Home » Air » PAS11: The F-35 software situation

PAS11: The F-35 software situation

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, June 21st, 2011 11:50 am
Posted in Air

PARIS — Lockheed Martin vice president Tom Burbage, the company’s honcho for the F-35 Lightning II, assured reporters on Tuesday that all the different flavors of test planes fly fine with the current software they have. Lockheed’s ongoing software delays have to do with what the planes will be able to do in the future, not whether they can fly now, he said.

“The concerns are, there is a lot of software still to go – still code to build, still weapons to certify,” Burbage said. But today, “we turn the system on, we go fly, we come back, we turn the system off – it does not become unstable at all. We have not aborted a flight for problems with missions systems. But there is a lot of work left to do. When people express their concerns, it’s not about today, it’s about getting through the rest of the job.”

Company officials say there are about 6 million lines of code running on the computers aboard the F-35 today; the final goal, in order for the plane to be able to fully walk and chew gum at the same time, is about 10 million lines in its third block of software. Deputy F-35 program director Maj. Gen. C.D. Moore said Tuesday that engineers had been testing the block three software at the Air Force’s Northern Edge exercise in Alaska, and that when it ran aboard “surrogate aircraft,” “the results were very, very promising,” Moore said.

“So there’s work to go, but, again, very promising results on this important facet of the program.”

Join the Conversation

	Robert Little June 21st, 2011 at 2:15 pm Has anyone seen any info on head-to-head competition? How does it stack up against F-15/16/18’s? I read that it’s now flown 1.5, which is less than a certain other Lockheed plane, developed in 1954. I’ve read that it’s less stealthy than the 22, but HOW much less?
	Thinking_ExUSAF June 21st, 2011 at 2:49 pm There is more to being an effective fighter aircraft than top speed or absolute signature or any one parameter. A few years back rather ancient A-7s competed against shiny new F-16s for bombing accuracy. Both were smaller fighter aircraft with reasonably good weapons delivery systems, but… the nasty old A-7s were winning the bombing competition and doing so embarassingly well. The issue ended up being nothing more than the fact that those rusty old A-7s from Air National Guard units came equipped with rusty old Majors who had spent many hours making A-7s hit targets. Those F-16s came with shiny new Captains just learning how to really use the capabilities of the aircraft. The USAF ended up creating a special category for the A-7s! LOL! This aircraft comes with a “bag of tricks”, some very different than its predecessors (better or worse by the way). Give it some time in the field, let the guys learn how to use that bag of tricks and it will do just fine against the F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s. The main “trick” is nothing more than learning how to make the other guy fight your fight, not his. Did you by any chance ever see an F-15 try to “rat race” with an A-10 or an A-10 try to outrun an F-15? Hmmmmm. ..
	Engineer Economist June 21st, 2011 at 3:01 pm Why the heck does it matter how F-35 stacks up against F-15/-16/-18s/-22s? Are we at war with an enemy air force of F-15s/-16s/-18s/22s? Do we commit $400B in defense procurement dollars for aircraft designed to fight friendly jets in contrived one-on-one jousts, OR should we make our defense investments with our entire national security strategy in mind?
	AmicusCuriae June 21st, 2011 at 4:04 pm So, EX…can you explain why we developed planes any better than P-51s if performance mismatches can always be overcome?
	AmicusCuriae June 21st, 2011 at 4:27 pm @ Robert Little: The CTOL has about the same point performance clean as an F-16 or F-18 does with external bombs and fuel tanks. The F-15C is a better performer than all except the F-22. The other two deviants, STOVL and CV are a little less impressive. Yes, after 4.5 years of flight test the magic Mach number of 1.5 has been officially achieved. Methinks it is all out of breath at that point, so don’t expect much more. I reckon the radar signature of the CTOL and CV are an order of magnitude more than an F-22 and 3 orders of magnitude less than an F-18E in the frontal sector at air-to-air fire control relevant frequencies. It is working out almost as planned, except for cost and schedule. It’s got that going for it.
	William C. June 21st, 2011 at 5:58 pm I don’t see why it wouldn’t be able to make Mach 1.8. The engine has some 43,000 pounds of thrust and the airframe isn’t as “draggy” as an F/A-18E. “Clean” in the F-35A’s case also refers to 18,000 pounds of fuel and 5,000 pounds of internal munitions.
	@E_L_P June 21st, 2011 at 7:41 pm Lift, Thrust, Drag.….. Weight.
	knightone June 21st, 2011 at 7:56 pm William C, same reason why it cant supercruise even in clean config and 43,000 lbs of thrust. It’s a brick.
	William C. June 21st, 2011 at 8:07 pm Heavy? Yes. A brick? Not really. It’s not that much of a leap from the “confirmed” speed of Mach 1.6+ to Mach 1.8 anyway, but I’ll suppose we’ll have to wait a few years to find out.
	William C. June 21st, 2011 at 8:17 pm The weapon bays are limited to Mach 1.6 however so for all intents and purposes that is the “operational” max speed.
	dallasbu June 21st, 2011 at 8:59 pm Do you have personal knowledge of facts that support your beliefs? You have important points to make.
	SMSgt Mac June 21st, 2011 at 10:04 pm Well since the 43,000 lb thrust figure is the ‘augmented’ static thrust value, by definition it would not be ‘supercruise’ then would it? ‘Dry’ F135 thrust is estimated ~28000 lb static. As a reference point, a P&W F100-PW-229 produces ~17800 lb dry thrust. Now then Junior Engineers, go study up on why the actual thrust numbers are a mere shadow of those figures at max V and altitude. There will be a quiz at the end of the week. The F-35, as in all aircraft, was designed to a set of specs. If it was important for it to fly faster than it does, or to ‘supercruise then it would have been designed to do so. Mocking the JSF’s design speed is akin to pointing out that a 747 can’t hover. Very revealing.
	SMSgt Mac June 21st, 2011 at 10:11 pm PS. to the few here that know WTF I am talking about: I know I oversimplified a tidge on how thrust varies from the static condition in other parts of the flight envelope.Tailoring to the audience.
	pfcem June 21st, 2011 at 11:55 pm The F-35A has about the same flight performance as a clean F-16C Block 50, the F-35C has about the same flight performance as a clean F/A-18C — those are stated program requirements. The difference is when you start to load them up weapons & fuel. The F-35A & C suffer significantly less drop in flight performance vs the F-16 & F/A-18 because they can carry said weapons & fuel internally. As an example, a F-16C with CFTs (which add 900 lbs empty + ~2115lbs/450 gal of fuel) has about the same combat radius/range as a F-16C with two 370 gal drop tanks plus retains much of the F-16C’s 9 g flight envelope where as the F-16C with drop tanks is limited to 7 g & Mach 1.8…
	pfcem June 22nd, 2011 at 12:02 am While it is true that the F-35 will have a operationally limited top speed of Mach 1.6, that is because that is all the services want/need it to be able to do. AND keep in mind that that speed is with a full internal load. Load up most any light/medium 4th/4.5 generation fighter with two ‘2,000 lb’ munitions & enough fuel to go as far as an F-35 & you won’t see them going much over Mach 1.6…
	pfcem June 22nd, 2011 at 12:08 am Of course the F-35 can’t cruise a >Mach 1.5 without the use of afterburner…but it likely can cruise supersonically (~Mach 1.1–1.2 perhaps) without the use of afterburner.
	ImBetterThanU June 22nd, 2011 at 12:36 am Its no longer 43k lbs of thrust…its has been detuned twice to 37,000 lbs of thrust. Also, you have to understand the drag index of the aircraft, especially in the transonic regime. Please update your information and theories…
	knightone June 22nd, 2011 at 2:33 am No.
	William C. June 22nd, 2011 at 3:19 am In a clean configuration it just might be able to cruise in the high transonic (Mach 1.0–1.2) region. I’ve heard a claim of Mach 1.05 without afterburner under certain conditions. It’s not technically supercruise however.
	Engineer Economist June 22nd, 2011 at 9:09 am Now then Junior Strategist, I recommend you delve into Michael Porter’s work on the limitations of operational excellence. Your technical knowledge on F-35 is impressive, however insufficient in providing a convincing argument for F-35 in light of the bigger picture. USAF has gaping holes to fill in aerial refueling and long range strike, for example. F-35’s $150B cost overrun, now, I’m just guessing, here, could probably make a dent there. And that’s in TY dollars, BTW, using DoD’s oversimplified and over-flawed methodologies in inflation and production learning curve. I’ll spell it out for you, the actual outcome will be even worse than what anyone is currently estimating, especially when you take into account DoD cannot even accomplish holding a DAB on time to give us more schedule. So, thank you so much for gracing us with your knowledge of the promised technical merits of F-35 and getting us more committed to the “To Big To Fail” acquisition mentality. You’ve accomplished much to weaken our national defense.
	Guest June 22nd, 2011 at 10:19 am pfcem and JSF advocates — REMEMBER, YOU STILL CAN’T HAVE A COMBAT AIRCRAFT that has a lower top speed of Mach 1.6, no endurance, no agility, low power AESA radars with short to medium range and very pittiful weapons payload. Again how can this aircraft survive, just relying only EWSP system, short to medium range APG-81 AESA, BVR and cruise missiles as stand off, straight level and flying of presents of guns or missiles by forcing the aircraft with very gentle manoeuvres? Ummmmmm. The very clear answer is YOU’LL BE A DEAD DUCK. Some of my predecessors point of view claims the JSF is the most vulnerable and very dangerous aeroplane. It cannot defeat missiles tracking system by “jinking” with tiny wings from the F-35A/B variant, you’ll be flying like an arrow. Even with big wings on the F-35C variant, it still can’t outmanoeuvre. If you have a problem with misunderstanding information claming this is the right aircraft for future defence needs. You can take it up to the Air Power Australia and GAO to explain and ask Why is the JSF wrong plane for the air forces, navy and marine corps needs?
	William C. June 22nd, 2011 at 11:36 am Canning the F-35 would create an even bigger gap in the force structure.
	Engineer Economist June 22nd, 2011 at 11:37 am uhh yeah that’s why wouldn’t just can it we’d acquire an alternative
	William C. June 22nd, 2011 at 11:43 am From an aerodynamic perspective I still think it’s top speed should be able to at least match the Super Hornet. Otherwise the F-35 has plenty of endurance for a fighter of its weight class, F-16 or F/A-18 level agility, and an AESA radar more powerful than the APG-79. The F-35A/B has a wing area of 460 square feet too. Not exactly small.
	William C. June 22nd, 2011 at 11:47 am Also, as far as the engine intakes being a limiting factor, the diverterless supersonic inlet tested on the F-16 was able to reach up to Mach 2.0.
	SMSgt Mac June 22nd, 2011 at 7:37 pm You are either ignorant or lying. I am indifferent as to which is true — Either way you make an assertion unsupported by fact. On the other hand, there is plenty of info out there supporting the 48K lb value: http://www.f135engine.com/proven-tech/engine_chac….
	SMSgt Mac June 22nd, 2011 at 7:39 pm And as to your ‘also’ throway at the end. You obviously didn’t note the “P.S.”
	SMSgt Mac June 22nd, 2011 at 8:49 pm The only way I’m ‘junior’ to anyone on these boards is if they are older than I am (sigh and alas, only a minority qualify). Sheesh — (rookies!) If you wanted your simplistic ‘bottom up’ view of the ‘bigger picture’ crushed, you should have mentioned it earlier: Long Range Strike? : http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/search?q=Long… (click on link to see older posts) Tanker Holes?: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/search/label/… (click on link to see older posts) Fighter recapitalization? : http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/search?q=Hedg… (scroll down) And finally, you commend.…a Business School Guru? LOL. I won’t discount the sentiment outright as I am not completely ‘anti-business school’, but most of what you learn there is of little use in a monopsonistic paradigm (how’s that for biz speak?). Remember what Kelly Johnson told Ben Rich: 2/3rd of HBS is BS. Got any OR sources I haven’t studied? Now THOSE are always welcome, scarce as they are.
	SMSgt Mac June 22nd, 2011 at 8:53 pm remember transsonic drag rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_divergence_Mach…
	William C. June 23rd, 2011 at 12:31 am With the way things work these days how fast do you think we can realistically get an alternative that is a new aircraft as opposed to an overloaded F-16.
	Engineer Economist June 23rd, 2011 at 7:15 pm nice deflection from actually addressing any arguments, SMSgt Teflon. care to address $150B F-35 COST OVERRUNs + SCHEDULE DELAYS?? no wonder we still have to fly aircraft way past their design life, thanks to your kind of salesmanship. operational excellence (your specialty) pales in importance to operational suitability & national strategy. We fight in ad hoc joint task forces. logically we should acquire systems that enable JTFs to accomplish missions. you cannot verify that JTFs can accomplish missions unless you have true operationally realistic tests & exercises. No wonder we can’t accomplish strategic victory after 10+ years of conflict. All the money & time has been expended on the acquisition programs cost overruns.
	Thinking_ExUSAF June 24th, 2011 at 2:54 pm IF the F-15 is the best (at least when the F-22 was designed), why would I design the F-22 to fight and defeat the second best? By the way, unless Im mistaken the big league box score for the Eagle stands at something like 100 bandits splashed in air-to-air combat, WITHOUT A SINGLE LOSS, no matter what tail flash happened to be on the Eagles. Not to say that the opponents have not upped their game, and will not continue to do so. But, if I want to find a benchmark for “proving” the value of a new air to air fighter, short of sending it into combat, it had better be the F-15. In other words, give me a fighter with the capability that, if properly employed, will allow me to beat an Eagle, in an all-out, no holds barred, programatic politics checked at the door, free-for-all, or you can keep your new and improved clay pidgeon… er.… I mean advanced fighter! PULL!
	Thinking_ExUSAF June 24th, 2011 at 3:05 pm The other thing to remember is that when the F-16 and F-18 were originally designed a “standard little bomb” was basically a ballistic 500-pounder and you usually needed several to get one telling hit on most targets. Now with the improved accuracy of JDAM and the concept of “one bomb — one kill”, even a light internal bomb load looks a lot better than 16000 lbs of Mk-84 slicks hanging out in the wind. So if I look at “kills on board”, that F-35 loadout is at least equivalent to a Block 50 with the old Mk-80 bombs. (You can of course use SDBs on F-16s but you still have to live with all that drag from the pylon, rack and bombs.)
	Engineer Economist June 24th, 2011 at 3:10 pm Designing systems for contrived one on one jousting is not good strategy. Organizations accomplish missions, not technology platforms. No wonder government is so dysfunctional.
	Thinking_ExUSAF June 24th, 2011 at 4:03 pm ROTFL! And the “org chart” will win in air to air combat? Hmmm.… I guess that all of the “organizational” expertise that really went into those F-15 kills would be wasted on the F-35? And any technological improvements in the F-35, as a part of that “organization” could not possibly improve the overall organizational capability? But then the DoD acquisition community (i.e. governement IS an organization and therefore accomplishing missions but you say its disfunction.… . :-) Didnt mean to get you all riled up! :-)))) Not much anyway!!
	Engineer Economist June 24th, 2011 at 4:16 pm not the org chart.. the organization. as in an ad hoc organized Joint Task Force working for the Unified Commander working for the SecDef working for the President. Yes there was a lot of “organizational expertise” involved in producing all those F-15 kills, including the maintenance & logistics personnel, AWACS, Intel, Engineers, etc. Technological improvements certainly can make a difference, but when you start sinking your dollars into huge cost overruns, the technology becomes a crutch — because the resources could have been used elsewhere. F-35’s estimated cost overrun is $150B and counting.…they can’t even hold the DAB to give us the latest cost & schedule delays. and yes, Dysfunction in government organizations is an epidemic.
	SMSgt Mac June 24th, 2011 at 5:41 pm Oh. You actually believe the inflated CAPE cost estimates? How quaint. We covered the cost and schedule BS a year ago: http://defensetech.org/2010/03/11/jsf-costs-jump-… I channeled Dilbert (still applies): Pointy-haired Boss: CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOUR PROJECT IS BEHIND SCHEDULE? Dilbert: YES. ..A SCHEDULE IS AN ARTIFICIAL DEVICE CREATED WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE. …WILD GUESSES ARE USED AS SURROGATES FOR KNOWLEDGE. …PROJECT DEADLINES ARE TIED TO TRADE SHOW DATES INSTEAD OF REALITY. …THEN MANAGEMENT CUTS THE BUDGET UNTIL FAILURE IS ASSURED. (pause) I ASSUME YOU CALLED ME HERE SO YOU CAN APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR ROLE IN ALL THIS. <Pointy-haired Boss Frozen like Deer in Headlights> Dilbert: WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR HOW BUDGETS ARE CREATED?
	SMSgt Mac June 24th, 2011 at 5:44 pm read: “supporting the 43K lb value” not 48K
	Engineer Economist June 24th, 2011 at 7:03 pm funding to CAPE estimates is the law. The PM makes their estimate, and then it gets reconciled with the HQ estimate, then it all goes to the CAPE. If the Service does a good job, CAPE concurs with the estimate and everyone’s happy. only screwed up programs (like FCS and F-35) run into troubles. All the PM had to do with the $50B sunk was put together a good program & a good estimate. unfortunately this didn’t happen. Sorry, bud. take your lumps & learn. maybe next go round you won’t be in this position.
	pfcem June 24th, 2011 at 8:13 pm If you have a problem with the F-35’s speed, endurance, agility, radar range & /or weapons payload, take ip with the USAF/USN/USMC which established its performance parameters. APA is NOT an authority on combat aircraft. The GOA agrees that the F-35 IS the right aircraft for future defence needs.
	pfcem June 24th, 2011 at 8:22 pm Absolute BS. The F135 is rated & verified (if any engine does not meet rated numbers it is not accepted) at 28,000 lbs dry & 43,000 lbs wet (afterburing) thrust. In fact production engines have been EXCEEDING this rating
	Guest June 25th, 2011 at 10:41 am William C — According to Pierre Sprey, the F-35A/B wings are tiny just like the point defence intercepters. F-35 doesn’t have plenty of endurance for a fighter of its weight class, F-15 or F-22 level agility. With larger wings on the F-35C model, it still can’t outmanoeuvre. To me the JSF is not air-to-air fighter, is because it doesn’t have enough agility. Its a small bomber Also its huge fuel flow is very inefficient too.
	Guest June 25th, 2011 at 10:47 am pfcem — APA is an authority on combat aircraft. The GAO and APA don’t agree that the F-35 is the right aircraft for future defence needs. From my point of view, the JSF is the most vulnerable and very dangerous aeroplane.
	Engineer Economist June 25th, 2011 at 10:58 am sorry you think that covering the cost & schedule overruns a year ago was sufficient. it wasn’t. the schedule, and, ergo, the cost estimate are TBD. check the F-35 SAR for yourself. The DAB that was supposed to determine these TBD’s was itself delayed. there is no schedule. there is no cost estimate. it’s all up in the air subject to massive uncertain, and, ergo, risk. check out Steve McConnell’s Cone of Uncertainty model, which has foundations from Boehm’s work. For $50+B in development we were supposed to get convergence towards a good program & a good design & REDUCTION in uncertainty & risk. This hasn’t happened, because this is a FUBAR program, because too many people have your kind of FUBAR thinking. congrats.
	SMSgt Mac June 26th, 2011 at 12:37 am Never stated anything anywhere in disagreement with “funding to CAPE estimates is the law”. I merely: 1. assert they are illogical, contrived and artificially inflated. 2. suspect that they are inflated to make it easier for anti-defense, and special interest a**hats in Congress to selectively subvert programs on a whim. 3. assert they can be held up by subversive detractors who then work to make them become a self-fulfilling prophesy if neccessary. 4. believe they are the logical extension of the gaming of defense by Congress ongoing for years and illustrated by SMSgt Mac’s Acquisition 101. See elementsofpower.blogspot.com/…/f-22-critics-not-what-they-used-to-be.html
	SMSgt Mac June 26th, 2011 at 1:14 am Keep throwing out the ‘theoretical business crap’ that may or may not apply. Speaking of schedule and cost as if they were not two sides of the same coin is also getting tiresome, so let’s try to elevate your game. Your assertion of ‘non-convergence’ is opinion posing as a truth. It depends upon presumption that program managment is lying when they assert that convergence is happening. Here’s a question for you. It is probably only a trick one of you choose to answer with the knowledge you have in hand. About 5 minutes of competent search engine work should find you the correct answer. Q: What have been identified as the major sources of weapon system acquisition cost growth?
	pfcem June 26th, 2011 at 1:56 am No APA is NOT an authority on combat aircraft, most everything they have produced makes that clear. Only ingoranus naysayers care what APA thinks. The GAO DOES agree that the F-35 is the right aircraft for future defence needs, that is whay it CONTINUES to recommend continuing the program.
	pfcem June 26th, 2011 at 2:06 am The 2010 cost & schedule overrun PROJECTIONS were complete BS. Even the people that created them recognise that now. The ACTUAL costs & program status have & continue to track closer to 2007/2008 projections. There IS a schedule (which the program is well ahead of) & there IS a cost estimate (which is now the same as it was in 2008). The program HAS shown a convergence towards a good program & a good design & REDUCTION in uncertainty & risk.
	Engineer Economist June 26th, 2011 at 10:34 am see my response to SMSgt Mac above. I’ve pointed out the DAB issue many times to you, and you never respond. It puts the lie to your assertions.
	Guest June 27th, 2011 at 1:02 am pfcem — Again the GAO still does not agree that the F-35 is the right aircraft for future defence needs, that is not the way to recommend continuing the program. Again YOU and JSF advocates don’t really get the warning message and never think enough of safety pre-cautions. Single engine is the most terrible, very dangerous and extremely vulnerable and very nasty for any combat aircraft. They were only good in their day. (Its only ideal for some small European nations to have single engine type, because if their vast country size, but not suitable for overwater operations e.g. Australia) I’m telling you this will make all fighter pilots going to feel very horrified, when it fails, it will be flying like a glider and dropping like a stone. It will happen at anytime on my watch when the JSF enters service soon.
	William C. June 27th, 2011 at 1:09 am I still await what the GAO thinks IS the right aircraft other than the same old designs.
	Guest June 27th, 2011 at 1:17 am pfcem — The APA is on an authority on combat aircraft, everything they have produced makes that clear. The JSF is a paper aircraft with 70’s and 80’s technology that has been in pathetic development for over 16 years. This is a very very serious solution. I reckon all of you JSF advocates, your colleagues and Tom Burbage are absolutely pathetic, crooks etc to sell the terrible JSF aircraft to the most customers, so why should anyone support your claims. Ummmmmm. I reckon ingoranus naysayers like you and JSF advocates care what Lockheed Martin JSF managers, bureaucrats, etc thinks. The APA are more knowledgeable than the Air Force and the Department of Defence.
	Guest June 27th, 2011 at 1:29 am pfcem & JSF advocates — It’ll be so great to absolutely see the JSF program be in a great jeapordy. I reckon YOU and JSF advocates have very serious issues with inability to think straight claiming this aircraft can do everything. For example LOOK at the Russians, do you ever see them NOW with single engine. The very clear answer is no. The red forces will think the Western nations “Are absolutely crazy with a single engine, a 5th Generation JSF with no agility, no range, no acceleration, limited missile payload with weak firepower which is not capable of do the job and cannot compete us”. They’ll think that for sure. You’re selling this aircraft to put ALL air forces at HUGE risk and horrifying the pilots. Plus, when there comes a loss or any failure to this aircraft in the future, you and your team will one day have a very sad day. You’ll be very sorry, for the entire stuff up you’re going to cause for customers to find ways to pay to maintain this rip off project.
	Guest June 27th, 2011 at 1:36 am pfcem — Remember single engine is “now” an old hat and old habit. Again when the RAAF had 116 Mirages, we’ve lost 41 of them and the some pilots got killed in those accidents at the time. Again it will happen at anytime on my watch when the JSF enters service soon. No matter how reliable the Pratt & Whitney F135 or General Electric F136 turbofans engine are, it can still fail, overheat etc. For example, if you’re over the ocean behind the controls of any single engine jet, deploying to another country. What’s going to happen to you when the engine fails while flying over the ocean far away from your home base? Ummmmm. You’ll be flying like a glider, losing airspeed and dropping like a stone. Don’t even think and ever say that the one engine is going to save your day and the pilots day. You’re not only buying the JSF for defends needs, you’re just buying the aircraft for the sake of it, claiming its cheap, maintainable, reducing man hours, you’re going to put ALL pilots lives and missions at HUGE jeapordy. I’ll be much better off going for twin engines. Because its better to be safe than sorry.
	Guest June 27th, 2011 at 1:43 am pfcem and JSF advocates — The JSF will definately show a significantly greater vulnerability because of the single huge “hot spot” attracting the IR missiles. Again not even a super reliable 21st Century turbofan engine that can’t survive birdstrike and attracting the IR missiles. To me twin engine aircraft does not get hit very much as the single engine does get hit the most. As I said earlier that single engine was good in there day. Surviavability is the most important now and to the future and that’s why two engines are developed, the most needed for EVERY combat aircraft right now. The JSF is certainly not a very trusting aircraft, too unreliable and way too vulnerable. The JSF = F-105 Thunderchief II? Look the JSF does have some wonderful systems (with touch screen cockpit features), but its airframe design shape itself is absolutely wrong and very controversial. Which is not the way to recommend continuing the program.
	Guest June 27th, 2011 at 2:43 am pfcem & JSF advocates — YOU and your colleagues from Lockheed Martin are setting out to cheat all the customers that have joined the (JSF) program. It proves YOU and your colleagues got it ALL WRONG. The customers will suffer more with cost overruns etc. As trusted friends YOU and your colleagues are certainly not helping the US Allies to get out of this mess by just creating more and more naysaying arguments claiming that is a true 5th Gen Fighter for the 21st Century with protending affordable cost to buy and maintain. Ask yourself. Why should the customers deserve to be partners with Lockheed Martin to join up the most pathetic failed program? “Ohhhhhhh this program is way too big to fail”. Its already a failed project, wasting trillions of dollars from the tax payers money. Very soon its going down the drain. If I was the Minister of Defence, I’ll definately back out and completely scrap the entire JSF program altogether and look for another alternatives that isn’t in the 5th Gen. class or the F-22 Raptor with affordable price tag.
	Guest June 27th, 2011 at 3:13 am pfcem & JSF advocates — See with Tom Burbage and your colleagues are complete crooks, liars with pathetic reasons, explanations, describing issues about the aircraft, and protending this is a affordable plane etc. This is brainwashing to the clients that are with the (JSF) program. Absolutely NO way I’ll never want to support you and your colleagues claims. Or anyone else that are opponents to the JSF will never support this pathetic failed project and your colleagues at all. The JSF never deserves to be the backbone for the western forces and again it must be CANCELLED. I’m telling you that (2,443) small airframes are still not capable of doing the job for defence needs.
	Guest June 27th, 2011 at 3:16 am pfcem & JSF advocates 1. You can’t have a very piitiful limited missile payload. 2. You can’t have an combat aircraft with single engine and no long range endurance. With huge fuel flow very inefficient and no loiter time. Over 3,000 nm is very much preferred without refuelling and two engines is very much needed. 3. You can’t have an combat aircraft that has no acceleration (at Mach 1.6, its very sluggish). Mach 2+ is certainly the most needed and important aspect to have for improved surviavability (which enhances both engagements of, and escape from, known threats) . Also super-cruise is also preferred too.
	Guest June 27th, 2011 at 3:16 am pfcem & JSF advocates 4. You can’t have low power and short to medium range AESA radars and sensors. (the JSFs APG-81 radar detection range is approx 145 nm, its certainly not a long range radar). The more powerful long range AESA radars (with the detection range around 200nm) and other powerful sensors available is the most important to have. 5. Also you certainly can’t have and just only relying on EWSP jammers, BVR and cruise missiles as stand off and flying straight level of presents of guns or missiles by forcing the aircraft with very gentle manoeuvres. The very clear answer is YOU’LL BE A DEAD DUCK. Extreme agility with 2D or 3D circular thrust vectoring is also the most needed and important aspect to have for improved surviavability. To do the mission right, is that you need a large airframe with high capability category air combat fighters. They are characterised by the best aerodynamic performance possible from the available technology base and they are equipped with the most powerful radars and other sensors available. By just relying on small airframes, is basically not very capable of doing the job. Its useless. The JSF program is a turkey.
	Guest June 27th, 2011 at 3:39 am pfcem & JSF advocates — I’m also telling you that multi-role JSF will not perform well for one single services. Is because its full of design compromises. Its absolutely TERRIBLE.
	VF 143 Pucken Dog 01 June 27th, 2011 at 7:51 pm Another piece of Shit from LMCO.… Leon is going to Cancel this program. No one else has the Balls. STEALTH IS FUCKING DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Google the SA-21.…
	VF 143 Pucken Dog 01 June 27th, 2011 at 7:56 pm JSF cannot take out a Traget like a bridge without external Bombracks. No Stealth There.… LMCO has blown so much shit up everyone’s ass it is pathic. No one has Balls enough to tell the truth. It is a Piece of Shit. BTW: The F/A-18E is far superior to JSF. However, the Navy will be utilizing the F/A-18E for refueling F/A-18F’s because the fucking Navy and good old fucking Mullins decided he wanted to build 1000 afterbuning ships instead of upgrading the S-3 for tanking purposes. So JSF will have to be plumed for tanking as well otherwise the Fighers onboard a CVN will fall into the ocean thanks to Mullins.… JSF is DEAD, STEALTH IS DEAD!!!
	William C. June 27th, 2011 at 8:14 pm You’re a fool. Google the SA-21? It isn’t that special.
	William C. June 27th, 2011 at 8:26 pm You’re telling me two 2000lb JDAMs or laser JDAMs which the F-35 can carry internally can’t take out a bridge? Right.…..
	SMSgt Mac June 27th, 2011 at 9:33 pm I bet you missed a lot of test questions for failure to read the whole question as you obviously missed my “may or may not apply”. Perhaps the implied “to this particular circumstance” (i.e. what we are specifically talking about) should have also been added at the end? I don’t play games, Rookie — ‘School’ on this. A competent answer to “What have been identified as the major sources of weapon system acquisition cost growth?” would have been: “Total (development plus procurement) cost growth is dominated by [government] decisions, which account for more than two-thirds of the growth. Most decision-related cost growth involves quantity changes (22 percent), requirements growth (13 percent), and schedule changes (9 percent). Cost estimation (10 percent) is the only large contributor in the errors category. Growth due to financial and miscellaneous causes is less than 4 percent of the overall growth.“ ref: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG670 You want programs to succeed? Stop preening politicos from micromanaging them.
	Guest June 28th, 2011 at 8:01 am William C. — There’s absolutely nothing wrong with old designs at all. You can still put new 5th Generation technology on existing airframes. Even though it won’t get you very much, but its better to recommend it that way. I strongly dislike the F-35.
	Engineer Economist June 28th, 2011 at 8:25 am Keep ignoring the inability to hold the DAB question. The remaining dates for IOT&E, IOC, MS C, and fielding dates are all TBD. There is no valid current baseline. There is no validity to current unit cost estimates. Your attempt to blame the program’s failures on “government decisions” is noted, however, irrelevant. The contractor worker bees could be performing brilliantly (and there are many good contractor worker bees, possibly even yourself), and it would not matter. The program office, the service, and OSD have to put together a logical program that converges towards success. If they do not, then yeah, you will encounter Congressional action that will give you a convenient micromanagement scapegoat. Your faith in the Rand report and espousement of the quoted percentages as Gospel reveals your ignorance. Tell me the standard deviations of each one of those results, if you care to be professional.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

PAS11: The F-35 software situation

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments