F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Good2Golf]

I'm not talking about an actual 5th generation aircraft, but rather a less advanced airframe that could be used to test the new sensor technology.  You could then, once the technology is perfected, build a new air frame around it.  Of course it's very possible that such a thing would be impossible.  I really have no idea, and as such I wouldn't enjoy arguing such a point.

Really?  So draw out the E/DT&E and OT&E into longer cycles and then reduce their validity by changing the platform into which the sensors are integrated?  There is already a requirement/capability and policy/technology lag-time issue, why would you deliberately make such latency worse?  ???

 

[jmt18325]

Really?  So draw out the E/DT&E and OT&E into longer cycles and then reduce their validity by changing the platform into which the sensors are integrated?  There is already a requirement/capability and policy/technology lag-time issue, why would you deliberately make such latency worse?  ???

I was simply carrying forward someone else's line of thinking.  That is, that it would be easier to work on one part of the equation at a time.  I have no idea if that's true.

 

[Good2Golf]

I was simply carrying forward someone else's line of thinking.  That is, that it would be easier to work on one part of the equation at a time.  I have no idea if that's true.

"...Working on a fully integrated solution one part at at time..."

It would make just as little sense in practice as it does actually saying those words.


"Lets take all the components and operating system of this Windows 11-based computer, test them, then once we've proven it works, migrate the components onto an Apple platform."

I'll just leave that there for now.


G2G

 

[jmt18325]

That's a poor example, as that can work.  What I was talking about is more akin to testing Windows 11 on a Windows 10 computer, which may or may not work.  It would also, in this scenario, involve replacing strategic parts from the Windows 10 computer.

 

[Kirkhill]

True.  It does work.

It is a never ending process that necessitates daily intervention by the software developers to implement patches that keep all the pieces flying in loose formation - with the occasional catastrophic failure.

It is never possible to declare that Windows 7 is fixed, or ready as the patches necessitate a whole new approach which becomes Windows 8, which flops and Windows 9 is skipped as Windows 10 is rushed out necessitating still further intervention on the part of the software engineers.  And in the meantime the hardware has burnt out every 2 and a half years, has gone through 5 different generations of processors and keyboards have been replaced by touchscreens.

The F 14,15,16,18 all have gone through the same process over the last 40 years and the process continues.  A Block 1 F16 is a very different beast than a Block 60.  Does that mean that the Block 1 wasn't an operationally effective craft and that the USAF should have waited for the Block 60 to be validated before going to full rate production?

The F35 merely institutionalizes the procedure for what industry has come to define as "Continuous Improvement".

Continuous improvement is a method for identifying opportunities for streamlining work and reducing waste. The practice was formalized by the popularity of Lean / Agile / Kaizen in manufacturing and business, and it is now being used by thousands of companies all over the world to identify savings opportunities. Many of these ideologies can be combined for excellent results. For example, Kaizen and Kanban can go hand-in-hand to facilitate continuous improvement.

https://leankit.com/learn/kanban/continuous-improvement/

Advancing in circles - there is a beginning but there is no end.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

My understanding is somewhat different, Chris. And if there are people with a different understanding out there, feel free to comment.

The F-35 uses "sensor fusion", not sensor integration. The illustrations using various software version or using different hardware platforms only go so far, and are not quite right. I would think that using cloning vs. bionics illustrates better.

You can put in various "parts" into a bionic person, a leg here, an elbow, artificial lungs, etc. That is integration. But in cloning, you either clone a whole human or you don't. You can't clone a leg here, an arm there and put them together to make a human clone. That's fusion: the whole human clone in one shot.

Integration is what we do on warships: put various sensors and weapons systems on board, then move all the information to be displayed or accessible for the human operators through the combat system. In fusion, the F-35, my understanding is that, through the actual program, the computer analyses the data from the sensors and informs its decision on what to display to the human operator by mixing up the data as required. Some would call it an AI based expert system.

So for instance, on a ship (integrated) the combat system may get a fuzzy radar contact, and will display it as such, then from the same area, the IFF may get a friendly ID and display that, but the human has to make the call that it's the same object. On a F-35 (fusion), the on-board system will take those two pieces of information and make a call, so to speak, on wether they are the same contact, but it may also, without waiting for human instruction, decide to interrogate another F-35 flying say 500 km away about this area of interest and then take that into consideration. Finally, it would display to the human information that is already analyzed and firm and the one analyzed but still uncertain. This greatly reduces the workload on the pilot and the number of "calls" he/she has to make and let the pilot concentrate on the mission with the best possible information. Similarly, the "weapon system" (the airplane and its weapons) is integrated so the pilot only has to indicate what he/she wants to happen and the computer executes it, again lowering the workload of the pilot tremendously.

Anyway, that is what I understood from open sources on the F-35 "fusion" of systems and sensors. Since everything is in the AI software and it is like a brain/body function, you could not test one sensor here, another sensor there, etc., etc., and somehow create a not-quite 5th gen airplane.

I am open to comments from more knowledgeable people, including being told I am out in left field.

 

[Good2Golf]

OGBD, F-35 does both.  Physically, if involves sensor integration at the data transport level on the aircraft's fibre channel (FC) backbone. This would be (roughly) analogous to Layers 1-3 (-ish  physical to the network layer) of the telecom world's Open Systems Inteconnection (OSI) model.  The various sensors' higher level outputs (track files, imagery, etc...) are then fused at the data-knowledge dissemination levels, to varying degrees, both internal to the F-35's on-board AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System, and off-board through the various links that the F-35 uses to share the processed knowledge and situational awareness.  Think OSI levels 3 to 7 (network to the application layer).

Regards
G2G

 

[NavyShooter]

If I've followed things correctly, (one of) the test bed airframes for the development of the sensor fusion capabilities was a 737-300. 

That obviously gave the designers the ability to fit in computers that may or may not have been COTS.  That may give an idea of the volume of space necessary for the computer power needed to run and test all of it.

If a smaller airframe would have worked, they'd probably have used one, but obviously they needed a 737.

*Assumption on my part, but a reasonable one.

So, retro-fitting 5th generation computing power and systems into another airframe (SH, etc) would require a fairly large volume of space, mostly internal. 

Most 4th generation fighters don't have the extra space, so you'd end up needing to either give up something (like fuel) or having to build on conformal storage spaces...which you may have to do anyhow to add the sensors.

Best bet is to have an aircraft designed from the ground up with these capabilities, and the F-35 is that airframe.  I'm guessing that the next generation of airframe with sensor fusion designed into it will probably be based off the X-47.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/X47BUCAS/Pages/default.aspx

NS

 

[Kirkhill]

G2G - I freely admit that you are working at 60,000 ft while I am stuck on the ground.  ;D

OGBD - I won't argue either you or G2G on the technical aspects.  My point, overall, is that everything always changes - and the issue is how to manage the change.  My understanding is that early aircraft were built to achieve a specific endstate to be delivered at a specific point in time.  That aircraft then encountered extended service lives, changed taskings and changed threats.  Fortunately changed technologies resulted in bolt-on solutions that kept the aircraft relevant.

The F35, again with my outsider's understanding, not only incorporates the current (ie 1990s) state of the art, but it was designed from the get go to be able to incorporate upgrades more efficiently.  But that means that declaring milestones becomes that much more problematic.  Thus the debate over "Is it ready?"

 

[a_majoor]

If I've followed things correctly, (one of) the test bed airframes for the development of the sensor fusion capabilities was a 737-300. 

One of the reasons to use a surplus airliner was the extra space allowed a cadre of software engineers to be open board during each flight to see what was going on. The second reason is that making changes at the hardware level is much easier when you can simply walk through the aircraft and cargo bay to change our sensors, wiring harnesses and other paraphernalia. Of course a really important reason is the 737 is also a very reliable airframe with its own, separate flight control system, so you don't have to worry about a software glitch dropping the entire project out of the sky.....

Best bet is to have an aircraft designed from the ground up with these capabilities, and the F-35 is that airframe.  I'm guessing that the next generation of airframe with sensor fusion designed into it will probably be based off the X-47.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/X47BUCAS/Pages/default.aspx

NS

Designing the aircraft from the ground up also means you don't have to worry about backwards compatibility with legacy systems, issues like where bit "x" is going to fit, power management, centre of gravity, cooling and all the other issues of dealing with complex systems is handled correctly the first time. Anyone who has tried to rewire redo the plumbing on an old house will have a small inkling of what is involved. I have been involved in projects where complete IT networks have been installed in legacy armouries dating to the 1880's, so can appreciate a very, very much smaller version of the scale and complexity of the issue of upgrading aircraft.

One can hope that increasing improvements in IT hardware will make replacing the systems in 2030 and 2040 easier with smaller, more reliable and more rugged systems, but then again....

 

[Good2Golf]

One can hope that increasing improvements in IT hardware will make replacing the systems in 2030 and 2040 easier with smaller, more reliable and more rugged systems, but then again....

If users ever kept their data appetites in check, hardware might have a chance to catch up, but then again....   

 

[Kirkhill]

If users ever kept their data appetites in check, hardware might have a chance to catch up, but then again....   

I seem to recall some poor foot-mobile soul saying; "I used to carry 100 lbs of heavy stuff.  Now I carry 100 lbs of light stuff."

 

[Good2Golf]

I seem to recall some poor foot-mobile soul saying; "I used to carry 100 lbs of heavy stuff.  Now I carry 100 lbs of light stuff."

Sounds like D'n'B.

 

[PuckChaser]

That's a poor example, as that can work.  What I was talking about is more akin to testing Windows 11 on a Windows 10 computer, which may or may not work.  It would also, in this scenario, involve replacing strategic parts from the Windows 10 computer.

I think you're simplifying it a little bit too much. I have a recent example in the computing world that I think would better illustrate what you're trying to accomplish:

I have an older laptop, built in 2009 for Windows 7. Still works great. Microsoft offers me a "free" upgrade to Windows 10. Knowing the components are likely powerful enough to handle it, I go ahead and upgrade. Now here's the problem: After I've upgraded, some of my hardware doesn't work. Worked just fine with 7, but now it doesn't work with 10 because the components are old enough to not be supported by the manufacturer anymore for anything above Windows 8. These are some critical components like my touchpad and keyboard won't work at the same time. So while the upgrade is technically possible, I'd have to start writing my own driver software (labour intensive) to get some stuff to work, and there will always be bugs because that hardware just wasn't designed to work with the new Windows 10 OS.

You might be able to cram software into a plane, but its not going to work perfectly. You'll end up ripping the guts out to replace components that will work with the aircraft, and never end up with a perfect integration. You're almost always better off just having a system designed from the get-go for the new software, as both time and money will cost you more trying to get that old design to work. Look at the recent billion dollar life extension projects for CF-188 and other aircraft, and those projects are making smaller, incremental upgrades, not generational shifts in computing/processing.

 

[jmt18325]

I think you're simplifying it a little bit too much

For sure, I was simply trying to come up with a more apt analogy.  You did far better than me.

 

[tomahawk6]

The USAF is going to use the F-35 at least initilly to penetrate enemy air defense.I would rather use stand off weapons for this role or UCAV's,but this is a mission that the USAF performs pretty well at.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/lockheed-martins-new-super-stealth-fighter-getting-ready-18911

The Air Force wants the F-35 to be able to elude the best enemy air defenses well into the 2030s and 2040s.

The Air Force F-35 is using “open air” ranges and computer simulation to practice combat missions against the best Chinese and Russian-made air-defense technologies – as a way to prepare to enemy threats anticipated in the mid-2020s and beyond.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of AvWeek review article:

Lockheed Martin’s F-35: What Is Left To Fix?
The Joint Strike Fighter: progress and problems

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 achieved its first international deployment and the U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron ready for war in 2016, but the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) also suffered key setbacks last year.

The world’s most expensive fighter program continues to grapple with technological challenges. The latest version of the JSF’s internal logistics system is delayed by several months, and operational test pilots are still seeing stability issues with the warfighting software. The Joint Program Office (JPO) has righted a quality issue with the avionics cooling lines that temporarily grounded 15 operational aircraft, but Lockheed is now racing to fix the 42 in-production aircraft that were affected. Further, the services are dealing with fallout from two aircraft fires this year and recent issues identified in testing.

At the same time, tensions are high between Lockheed and the Pentagon. After failing to come to an agreement on the long-awaited ninth batch of aircraft, the government in a rare move unilaterally issued a contract valued at $6.1 billion for 57 jets. The two parties are still working on a handshake agreement for Lot 10, which they had hoped to reach this fall. Meanwhile, although many of the international partners will move forward with a three-year bulk purchase of the aircraft starting in 2018, the U.S. military will not.

Designing the world’s most advanced fighter does not come cheap. The JPO is racing to finish the F-35’s development phase—already at $14 billion since the 2011 program restructuring—but the Pentagon is preparing for a delay of up to seven months past the planned completion date and projecting additional cost growth of $530 million. And the $14 billion is only a fraction of the full bill: A July 2016 report from the Congressional Research Service pegged the research and development cost at $59.2 billion in fiscal 2012 dollars since the program’s inception.

Here we look at the F-35’s remaining challenges.

Stalled Contract Negotiations...

[Note with engine]

...
http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/lockheed-martin-s-f-35-what-left-fix

By the way: Bloggerdämmerung, or, last post:

End of 3Ds Blog

CGAI regrets that the 3Ds blog will cease posting new material with immediate effect. Previous posts and comments will be archived and available for research on this site.

CGAI is most grateful to Mark Collins for his careful curating of the 3Ds blog.

For additional content, visitors are encouraged to visit http://www.cgai.ca
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/end-of-3ds-blog/

Jack Granatstein recruited me for the blog in 2010 and gave me strong support, for which I owe him great gratitude.  Will still be tweeting:

@Mark3Ds
https://twitter.com/Mark3Ds/with_replies

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of latest Pentagon DOT&E F-35 report:

Executive Summary
Test Strategy, Planning, Activity, and Assessment

•  The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program Office (JPO) acknowledged in 2016 that schedule pressure exists for completing System Development and Demonstration (SDD) and starting Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) by August 2017, the planned date in JPO’s Integrated Master Schedule.  In an effort to stay on schedule, JPO plans to reduce or truncate planned developmental testing (DT) in an effort to minimize delays and close out SDD as soon as possible.  However, even with this risky, schedule-driven approach, multiple problems and delays make it clear that the program will not be able to start IOT&E with full combat capability until late CY18 or early CY19, at the soonest. 
These problems include...
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Trump still hitting hard:

Lockheed Martin is sliding after Trump attacks the cost of the F-35

Shares of Lockheed Martin, the maker of the F-35 fighter jet, are falling after President-elect Donald Trump attacked the cost of the program during his press conference on Wednesday.

During the press conference, Trump said he had been having discussions with generals and admirals about bringing down the costs of the F-35 program.

"I'm very much involved with the generals and admirals on the airplane, the F-35 — you've been reading about it," Trump said during the news conference. "And it's way, way behind schedule and many billions of dollars over budget. I don't like that."

Trump said he was "going to do some big things on the F-35 program and perhaps the F-18 program" and "going to get those costs way down."

The comments are similar to a tweet from Trump in December in which he criticized the cost of the F-35 program and said he would renegotiate the prices.

Experts say that much of the cost of the F-35 program has already been committed and that it is most likely too late to make significant changes to the program.

Despite this, Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson met with Trump in December, saying the company had heard Trump's complaints "loud and clear" and would try to "drive the cost down aggressively."

Shares of Lockheed slid sharply in trading after Trump's comments on Wednesday, down 1.17% as of 11:40 a.m. ET, a drop of $3.01 a share...
http://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed-martin-sliding-trump-comments-press-conference-january-11-2017-1

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

USMC deploys F-35 squadron to Japan:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/marine-corps-deploys-first-f-35-squadron-to-japan-/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0dZNE5XTTJPRFptTWpnMiIsInQiOiJudlk4NGJRWnRtSkR6aE4rckp3blZEMzRyc1VxTllGdVFhXC9PYlRidjBFQkZjSGhvbzNGMTBhbmhqMm9cL3VZNFwvd0N2RnNQTXJVeWNVU0JNQTJLVXlLeUtkdXF0ckxaNGZyeFI1bnFwdWRTTW01RFFEUFJlU2RZM3I0bmpZaXNcLzUifQ%3D%3D

Marine Corps deploys first F-35 squadron to Japan: ‘A true force multiplier’
By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 10, 2017

A squadron of the Pentagon’s 5th Generation fighter, the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, is headed for Japan.

Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 deployed Monday from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, for MCAS Iwakuni, Japan. The impending arrival of the aircraft, which are part of a $400 billion project, thrilled officials at 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing.

“The Short Take-off Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft is a true force multiplier,” Capt. Kurt Stahl, a spokesman for 3rd MAW, said in a statement released Tuesday, Military Times reported. “The unique combination of stealth, cutting-edge radar and sensor technology, and electronic warfare systems bring all of the access and lethality capabilities of a fifth-generation fighter, a modern bomber, and an adverse-weather, all-threat environment air support platform.”

SEE ALSO: Air Force general itching to send F-35s into ISIS fight: ‘We’ve got to … get moving’

The Pentagon’s longterm plan is to have 2,443 F-35s ready to defend the skies at a moment’s notice, but unexpected technical hurdles and ballooning costs have tested the patience of politicians — including President-elect Donald Trump.

“Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!” Mr. Trump tweeted Dec. 22.

Political wrangling aside, over 200 pilots and 2,000 maintainers for the F-35 have been trained since 2010. Those pilots have logged more than 40,000 flight hours and completed over 75 percent of the project’s Test Program milestones.

Military Times noted that Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121’s presence in Japan paves the way for future deployments and operations in the Middle East.