and simulator instruction on the F-35 at Eglin Air Force Base’s Integrated Training Centre.

Maj Miller is a 1,300 hour F-16 pilot, including 369 combat hours.

Lockheed Martin says the F-35 joint service partners at Eglin Air Force Base have flown 2,292 F-35 hours and have 28 aircraft assigned, representing the largest fleet of F-35s to date.

So the pilot base, just as with the aircraft base, continues to expand.  That's all good.

Graff

F-35: 100th EOTS delivered for F-35

The fleet continues to build as does its capability:

Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) recently delivered the 100th Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) for the F-35 Lightning II. EOTS provides affordable, high performance multifunction targeting to the F-35's full spectrum of military operations.

EOTS is the first sensor that combines forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track functionality to provide F-35 pilots with situational awareness and air-to-air and air-to-surface targeting from a safe distance. This technology allows aircrews to identify areas of interest, perform reconnaissance and precisely deliver laser and GPS-guided weapons.

"F-35 pilots can use the imagery to determine exactly where to strike while staying out of harm's way," said Ken Fuhr, director of fixed wing programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "Delivering our 100th F-35 EOTS is one step closer to ensuring all F-35 pilots can perform their missions and return home safely."

 Lockheed Martin is currently producing EOTS under the seventh low-rate initial production contract. Planned production quantities for the F-35 exceed 3,000 aircraft with deliveries through 2030. 

It is systems such as EOTS which help make the F-35 more than a revolutionary fighter, it is, in fact, an evolutionary fighter.

Graff

F-35: Raytheon wins next generation jamming system award

Loren Thompson reports in Forbes:

The future of electronic combat came into focus on Monday, and it looks like Raytheon will be leading the way. The Massachusetts-based technology company won a very tough competition to develop the defense department’s next airborne jamming system, defeating two other world-class teams. If Raytheon performs as expected, it will dominate the arcane world of electronic warfare for decades to come, generating many billions of dollars in revenues.

In case you wondered: 

Jammers are tunable, high-power transmitters that deny adversaries use of the electromagnetic spectrum so that friendly forces can operate without having to worry about hostile radars or communications networks. The Next Generation Jammer that Raytheon will develop was conceived to replace a Vietnam-era family of jamming pods carried on the Navy’s new EA-18G Growler. 

Why is that important? Because the Raytheon jammer, will likely also be used on the F-35.  And that will make the Growler - a single mission 4th gen plus aircraft - obsolete, won't it?

Graff

Will government furloughs effect F-35 testing?

According to Reuters, the answer may be "yes":

Flight testing of Lockheed Martin Corp's new F-35 fighter jet will fall short of planned totals for the year due to budget cuts that will keep the Pentagon's civilian workers off their jobs for 11 days, a top U.S. Navy official told Reuters on Monday.

"It's going to fall short because we're going to lose a day a week, roughly," Sean Stackley, assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition, said in an interview.

Of course this isn't good news for the program which needs every day possible to push on with testing to meet the recently set IOC dates.  Testing has been going well, but there's still a lot of it to do.  A 20% cut in time for testing would certainly upset the fighter's testing time table.

According to an update to the Reuters story, DOD is trying to find a way to mitigate the effect of these sequestration furloughs on the program.

Graff

Video: Electro Optical Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS) for F-35

Nice little video that does a good job of explaining the capabilities of the EO DAS and why that gives the F-35 any number of advantages:

Graff

F-35 training continues to expand at Eglin

Not much news out on the F-35 over the long holiday weekend, but I found this interesting:

Flying in formation with the Navy F-35C was the final compliment of the third F-35B for the United Kingdom based here as part of an Initial Operational Test & Evaluation Implementing Arrangement. The U.K. trains with the U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Attack Training Squadron-501 and fly each other's jets interchangeably.

This latest United Kingdom F-35B has upgraded software, defined as Block 2A, making it the first such for the combined Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and United States Marine Corps assets at the VMFAT-501.

 Having the enhanced software for both the Navy fighters here and now the VMFAT-501 means pilot training curriculum steadily grows as capabilities come on board.

"An increased use of the digital aperture system, one of the key sensors of the joint strike fighter, marks one such step forward for F-35 training," said Col. Todd Canterbury, commander of the 33d Fighter Wing and overall spearhead for joint and international training here. The Air Force's 58th Fighter Squadron here also trains with the enhanced software, he said.

The fleet continues to grow toward 59 aircraft scheduled to fly at the F-35 Integrated Training Center, part of Eglin's 33rd Fighter Wing. By the end of this calendar year, the team is planning for 42 of those joint strike fighters to be here, he said.

To date, the three services and the United Kingdom have seen 53 pilots and 857 maintainers qualified to fly and maintain the F-35 as the training progresses. All training is geared toward F-35 initial operating capabilities, according to Canterbury. 

So block 2A software is being added to the curriculum as the new fighters come in.  Obviously, the older fighters will be upgraded soon as well, or so one would think.  Also interesting that the UK, who will have F-35Bs exclusively, is training with the Marine Corps.  Makes sense.

Graff

F-35: Sustained turn performance on par with F-16?

You probably remember that sustained performance standards for the F-35 were one of the latest targets of critics.  SMSgt Mac over at the Elements of Power blog has done a masterful 4 part series on why the critics have it wrong.

His conclusion:

Depending on amount of fuel carried by each aircraft, the F-35A is capable of sustained turn performance on a par with the F-16A. Assuming the F-16A is still the ‘best’ in a sustained turn that there’s ever been at 15K feet and M.8, then that means the F-35A is capable of holding its own against all comers in a sustained turn when flown properly in competent hands. 

Now I'll warn you, the series is very technical.  SMSgt Mac backs his conclusion with facts and figures you're likely not to see anywhere else (especially among critics).  I recommend you review the whole series.  My guess is, in the end, you too will agree with his conclusion.

Graff

UK receives 3rd F-35B and Brit pilot makes first vertical landing

A British pilot has completed the first vertical landing in an F-35B for the RAF:

Squadron Leader Jim Schofield has become the first Royal Air Force pilot to complete a vertical landing of a Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) Lightning II military aircraft. Following the flight, Schofield commented on the F-35B’s handling capabilities:

“The F-35 has truly revolutionized STOVL flying. With legacy types, such as Harrier, the pilot was always working hard to land the aircraft onto a hover pad or ship. Now with F-35B, at the press of a button the aircraft transforms into ‘short take-off or vertical landing’ mode whereupon the aircraft can take off or hover hands-off. This means pilots will require less training and operating the aircraft will be much safer than legacy types. It’s a fantastic aircraft to fly.”

Listen to any old Harrier pilot (who, by the way, loved those old birds) about the ease of landing in this compared to the Harrier and you will hear a fan of the F-35.

Additionally, the Brits took delivery of their third F-35B this week.

Graff

F-35: Pentagon mulls delays to program for short term savings?

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported:

The Pentagon is weighing a delay to its most costly and controversial weapons program, the F-35 stealth fighter plane, as part of a short-term cost-saving move, according to defense officials.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is considering the delay as one option presented by a task force to cut Pentagon spending over the second half of this decade.

But officials stressed no decisions have been made and that senior advisers to Mr. Hagel are recommending against the option, noting that it wouldn't save enough money to justify the move.

Defense analysts said delaying full production of the F-35 would save between $1 billion and $2.5 billion a year between 2015 and 2019, the time frame being examined by the Pentagon.

That set off a flurry of reporting echoing the WSJ take.  Others, however, say that's not the case:

The Pentagon has no plans to delay full-rate production of the F-35 fighter jet under development at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth plant, a top Pentagon official said Friday.

The possibility of a delay was raised Friday when the The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon was weighing a delay as one option put forward by a task force to reduce spending over the second half of the decade in response to sequestration.

While a task force report may raise a recommendation to delay production, “it sounds like 180 degrees from reality,’’ said the Pentagon official, who did not want to be identified because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. 

Everything I've read up to the point of the Wall Street Journal report says pretty much what the "Pentagon official" is saying.  Their report seems "180" out from "reality."   The program has put up great testing and development numbers, IOC dates have been set, squadrons are being formed, pilot training is up and suddenly to save a few billion short term (it will likely cause a higher per aircraft cost to do so), they're willing to risk all of that?

Probably not.  Pentagon planners have an obligation to put every option available before decision makers.  That's likely the case here.   The fact that something is an option, doesn't mean it is a viable or serious option.  And, in the case of the F-35 program, my guess is the option to delay is not either viable or serious.

Graff

F-35: Quote of the day from Italian Defense Minister

Italy, as you know, like much of the world's countries, is going through some rough economic times.  So there is a lot of debate about their budget.  Italy's defense minister, Mario Mauro, said recently, that Italy has no plans on cancelling it's purchase of 90 F-35s.  His reasoning is both logical and compelling and brings us to the quote of the day:

"They are 90 combat jets that will replace 256 obsolete aircraft that will be retired, and our newest fighter is now 30 years old," Mauro said in an interview with state television RAI.

While it is the Italian Defense Minister saying it, the fact is pretty true about most of the airforces of our allies.  It's another reason that the JSF is so important to the US and allied nations, given what is being developed in China and Russia, both in 5th generation aircraft and air defense systems.  Without it, many airforces are reduced to 2nd rate self-defense forces which wouldn't last long against a concerted attack by a more sophisticated enemy.

Graff

Sen. Durbin endorses F-35

Loren Thompson points to a recent Congressional hearing about the F-35 that must have driven the critics of the program to drink:

In one of the most positive congressional hearings the F-35 fighter program has seen since it was awarded to an industry team led by Lockheed Martin in 2001, Senate defense appropriations subcommittee chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL) yesterday endorsed the military need for the plane and signaled satisfaction with the program's progress. Durbin's verdict is significant because he only recently took over the chairmanship of the subcommittee and was viewed as having an open mind on the F-35's future. After hearing from the most senior officials responsible for the program in the hearing, though, Durbin seemed to be persuaded that past problems with the Pentagon's biggest weapons program have either been resolved or soon will be. 

Look, it's not all sunshine and roses for the F-35 from here on out, there's still a long way to go, but it appears that all of what the services want in their future fighter is what the F-35 will deliver. It also appears that the program is under control and doing much, much better. And that seems to have sent some of the critics over the edge, leaving them few alternatives but to turn to neighborhood rabble-rousing as has Winslow Wheeler (as reported in POLITICO's Morning Defense):

Some residents from South Burlington, Vt., are banding together to fight the possibility of the F-35 Lighting II being based in their backyard. Despite support from Vermont Sens. Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders for the plan to replace an F-16 plant with the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighters, the South Burlingtonians complain the aircraft will be too loud.

Tomorrow, the group will simulate how much noise the F-35s could make at the South Burlington airport, according to an event invitation circulated by email today by Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington.

“We don't want to do this, and we apologize upfront to all Vermonters,” the email says. “We don't want to expose anyone to the staggering noise generated by an F-35 warplane. We don't believe in it.

Unfortunately, we are forced into doing this demonstration so that you can hear for yourself with 2,200 pounds of extremely sophisticated audio equipment the actual colossal noise generated by an F-35 and so minimized by all our Vermont political, business and military leaders.”

The group says it wants “elected political leaders to hold a public hearing, to meet with affected citizens and to discuss the threat posed by the F-35 basing in Vermont to children, homeowners, renters, immigrant communities and entire towns,” according to the email. 

Reduced to a NIMBY activist.

Thompson sums up reality however:

Senator Durbin indicated at several points during the hearing that he understands how crucial air dominance is to every other facet of modern warfare. He wants U.S. warfighters to have the best technology available, but he also wants to make sure money isn't wasted acquiring it. So while Durbin has now added his voice to the positive assessments of F-35 being rendered by everyone from the Government Accountability Office to Senator McCain, no one should assume that the challenges F-35 faces are over. Integration of on-board software still must be completed, production costs must be reduced, and sustainment practices must be clarified. The good news coming out of yesterday's hearing, though, is that more and more bright, open-minded people like Senator Durbin think the F-35 effort is on a path to doing those things successfully. 

Graff

Navy gets first F-35C

And they're understandably, very excited about it:

The U.S. Navy’s Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101 received the Navy’s first F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aircraft from Lockheed Martin on Saturday at the squadron’s home at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

The F-35C is a fifth generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment.

Here's the delivery:

 Graff

Why the F-15SE is not a "stealth" alternative to the F-35

Over at the American Innovation blog, "Mangler Muldoon" does a terrific and well sourced job of explaining why the F-15SE that many critics of the F-35 claim can be "stealthed up" to match the F-35, will never achieve that claim.  While certainly a 4th generation plus aircraft, it does not come near matching the low observability of either the F-22 or F-35:

All aspect stealth aircraft, such as the F-35 and F-22, utilize a combination of shaping techniques (planform alignment) and radar absorbent material (RAM) coatings to reduce their radar cross section. Platform alignment is a technique for reducing an aircraft’s radar cross section by orienting all the flight surfaces of the aircraft at the same angles.

Although RAM coatings are important, shaping techniques have a larger impact on reducing an airframe's overall rcs. Unlike the F-22 and F-35, the F-15SE did not benefit from meticulous platform alignment shaping from the onset and relies primarily upon RAM coatings to reduce its radar signature.

He also notes something I've been saying for quite some time - stealth, or low observability, has to be engineered in from the beginning:

Stealth is a trait that is designed into the aircraft from its inception and cannot simply be added in latter on a defense contractor’s whim. Prior to the silent eagle, no 4th generation aircraft had ever qualified for the low observable frontal radar cross section designation. The F-15SE design features 15 degree oriented canted tails which produce lower radar returns when compared to the F-15E’s original vertical tails. All stealth aircraft have internal weapon bays; storage of weapons on conventional outer wing pylons would compromise the airframe’s stealth qualities. Boeing’s engineers ingeniously modified the existing conformal fuel tanks to carry weapons. Depending upon the desired ordinance, the fuel tanks are partially drained to allow for weapons storage. The lack of externally stored weapons also reduces drag increasing the already impressive aerodynamic performance of the strike eagle.

But:

Radar signature:

The combination of RAM, weapon bays, and canted tails grants the F-15SE a reduced frontal radar cross section; the side and rear aspects remain unstealthy and produce significant radar returns given the lack of shaping techniques. The exact size of the F-15SE’s rcs has not been released to the general public. It is plausible to assume the F-15SE qualifies for at least the low observable (0.1-.01m^2) designation which is necessary to qualify F-15SE as a stealth aircraft. Boeing initially claimed the silent eagle was as stealthy as the Lockheed Martin F-35 but Boeing has subsequently recanted its view. To provide some perspective, the F-35 is cited to have a frontal radar cross section of .0015m^2 (Global Security, 2011) and the standard eagle has a frontal rcs of 5.0m^2. My assessment is that the silent eagle has a radar signature larger than that of the original F-117A Nighthawk (.025m^2) but not larger than the upper bound .1m^2 figure for low observable aircraft. Thus, I would estimate a figure between .025m^2 and 0.1m^2. For the sake of simplicity, for the rest of the series the figure .05m^2 for the front aspect will be used but please note this is merely my own estimation and .05m^2 is not an official figure from Boeing. The use of .05m^2 is merely intended to provide perspective relative to other stealth aircraft and some basis for analyzing the potential air defense penetration capabilities of the F-15SE.

The reasoning is as follow:

The F-15SE does not feature S-shaped air inlets, divertless supersonic inlets (DSI), or radar grill/mesh panels (e.g. F-117 and RQ-170) to shield its engine fan blades from possible radar returns.

All previous conventional stealth aircraft put into service such as the F-22A, F-35, B-2, F-117A, and RQ-170 shield the face of the engine from radar returns.

Lack of planform alignment in the design, shaping contributes more towards stealth than RAM.

The F-117A Nighthawk is likely stealthier than the F-15SE as it was designed from the onset to be a stealth airframe but the primitive shaping techniques and RAM resulted in a comparatively larger rcs when compared to more advanced low observable airframes such as the F-22A. Of the rcs signatures of known stealth aircraft, the closest “fit” in terms of approximate rcs size to the F-15SE is likely the F-117A.

IR Signature

In the F-15SE’s IR signature has not been significantly altered from the base strike eagle. Stealth aircraft typically incorporate design features to minimize the aircraft's IR signature. The F-22A utilizes specially shaped engine nozzles to reduce its IR signature while the F-35 utilizes a combination of ceramic material coatings on the engine nozzle and heat sinks to reduce its IR signature. The shape of the engine nozzles on the F-15SE remains unchanged and no heat sinks have been added. It can be argued that an aircraft’s IR signature is less important than its radar cross section as even the most capable infrared search and track (IRST) systems have a relatively short range when compared to high power fighter radars. For example, the PIRATE IRST system equipped in the Eurofighter Typhoon can detect a fighter aircraft at 27 nautical miles compared to the AN/APG-77 actively scanned electronic array radar on the F-22 which can detect fighter sized targets from over 120 + nautical miles away. This is not to say IR signature reduce has no benefits; a reduced IR signature would reduce the effective range of an IRST and the range of enemy IR guided missiles.

Electronic Signature

An often overlooked aspect of stealth is an aircraft's electronic signature. Several types of electronic emissions originating from either the aircraft's communication system or its radar can potentially betray its location to the enemy. Unfortunately the topic of electronic emissions is exceedingly dull (it will put most people to sleep), very complicated, and a lot of information is classified so to simplify things two types of systems will be examined: emission locator systems and radar warning receivers (RWR). Both types of systems are passive detection methods that could potentially locate an aircraft. Emission locator systems can, under the right circumstances, identify the origin of enemy communication signals while RWR can detect the emission source for radars.

In terms of electronic emissions, the F-15SE does not incorporate a specialized minimally detectable communication system. The F-15SE uses the standard link-16 system in addition to the standard AN/ARC-164 HAVE QUICK II radio system. These systems are generally regarded to provide secure jam resistant communication but their emissions are detectable by emitter locator systems such as the KRTP-86 Tamara.

"[Emission locator systems] were developed during the last two decades of the Cold War to bolster Warsaw Pact air defence capabilities in the high density European Theatre, where it was expected that the US would heavily jam all surveillance, acquisition and engagement radars used in the Integrated Air Defence System (IADS). The intent behind these passive sensors was to provide a capability to passively detect, locate and track US and NATO aircraft using their RF emissions, to cue other IADS elements to an engagement." - Kopp, 2008

Go read the rest of his assessment.  Like I said, very well done and some good information that counters a lot of the critic's claims.  Low observability, or stealth, can be improved on 4th generation aircraft, but unless it is designed into the airframe from the beginning, it will always be inferior to those airframes in which the design has been incorporated. 

Graff

F-35: Israel will be first one of the first countries to get F-35

And it looks like it will be at the end of 2016:

Israel remains on track to become one of the first countries to receive the new highly advanced stealth F-35 fighter jets manufactured by Lockheed Martin, a vice president from the American defense company has confirmed.

At the recent Paris Air Show, Steve O’Bryan of Lockheed Martin said the state-of-the-art fighter jets would be delivered to Israel by the end of 2016, Israel Hayom reported.

The date makes more sense now with the US services having set their IOC dates around that time as well.

Graff

F-35: F-18 buy corporate welfare?

That's what "Uncle Jimbo" over at the Blackfive blog thinks may be going on after taking a look at the Defense budget:

The Chairman’s mark of the Defense Authorization Act is out and there are many good things in there. Rep. Buck McKeon is a solid advocate for a strong defense and this is his chance to comment on priorities and goals for defense funding. Most of the relatively short document relates to policy and has some requirements for explanations of debacles like Benghazi. But there are also some funding items that don’t make much sense.

One of these is a requirement to buy F-18 aircraft, which is a bit of a head scratcher. We cancelled the F-22 program before we bought anywhere near as many true air superiority fighters as we should have. We have cut back severely the number of F-35s that we plan to buy, but somehow we can find the money to buy a completely different and significantly less capable bird. That smells distressingly like some corporate welfare for Boeing, who makes the F-18. 

Supporters of the buy will tell you it's necessary to "fill the gap" between now and the deployment of the F-35.   Is that really the reason, or is it a bit like the legacy of continuing to build C-17s and making the Air Force buy them years after the Air Force said it didn't need or want anymore C-17s?

Graff

F-35: More commentary on the F-35's progress

Dr. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute follows up the good words about the F-35 program by Under Secretary of Defense Frank Kendall that I posted yesterday with a summary that makes it clear why the F-35 is so necessary, especially given the reality and probability of what we'll face, as a nation in the future.

That's a good thing as U.S. policymakers contemplate what to do next about Syria, North Korea and Iran, because the days of fighting enemies who lack air forces or air defenses are just about over. Tomorrow's adversaries will be equipped with sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and radars that can track pretty much anything that wasn't designed to be stealthy. The F-35 was conceived to combine integrated stealth features with sensor fusion and off-board datalinks that afford comprehensive situational awareness. What that means in practical terms is that we can see the enemy but he can't see us -- a huge advantage in any warfighting situation. So Secretary Kendall's positive take on F-35 is a sign that U.S. warfighters will own the skies through mid-century.

We're apparently going to intervene at some level in Syria.  And Iran and North Korea aren't going away anytime soon.  Anyone who truly believes that our future includes only countries like Afghanistan and enemies like the Taliban,  needs to retrace their logic and examine their premise.  There is nothing to indicate we'll see only those sorts of enemies and a lot to argue for much more sophisticated enemies and their advanced integrated air defense systems being what our pilots will face.

The F-35 provides the capabilities to face and Afghanistan/Taliban type scenario.  But unlike our aging fleet of 4th generation fighters, it also will give us the capabilities necessary to meet and defeat the more sophisticated brand of enemy of the future.

Graff

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