• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
"Complete fusion of the sensor data and external information, automatically providing the pilot with a filtered and clear overview of the total tactical situation which allows the pilot to focus on timely, safe and effective tactical planning and action"

Please provide the documentation to prove that the sensor fusion function is currently operational.  Or is that in a future block upgrade, not yet in operation?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/archives-eng.asp?id=7
 
Haletown said:
You have to love that article.  From the very first words, it starts off factually, completely,100% incorret (spelling).


"F-35 design problems make night flying impossible"


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=-ptkwybn5tU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-ptkwybn5tU

Guess if they can fake the moon landings, they a fake an F-35 doing a night flight.

If they start off completely wrong, what else in the "story" is also incorrectly reported?


Perhaps if the story had provided some of the context of the report, the claims would be more comprehensible.  Actually checking claims and facts seems to be a forgotten part of modern journalism.

On the other hand, we might have a future CBC hall of fame reporter in the making.

I couldn't get the link provided to work so I went to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LIsv9LJPfU
Most of it looks like very clear night time VFR.
Not sure how much of a statement of F35 night flying capabilities this LockheedMartin video demonstrates ?
 
dapaterson said:
"Complete fusion of the sensor data and external information, automatically providing the pilot with a filtered and clear overview of the total tactical situation which allows the pilot to focus on timely, safe and effective tactical planning and action"

Please provide the documentation to prove that the sensor fusion function is currently operational.  Or is that in a future block upgrade, not yet in operation?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/archives-eng.asp?id=7

It will be when it is delivered.  Having hands on insight on the F-35, the final product will be far superior to anything that is flying right now and sensor fusion is probably the single most impressive capability of all.
 
SupersonicMax said:
It will be when it is delivered.  Having hands on insight on the F-35, the final product will be far superior to anything that is flying right now and sensor fusion is probably the single most impressive capability of all.

But it's not functional now - the reason we disqualified other aircraft.  Saying "Yeah, sure, we'll deliver that function eventually" is not a hallmark of good engineering or project management.

And given the USAF's history in on-time delivery of block upgrades, I am not confident that the spec will be met in time for delivery to the RCAF.  And then what?
 
dapaterson said:
But it's not functional now - the reason we disqualified other aircraft.

I'm sorry, but what makes you think that was the reason it was disqualified over other aircraft?  What about the multi role capability? What about cost? How about regional benefits? How about low observability? 

If the DAS isn't present and the F-35 had to use the AN/APG-77 of the Raptor or the AN/APG-80 of the F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcons then it is still the best available option to replace the current legacy fleet of CF-18's.
 
dapaterson said:
"Complete fusion of the sensor data and external information, automatically providing the pilot with a filtered and clear overview of the total tactical situation which allows the pilot to focus on timely, safe and effective tactical planning and action"

Please provide the documentation to prove that the sensor fusion function is currently operational.  Or is that in a future block upgrade, not yet in operation?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/archives-eng.asp?id=7

Portions of it are currently in the 2a release, with added functionality coming in Block 2 and 3.


dapaterson said:
But it's not functional now - the reason we disqualified other aircraft.  Saying "Yeah, sure, we'll deliver that function eventually" is not a hallmark of good engineering or project management.

The planned development of functionality has not disqualified any aircraft or any program so long as it meets Canadian delivery requirements.  If that was the case then the Cyclone would have never been able to compete because less than 10% of its systems had even been designed when it entered competition. Moreover sensor fusion is a KPP: the aircraft cannot be accepted into IOC by the USN or USAF without it (the US Marines will take theirs earlier); its likely to do so in 2017.

dapaterson said:
And given the USAF's history in on-time delivery of block upgrades, I am not confident that the spec will be met in time for delivery to the RCAF.  And then what?

Its not just an USAF, but a USN, Marine and the partner countries that demand it to be delivered on time. In particular there has been significant improvement over the past year on the software delivery schedule, over the earlier problems. They reduced the demands of the concurrent development on software development, added resources and improved development timelines.



 
"Added resources" - read The Mythical Man Month on this software development strategy.

Again, though, you seem to be trying to avoid agreeing: The F35, as currently exists, does not meet Canada's high level mandatory criteria.  And therefore, should be disqualified from NGFC consideration - just as the RCAF initially disqualified other aircraft.

 
If the DAS isn't present and the F-35 had to use the AN/APG-77 of the Raptor or the AN/APG-80 of the F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcons then it is still the best available option to replace the current legacy fleet of CF-18's.

That's a bit of overkill for a Bear or Blackjack, no?
 
drunknsubmrnr said:
That's a bit of overkill for a Bear or Blackjack, no?

I don't see how it could be, after all if the Super Hornet radar is an upgrade over the legacy radar then why not get the best radar block available?

But while we're on the topic of the Super Hornet's AN/APG-79 radar, do you think you'll ever read that it had the following problems during its testing phase?  I think not, since it's on the Super Hornet.

And the Super Hornet is SOOOO much better than the F-35....right??  ::)

In January 2013, the Director of Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) disclosed a long history of problems for the APG-79 radar in ini operational testing.

• DOT&E reported on APG-79 radar IOT&E [initial operational test and evaluation] in FY07, assessing it as not operationally effective or suitable due to significant deficiencies in tactical performance, reliability, and BIT functionality.

• The Navy conducted APG-79 radar FOT&E [follow-on test and evaluation] in FY09 in conjunction with SCS H4E SQT. The Navy’s Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force subsequently reported that significant deficiencies remained for both APG-79 AESA performance and suitability; DOT&E concurred with this assessment.

• The APG-79 AESA radar demonstrated marginal improvements since the previous FOT&E period and provides improved performance relative to the legacy APG-73 radar. However, operational testing does not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between F/A-18E/F aircraft equipped with AESA and those equipped with the legacy radar.

• Full development of AESA electronic warfare capability remains deferred to later software builds.

No date was predicted for the F/A-18 E/F Hornet's APG-79 radar reaching an operationally suitable status.
 
And here's a nice, little read about the Super Hornet Navy programs.....not all it's cut out to be, is it?

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/navy/2012fa18ef.pdf
 
Hmm... guess who said this: “If you commit yourself too early with a very expensive program, there are new ones coming in that are not far behind that will give you different capabilities and could be much cheaper."

Anyone?  That's right, it's the commander of the RCAF.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/25/canadas_air_force_eyes_drones_for_maritime_and_arctic_patrols.bb.html
 
Oh please...he's talking about drones.

Show me what manned fighter comes after the F-35 and I might give it consideration, but don't compare a quote made about drones to that of a manned fighter aircraft.
 
dapaterson said:
"Added resources" - read The Mythical Man Month on this software development strategy.

Great book, however Brooks' law is not as applicable in this case as one might think. Brooks focuses on projects that try to accelerate development by adding developers: that's not what occurred with the JSF.

As a rebuttal I'll cite Meneely, Rotella and Williams's (MRW) 2010 piece Does Adding Manpower Also Affect Quality? An Empirical, Longitudinal Analysis (ESEC/FSE 2011.)

The applicability of MRW's work is that their five year Cisco project case study is more akin to the JSF's situation. MRW's findings suggest that if you have long time horizons and add developers gradually, it actually improves outcomes significantly.  The Program Office and LM didn't try to accelerate development which is what Brooks warns against. Rather they did the opposite; the program executive and LM extended the development time by 30 months. In addition they moved alot of the non-KPP capabilities out of the three blocks and reduced the number of releases, which further reduced the burden on the development program.

The second part was to "add resources," including developers and additional technical capacities. LM added 200 developers to the differing block teams. They also increased efficiency of the current developers by increasing the number of networked computers, and reorganized their overall structure. Combined, these efforts removed alot of the pressure on the program, which avoids the accelerated growth issues discussed by MRW. Other studies on long term programs (Audris Mockus Organizational Volatility and its Effects on Software Defects (FSE 2010)) suggest that "The influx of new members into the organization had no impact on software quality, possibly because the new developers are not assigned to important changes."

I would argue that can be correlated by the improvements in the program's software development processes. There are still delays and alot of challenges, but they have declined significantly over the past two years. The time span to fix defects has decreased from 180 days to 55, though the delays are still around three months. I also think that the effect of the new hires have not been fully felt yet.

dapaterson said:
Again, though, you seem to be trying to avoid agreeing: The F35, as currently exists, does not meet Canada's high level mandatory criteria.

And therefore, should be disqualified from NGFC consideration - just as the RCAF initially disqualified other aircraft.

Which aircraft were disqualified?

I'm not agreeing because your premise is somewhat of a strawman. The F-35 meets the mandatory high level criteria; it only needs to provide such a capability within the DND's timeframe. Saying it does not meet it now, would not actually be part of the high level mandatory criteria.

Furthermore by your premise, I can argue that none all but one of the aircraft Meet Canada's high level mandatory criteria. None of the others have the low observable component. Three of the aircraft do not have the promised capabilities as of yet (one of which does not exist anywhere but on paper). 
 
I don't see how it could be, after all if the Super Hornet radar is an upgrade over the legacy radar then why not get the best radar block available?

Whatever the Voodoo had appears to have been good enough to do the job.
 
WingsofFury said:
I don't see how it could be, after all if the Super Hornet radar is an upgrade over the legacy radar then why not get the best radar block available?

As a taxpayer, that sentence bugs me.  I don't want you to have the best of anything - I want you to have "good enough to get the assigned task done".

No wonder we have lost credibility with "the center".
 
PPCLI Guy said:
I want you to have "good enough to get the assigned task done".

And this I think is perhaps the crux of the issue.

The task has not been well defined....so the "good enough" has a lot of variables.  Some with inexpensive solutions, some with EXPENSIVE solutions.

If the task definition was clearly laid out, and the reasons why other aircraft were unsuitable or de-selected from the process, perhaps it would be an easier pill to swallow when the price-tag is mentioned.

The other problem with the poorly laid out task is that to meet the various computations of possible missions that *could* be asked of us (based on recent past) then you want the aircraft that gives you the most options for doing most of those tasks well.

The F-35 seems to do that.

If the task was simply defined as "provide Close Air Support for ground forces in an area where local air superiority has been attained" then perhaps we can go with a Super Tucano:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

If we're after purely air superiority with no ground attack, then we'd be after FMS of the F-22...

Instead, with a poorly defined mission (or rather, the need to be flexible to react to the most possible types of missions) we need a multi-mission capable aircraft...

Which is exactly what the F-35 is.

Or so I understand.

NS
 
PPCLI Guy said:
I don't want you to have the best of anything - I want you to have "good enough to get the assigned task done".

Ok then, we'll just fly the CF-18's for the next 50 years.  After all, they are good enough to get the assigned task done.

But wait..keeping them flying....that would cost a lot of money.  So that's not a good idea. 

Are there alternatives?  Why yes!  How about one of the following that gives us the most bang for the multi role platform buck we'll end up paying:

Eurofighter - almost $200M a copy...yikes, that's pricey, isn't it?
Dassault Rafale - nice plane, multi role, but there's no chance of regional offsets...so...maybe not a good idea?
Gripen - once again, nice little plane, but offsets are impossible and it doesn't match the performance criteria we're looking for.
Super Hornet - good plane, but wait...it won't be in production after 2015 which means the price will be going up!  Well we can't have that...

That leaves the F-35.  Good all around multi role platform, costs on a downward trend, we've already invested into its creation, and by the time it enters service it will be the most bang for the buck spent.

So just like before, I'll put this question to you - what would you buy and what is your reasoning behind said purchase?
 
I'd like to apologize, I made an error about the Gripen and potential offsets.

SAAB as per the article below has given the Swiss aviation industry the largest chunk of Gripen E components for manufacture, which says a lot about the company.

http://www.fortmilltimes.com/2013/04/02/2591591/saab-swiss-industry-to-become.html
 
Back
Top