Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

RAAF F-35 previewed ahead of AU-1 rollout

Lockheed Martin has previewed the second F-35A for the RAAF a day ahead of a formal rollout of Australia’s first aircraft in a ceremony due to take place at the company’s Fort Worth facility on Thursday.

The second jet, AU-2, was previewed to media on Wednesday ahead of the formal rollout of aircraft AU-1, and wears the standard F-35 grey paint scheme with ‘low vis’ RAAF roundels, serial number A35-002 and tail markings for the RAAF’s 2 Operational Conversion Unit (2OCU).

AU-1, meanwhile, will be formally unveiled on Thursday in a ceremony due to be attended by Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown, F-35 program executive officer LtGen Chris Bogdan, US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall and Lockheed Martin’s executive vice president and general manager of the F-35 program, Lorraine Martin.

Click to expand...

Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown has told the rollout ceremony of the first RAAF F-35 that the aircraft represents the “greatest evolutionary change” in Australian military aviation history. The first of a planned fleet of 72 F-35A Lightnings was revealed to dignitaries and invited guests at a “rollout celebration” at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facilities on Thursday, and represents the most significant milestone in Australia’s acquisition of the sometimes controversial fighter aircraft.
“Today represents a very significant day for the Royal Australian Air Force as we step down as the fourth nation in the world to take delivery of a fifth generation aircraft, and that enables the transition of the Australian Defence Force into a fifth generation defence force,” Air Marshal Brown said.
“The F-35 is perhaps the greatest opportunity for evolutionary change the RAAF has been presented. We’re introducing into service a revolutionary capability, and our evolution as a force must align with the opportunities this offers us.”
Australia’s first two F-35s – AU-1, which was the focal point of the rollout event, and AU-2 – have both completed final assembly and painting and are due to fly in coming weeks. They are due to be formally handed over to the RAAF in coming months before being delivered to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona where from early 2015 they will operate as part of a training pool of aircraft there.
Beyond the first two aircraft, subsequent jets will be delivered from 2017 through until 2022. But F-35s won’t arrive in Australia until late 2018 or early 2019, when the RAAF begins its own operational test & evaluation process.
“Like any revolutionary capability its potential to generate effects beyond the mainstream will have far reaching impacts in any future application,” CAF said.
The Australian government was represented at the rollout event by Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, while Lockheed Martin chairman, president and CEO Marillyn Hewson, Orlando Carvalho, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, and US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall also spoke at the event.

Click to expand...

Software to Power F-35 Running as Much as 14 Months Late
By Tony Capaccio Jul 30, 2014 6:00 AM GMT+0200

Software for Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 jet, the Pentagon’s costliest weapons system, may be as much as 14 months late for required flight testing, according to a Pentagon review.

The projected delay to September 2017 concerns the final version needed to provide full combat capability for Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps variants of the Joint Strike Fighter, the Defense Department found in the report mandated by Congress.

Software is crucial to delivering on the promised capabilities of the F-35, operating its advanced navigation, communications and targeting systems. Each plane will have more than 8 million lines of code once deployed, more than any previous U.S. or allied jet.

Cost estimates for the $398.6 billion F-35 program have climbed 71 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since the Pentagon signed its initial contract with Lockheed in 2001, even as plans were adjusted to buy 409 fewer aircraft.

The fighters, which are being built and tested while they’re under development, are flying under restrictions after being grounded this month during the investigation of an engine fire on one plane.

Schedules for software have slipped an average of more than six months a year since Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed beat Boeing Co. (BA) for the program, according to the review dated June 17 and labeled “For Official Use Only.”

Even with the expected delays, “the review team does not expect” slips in the projected dates for declaring different versions of the F-35 ready for combat, according to the report.

Marine Version

While the reviewers said the planned schedules have enough leeway to absorb the software delays, they added that the deadlines could be missed because of issues that arise in flight tests of the software or other troubles with the F-35.

Software known as 2B, which the Marine Corps needs to declare its first aircraft ready for combat in July 2015, is running five months late to begin its most rigorous testing and will be delivered in October, according to the review.

The progress of the Marine Corps version, the F-35B, has drawn worldwide attention. The U.K. and Italy have both committed to buy the variant, which is designed for short takeoffs and vertical landings on ground fields and aircraft carriers.

Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Laura Siebert said in an e-mail that “we are confident that we will complete 2B software” in time for the July 2015 goal.

‘Rigorous Systems’

Lockheed, the No. 1 U.S. government contractor, is relying on the F-35 for sales growth. The program accounted for 18 percent of Lockheed’s second-quarter sales, up from 16 percent in 2013 and 14 percent a year before that, according to federal regulatory filings.

Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon’s F-35 program office, said in an e-mail that the office expects a delay of about six months instead of 14 months in the final software for all three versions.

Since 2011 “we have instituted a rigorous systems engineering process that develops” software plans “for each major air system component and tracks incremental capability maturity within each software block,” DellaVedova said.

The review for Congress directed by Stephen Welby, the Defense Department’s chief of systems engineering, said the F-35 program office three years ago strengthened its processes and oversight for managing software development, testing and manufacture.

The program has delivered 7.4 million lines of code for the earliest version software to test which is “unprecedented for airborne military platforms,” the reviewers said. “Software development continues to be hindered, however, by past inadequate systems engineering and integration” and “higher-than-expected” software defects.

Click to expand...

Some F-35 Flight Restrictions Lifted
Jul. 29, 2014 - 05:32PM | By AARON MEHTA

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has lifted some flight restrictions on F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, while inspections will continue for the foreseeable future, according to a Defense Department official.

Speed restrictions were relaxed late last week from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.6, while maneuverability restrictions were increased slightly from 3 Gs to 3.2, the official said.

Other restrictions remain, however, including borescope inspections of the front fan section of each F135 engine every three hours.

The restrictions are the result of a June 23 fire that severely damaged an F-35A model and led to the Pentagon grounding the fleet for a time while the cause of the problem was discovered. On July 15, the Pentagon allowed the plane to begin flying again within limited parameters.

Those restrictions are limiting the ability of the services to fully test and evaluate the planes, meaning that if the restrictions remain for a significant period, it could affect the planned initial operating capability (IOC) dates for the jet.

The Marine Corps’ aircraft will be the first to reach IOC — in July 2015 — followed by the Air Force in August 2016.

Asked whether there is a date on the calendar when the restrictions would begin to threaten Marine IOC, the official said he “can’t put a timeline on that,” noting the restrictions will continue to loosen as engineering assessments warrant.

A top general for the US Air Force expressed confidence that his service, the largest customer for the jet, remains on target for IOC — at least for now.

“So far the schedule impacts are relatively minimal,” Gen. Michael Hostage, the head of Air Combat Command, told reporters on Tuesday. “I still believe we can get to IOC in August of 2016 for the Air Force. But every day makes that a little harder to do.”

Hostage said it would be more a matter of weeks, not months, that the jet would operate under restrictions.

“I don’t think it’s going to be much longer,” he said. “We’re narrowing it down pretty quickly. But you want certainty. If it’s going to be an expensive fix you don’t want to spend a lot of money to figure out that wasn’t it, so you want to have certainty before you commit yourself to anything.”

Hostage praised the fusion capabilities of the F-35 as game-changing when compared to legacy fighters, and defended the plane despite questions about its overall cost.

“I am confident that if we can produce the 1,763 F-35s at the cost the industry and the JPO [Joint Program Office] are forecasting, we’ll have a fleet that will defend this country as far into the 2030s as we expect it to,” Hostage said.

Click to expand...

ARNBOROUGH, ENGLAND — The F-35 joint strike fighter may well come to rule the skies of the future, but for decades to come it will need to work with existing “fourth-generation” fleets. Finding ways to make that work is an early topic being discussed at this year’s Farnborough International Airshow.

BAE, a major partner on both the F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon programs, is undergoing tests to find ways to link the training systems for the two planes together in order to determine best tactics for operations, according to a company spokesman.

The spokesman said the firm is currently underdoing the third round of trials for the system, which have “done well.”

The firm is also exploring the question of “fourth-to-fifth” and “fifth-to-fourth” communication. Key to the F-35 is the ability to gather and share massive amounts of data automatically through its MADL system, but making sure that data can be received and processed by fourth-gen fighters is a major undertaking and focus by the corporate partners.

One method being eyed by BAE is the Link 16 system, which is used across a number of Pentagon systems. Northrop Grumman, another F-35 corporate partner, recently tested using the Link 16 system to communicate between an F-35 and F-22.

Ensuring information can be passed from the F-35 back to fourth-gen aircraft is the “best investment for us in the future,” said Billie Flynn, a senior experimental test pilot for Lockheed Martin who has flown both the Typhoon and F-35.

Tactically, Flynn said the capabilities of the JSF allow it to move ahead of older aircraft that may be more vulnerable to ground-based defenses.

“We come and go with impunity, and we gather situational awareness no one else can have,” Flynn said of piloting the F-35. “We get to go to places, gather information and bring that information back. So as an attack vehicle we get to go out in front, we get to neutralize the surface to air threats, we get to make it safe for a fourth generation plane to get in.”

Flynn, who commanded a CF-18 wing that took out Serbian defenses during operations in the 1990s, said tactically, fifth-generation planes will not operate in large formations going forward, a contrast to the way fourth-generation systems will work.

“Gone are the days that we will fly in some tactical formation like we remember from every movie that was around in the fourth generation,” Flynn said. “We’re many miles away in elaborate formations that allow us to cover vast amounts of sky. Evolving our tactics to fly as a proper fifth-generation airplane, that’s our future.”

Click to expand...

F-35 JPO says: ``Reuters, Defense News articles got it wrong'' about flight restrictions eased. Applied to 20 test a/c. Not to 79 op jets

Click to expand...

F-35 DoD spokes J DellaVedova in statement says: ``We've asked for corrections in both publications'' to specify how many a/c affected

Click to expand...

Speed restrictions for the 20 F-35s that make up the test aircraft fleet were relaxed late last week from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.6, while maneuverability restrictions were increased slightly from 3 Gs to 3.2, the official said.

Click to expand...

Mitsubishi Heavy won't supply parts for F-35 fighter project
August 04, 2014
By KUNIICHI TANIDA/ Staff Writer

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. decided not to supply parts to an international project to manufacture F-35 stealth fighters for the second straight year because of a disagreement with the Defense Ministry over investment.

Mitsubishi Heavy was expected to supply the body for F-35s in fiscal 2015, part of the government-led project to promote Japanese participation in an international project to produce an advanced fighter aircraft for the first time.

Mitsubishi Heavy estimated it needed nearly 10 billion yen ($97.4 million) in investment for plant and equipment to meet plans to annually produce 24 F-35s for Japan’s Self-Defense Forces and foreign militaries.

The company asked the government to shoulder the investment required to produce the fighters for foreign clients, but the Defense Ministry refused, ministry sources said.

Mitsubishi Heavy’s participation in the project as a parts supplier now remains “nowhere in sight,” according to a senior Defense Ministry official, meaning that the program will likely be drastically scaled down.

The project was authorized as an exception to Japan’s self-imposed ban on arms exports before the Abe administration eased the restrictions in April.

The Japanese government expected the participation of Mitsubishi Heavy, Japan’s top manufacturer of fighter aircraft, to significantly bolster the nation’s defense industry.

The U.S. government also welcomed Mitsubishi Heavy’s participation as a way to improve efficiency when the F-35 enters mass production.

In the international collaboration to produce the Lockheed Martin Corp. stealth fighter, companies from the United States, Britain and other partner countries supply parts. The aircraft is assembled in the United States, Italy and Japan.

Japan in December 2011 announced its intention to buy 42 F-35s as the SDF’s next-generation mainstay fighter. Tokyo also agreed with Washington to supply parts to not only for the SDF models but also for F-35s deployed elsewhere.

In fiscal 2013, the Defense Ministry reached agreement with IHI Corp. to build engine parts for the SDF models and with Mitsubishi Electric Corp. for the supply of electric components.

The two companies started supplying the parts to Lockheed Martin and other partner companies that fiscal year. They also plan to export parts for F-35s to be deployed in foreign countries.

Total orders for the F-35 are estimated to top 3,000. The Japanese government decided Japanese manufacturers’ participation in the international collaboration would provide a technological edge and reduce procurement costs for the SDF.

Click to expand...

Further restrictions lifted for F-35 test fleet

By Aaron Mehta
Staff writer

WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter test fleet will be able to fly six hours between engine inspections for weapon test and refueling missions, as restrictions on the fifth-generation fighter continue to ease.

Previously, the entire F-35 fleet was limited to three hours of flight time before an engine inspection was required as an investigation continues into a fire that heavily damaged an F-35A model on June 23.

The test fleet is made up of 20 F-35 fighters. The remaining 79 F-35s are still operating under the full restrictions.
During the inspection into the cause of the June 23 fire, the Pentagon grounded the entire fleet. On July 15, the planes were cleared to fly with heavy restrictions.

In late July, the Pentagon eased up on some restrictions for the test fleet. Speed restrictions were relaxed from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.6, while maneuverability restrictions were eased slightly from 3 Gs to 3.2.

The Department of Defense is taking a “multipronged approach to expanding the envelope for our flight test engines,” said Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 joint program office. Bumping the operating limit from three to six hours “allows our test fleet to conduct dedicated weapon test and refueling missions.”

DellaVedova also said the root cause analysis into the fire continues. While inspectors have determined the fire was caused by “excessive” rubbing of a fan blade inside the Pratt & Whitney designed F135 engine, it is unclear why the issue arose.

Top officials from the US Air Force, the largest customer for the F-35, have expressed confidence that the engine problem will be overcome.

Click to expand...

Army awarded contract
The US Army has finally found a way to get a piece of the F-35 pie.

The service’s Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) was selected to provide an independent software analysis for the fighter, the Army announced Wednesday.

This represents the first Army action on the F-35 program, which covers the US Air Force, Marines and Navy as well as 11 other countries.

The service will provide safety crosschecking on a small portion of the plane’s 24 million lines of code, including pilot systems software, DellaVedova said.

“The Army was selected as part of a fair and open competition between industry and governmental sources to do a software safety evaluation,” DellaVedova said. “This is a very specific software safety evaluation they are doing.”

In essence, Army engineers will double-check work done by corporate partners Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE. Contracts for similar double-checks to software have been awarded to corporate partners in the past, but this is the first time the Army has taken part.

“We do tests on software to make sure it works and meets requirements and won’t be harmful,” DellaVedova added. “They are helping to ensure that some software within some of the subsystems will ensure safe operations.”

“The F-35 has over 24 million lines of code and is clearly the most complex weapons system ever designed by the DOD,” James Lackey, AMRDEC’s acting director, said in a statement posted to the Army’s website.

“The department’s decision to select the Software Engineering Directorate to provide the independent software safety evaluation speaks highly of our expertise, credibility and our past demonstrated successes.”

Click to expand...

The price of the OCO add-ons have varied hugely since 2001. The war budget swelled to a staggering $187 billion in 2008 before decreasing to $80 billion in 2014. The 2014 OCO budget “supports activities including continuing the responsible drawdown of forces in Afghanistan,” according to the Pentagon’s budgeteers.

But the American withdrawal from Afghanistan has happened faster than the military expected. And planners see that as an opportunity to spend OCO funds on things Congress didn’t originally approve them for—namely, the eight F-35s, 21 AH-64Es and a special version of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb.

Specifically, the 2014 OCO included nearly $2 billion for supplies and linguists that the Army says it no longer needs—“the result of the accelerated drawdown.”

So the Navy wants to devote $880 million of that cash to buying six F-35B vertical-takeoff stealth fighters for the Marine Corps. They would join another six F-35Bs the Navy paid for in the regular 2014 budget. The F-35 is still in testing and won’t enter front-line service until 2015, at the earliest—too late to deploy to Afghanistan before the final withdrawal of NATO troops.

But the Navy justifies the F-35Bs as a war expense by describing them as direct replacements for six AV-8B Harriers that the Taliban destroyed during a daring infiltration of a NATO base in southern Afghanistan in 2012. “These battle losses resulted in the early stand down of one aircraft squadron,” the Pentagon asserts. “This is an OCO budget requirement.”

Likewise, the Air Force wants to spend $256 million in leftover 2014 OCO funds on two F-35s—in this case the conventionally-landing A model, 19 of which the flying branch bought in the normal budget.

The Air Force’s justification is thinner than the Navy’s is. In March 2012, an F-15E fighter-bomber crashed while en route to Afghanistan for a combat deployment. The following May, an F-15E from the same wing crashed during a mission in Afghanistan.

The Air Force claims the two F-35s will replace the F-15Es. But in fact, the single-engine, single-seat F-35A with its modest payload is nothing like the twin-engine, two-seat F-15E, which can haul a heavy bomb load over long distances. The Air Force plans to replace lightweight F-16s with new F-35As, but doesn’t actually have specific plans for replacing the F-15Es.

Instead, the flying branch is upgrading the heavy-duty F-15s to keep them flying well into the 2030s. None of the F-35s the Air Force buys today or in the near future will take the place of an F-15E. The OCO money-shift for F-35s is based on fiction.

Click to expand...

Grey Havoc said:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-pentagon-is-trying-to-sneak-eight-stealth-fighters-and-21-gunships-into-the-budget-c7a26657c43a

The price of the OCO add-ons have varied hugely since 2001. The war budget swelled to a staggering $187 billion in 2008 before decreasing to $80 billion in 2014. The 2014 OCO budget “supports activities including continuing the responsible drawdown of forces in Afghanistan,” according to the Pentagon’s budgeteers.

But the American withdrawal from Afghanistan has happened faster than the military expected. And planners see that as an opportunity to spend OCO funds on things Congress didn’t originally approve them for—namely, the eight F-35s, 21 AH-64Es and a special version of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb.

Specifically, the 2014 OCO included nearly $2 billion for supplies and linguists that the Army says it no longer needs—“the result of the accelerated drawdown.”

So the Navy wants to devote $880 million of that cash to buying six F-35B vertical-takeoff stealth fighters for the Marine Corps. They would join another six F-35Bs the Navy paid for in the regular 2014 budget. The F-35 is still in testing and won’t enter front-line service until 2015, at the earliest—too late to deploy to Afghanistan before the final withdrawal of NATO troops.

But the Navy justifies the F-35Bs as a war expense by describing them as direct replacements for six AV-8B Harriers that the Taliban destroyed during a daring infiltration of a NATO base in southern Afghanistan in 2012. “These battle losses resulted in the early stand down of one aircraft squadron,” the Pentagon asserts. “This is an OCO budget requirement.”

Likewise, the Air Force wants to spend $256 million in leftover 2014 OCO funds on two F-35s—in this case the conventionally-landing A model, 19 of which the flying branch bought in the normal budget.

The Air Force’s justification is thinner than the Navy’s is. In March 2012, an F-15E fighter-bomber crashed while en route to Afghanistan for a combat deployment. The following May, an F-15E from the same wing crashed during a mission in Afghanistan.

The Air Force claims the two F-35s will replace the F-15Es. But in fact, the single-engine, single-seat F-35A with its modest payload is nothing like the twin-engine, two-seat F-15E, which can haul a heavy bomb load over long distances. The Air Force plans to replace lightweight F-16s with new F-35As, but doesn’t actually have specific plans for replacing the F-15Es.

Instead, the flying branch is upgrading the heavy-duty F-15s to keep them flying well into the 2030s. None of the F-35s the Air Force buys today or in the near future will take the place of an F-15E. The OCO money-shift for F-35s is based on fiction.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Several times a year, business managers within the Norwegian defense ministry are crunching the numbers regarding acquisition and support of the F-35.

Basing their figures on the U.S. Presidential Budget and those from the F-35 Joint Program Office, the Norwegian government currently expects their future F-35 fleet to cost up to 20% more to operate than its current F-16 fleet, but that issue does not seem to generate concern here in Oslo.

The program might be Norway’s largest and most expensive defense project to date, but officials say the new capabilities the F-35 will bring, such as enabling the country’s air arm to carry out long-range strikes, make it a price worth paying. Since 2008, they note, the cost to Norway has increased by just 8% and currently stands around 248 billion krone ($38 billion) for the 56-year lifetime of the program as of January this year.

“Smaller forces require more modern equipment,” says Lt. Col. Sigurd Fongen of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office speaking at last month’s Joint Strike Fighter executive steering board meetings here. “Look at recent conflicts, the warning times are shorter, there is not much time to train or mobilize, these are ‘come as you are’ conflicts [and] we need to be able to counter that.”

Norway has been a relative newcomer for the F-35, selecting the aircraft in late 2008 to replace its fleet of Fokker-built F-16 Fighting Falcons. However, it is projected to rapidly become one of Europe’s largest operators. With plans to acquire 52 F-35As, Oslo has already approved the purchase of 16 aircraft, and this is likely to increase when the government budget is cleared in spring 2015. The country has accelerated its F-35 purchase as its 56 remaining F‑16s show their age. Norway’s initial aircraft are on the production line in Fort Worth; the first is scheduled to be delivered in late 2015. Two more are due to arrive in 2016, followed by six every year until 2024.

Initial operating capability (IOC) is expected in 2019 and full operational capability by around 2024. The IOC is defined as having a fleet able to take on Norway’s national defense missions. For several years, the country’s remaining F-16s will operate alongside the F-35, but will be rapidly downsized in 2019‑20. The government wants to ensure against capability gaps, a process that will have to be managed carefully.

The Norwegian government has opted to position its F-35 fleet at a single location—Orland air base—near the coastal city Trondheim. Oslo is spending $96 million on new facilities for the aircraft, construction of which is due to begin during 2015. The F-35 force will comprise two large front-line squadrons, compared to three currently flying the F-16, split between the Orland and Bodo air bases.

New facilities will include eight full-mission simulators so pilots will be able to virtually train in tandem with colleagues who are flying the actual aircraft. The Royal Norwegian Air Force hopes to conducts 40% of its training synthetically compared to 20% on the F-16 currently. The airfield itself will receive tighter security; the installation of new fences and earth berms are just two of the measures that will be taken to meet U.S. security requirements.

Four of Norway’s aircraft will remain in the U.S. to support pilot training; three more will be stationed at Evenes, near Narvik in the far north. There they will serve as NATO’s quick-reaction alert to intercept unidentified, often Russian, aircraft flying close to Norwegian airspace.

Further investments may also be needed in terms of weaponry. A large portion of the program will be devoted to the introduction of the Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile (JSM) (see page 23), which will give Norway its first taste of a strategic stand-off capability. The country had hoped it could repurpose many of the weapons it uses on the F-16, but the IRIS-T—Norway’s primary short-range air-to-air weapon—is not slated for integration onto the F-35, prompting Oslo to look at the AIM-9X Sidewinder. Officials are also considering the MBDA Meteor.

The search for potential partnerships with other JSF operators in Europe has already begun. Significant discussions have taken place with the U.K.; a preliminary pact was signed in March. At the center of this is the need for weapons training, says Col. Charles Svensson, program manager for operations in the Norwegian F-35 program office.

Norway works with other operators of the F-16 in Europe on the Fighter Weapons Instructor Training program, while the U.K. has its own Combined Qualified Weapons Instructor Course program. “We are discussing the similarities between these two exercises and discussing cooperation on maintenance training,” Svensson says.

Perhaps the most significant change required by the Norwegians is the addition of a brake parachute to handle the enhanced braking capability needed during their harsh winters. The modification requires changes in the construction of the rear fuselage section to create a compartment to hold the parachute system. On top of this is a large canoe fairing, which will open on landing. Despite its large size, the fairing—designed to minimize any impact on the radar cross-section—is fitted between the two vertical tails.

The addition of the brake chute also requires cockpit modifications to deploy it on landing. Svensson says that when the brake chute is not needed the fairing could be removed and the compartment for the chute could potentially be used for other systems. Canadian company Airborne Systems is developing the braking parachute.

Norway is covering the cost of developing the system for the F-35A. Under a contract announced on Sept. 30, Norway will pay as much as $246.6 million to develop and test the installation. The cost includes some modifications to the airframe around the brake-chute pod. These will be incorporated as an in-line retrofit to early aircraft—starting with the first two Norwegian production aircraft and included in later aircraft from the start of manufacture. Norway will also receive a royalty on any F-35s sold to other air forces with the parachute installed; Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands are leading candidates.

Click to expand...

Grey Havoc said:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141010/DEFREG02/310100034/Canadian-Jet-Extension-Plan-Will-Delay-F-35-Buys

Click to expand...

Canada’s conservative government, which has spent four years pushing for a noncompetitive purchase of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, announced at the end of September it would delay retirement of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s Boeing CF-18A/B Hornets for up to five years, until 2025. Canada will, however, continue to support JSF.

With an election due next year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have passed the Next-Generation Fighter Capability (NGFC) decision to the next administration, after reports in June that the announcement of a JSF buy was imminent. “Harper was poised to pull the trigger,” one industry source suggests, “but he backed away” following negative public and media reaction. An F-35 buy could have been portrayed as an attempt to foreclose options before the election, and a decision to conduct a competition would be seen as a capitulation, the source suggests. The latest announcement indicates intent to maintain RCAF strength without rushing the NGFC choice.

The move is not a complete surprise. Lockheed Martin says it is “not news” and that planned Canadian JSF deliveries extend through 2025. (The schedule spanned 2017-22, based on late-2011 plans.) However, there are no programs under contract that support Hornet operations beyond 2020: L-3’s Military Aircraft Systems unit, which supports the Hornet airframe and systems for Canada, had no comment, and Canada’s Department of National Defense (DND) also declined to respond.

The future of the NGFC depends on the pending election: A decisive Conservative win would favor the F-35, while opposition parties could move toward a competition or delay the entire program. A September report stating Canada had short-listed the F-35 and Super Hornet has been dismissed as inaccurate. “It will either be the F-35 or an open competition,” says a source associated with a potential NGFC competitor.

The contentious next-gen fighter debate started when DND—then led by Peter MacKay—sought to bypass Canadian law that forbids sole-source procurements except under strictly defined circumstances. In 2008, the DND defined key NGFC requirements and concluded that two aircraft other than the JSF could meet them. But in 2010, to justify a sole-source JSF buy, DND issued a revised set of requirements that it claimed only JSF could meet.

After a scathing report in 2012 by the auditor-general, the government stripped the DND of authority over the next-gen fighter, shifting authority to the Public Works Department for the acquisition. In February, an independent review panel validated the air force’s new process for evaluating four contenders: the F-35, the Boeing Super Hornet, the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Canada has 77 operational Hornets that were modernized under a program completed in February. Two key upgrades are integration of the Lockheed Martin Sniper target designation pod with built-in Rover (remote video receiver) compatibility, and provision of beyond line-of-sight communications—“a Canadian necessity,” according to an air force program manager—using Iridium-based DRS Communications’ Fighter Aircraft Command and Control Enhancement II pods.

About half of the fleet has undergone center barrel replacement—a procedure that renews the aircraft’s structural core—and Kapton-insulated wiring has been replaced. The air force has used “managed utilization” to extend airframe life—this means, for example, restricting maneuvering flights in certain configurations and making more use of ground-based training aids. Keeping some Hornets until 2025 may not be prohibitively costly, an industry executive says, particularly if those with the least usage, are retained.

If Lockheed Martin’s projections are correct, and if Canada stays with the F-35, the nation could save money by shifting its aircraft into full-rate, multiyear production blocks ordered in 2019 or later. The company cites a cost of $85 million (unit recurring flyaway, then-year dollars) versus an average of almost $100 million in 2016-18. Also, the F-35 Block 4A/B, available in 2022-24, may include capabilities, such as satcoms, that Canada considers essential for its upgraded Hornets.

Canada’s previously published plan to acquire 65 JSFs for delivery between 2017-22 was the second-largest near-term, firm international requirement for the fighter, after Australia with 72 aircraft. Lockheed charts show that the program anticipates just over 250 partner and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) orders in 2015-21 (deliveries lagging orders by two years). Canada’s order would account for more than a quarter of those partner and FMS deliveries.

Click to expand...

It is growing more and more likely that July 1, 2015, will not mark the initial operational capability (IOC) declaration for the F-35B desired by the U.S. Marine Corps.

Despite years of Pentagon officials fervently holding firm to the milestone, Pentagon procurement chief Frank Kendall is opening the door to a delay. "It is going to be hard to hold to the July date," Kendall tells Aviation Week in an Oct. 28 interview. "I am pretty confident we can meet the threshold by the end of the year. And we will make it as close to July as we can."

In May 2013, the Pentagon outlined the F-35 IOC plans for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, and officials have adamantly stuck to those plans in part to quell very vocal skeptics targeting the $400 billion program after its many overruns. The Marines have planned an "objective" IOC for July 1, 2015, with a "threshold" date in December 2015.

"Our position has not changed for the moment. We are still tracking to a 1 July IOC," says Capt. Dustin Pratico, Marine spokesman. "With that said, we are aware that there are risks to making that timeline. Throughout this process, there have been a sequence of separate pieces of the IOC effort that have moved out as late as October of 2015, and to date we have been able to create efficiencies in the process that have pulled the timeline back to 1 July."

Pratico says there are multiple planning models, and the current risk assessment for achieving the needed aircraft modifications and training work points to a mid-August IOC. "This is not the farthest overshoot we have seen and today we have a much better handle on what is required to manage the timeline," he says. "With all of that said, we concur with [recently retired USMC Commandant] Gen. [James] Amos and Mr. Kendall’s recent comments that there is some risk that we could IOC a few weeks after the target of 1 July, but we are well ahead of the threshold requirement of December 2015."

Marine IOC includes the first squadron, VMFA-121, with 10-16 F-35Bs and enough trained pilots and maintenance officials to deploy for war. The first F-35B unit is slated for its initial deployment in 2017 to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan.

The Marines have maintained the most aggressive schedule among F-35 customers because of concern for its aging F-18s and AV-8Bs; F-35B development was prioritized over that of the Air Force and Navy variants earlier in the program to satisfy the Marines’ pressing need.

The service initially will use the fighter’s 2B software package, which is limited in capability, to conduct basic close air support and interdiction activities. Weapons included in the initial package are the AIM-120C7 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, Joint Direct Attack Munition and GBU-12 laser-guided bomb.

The likeliest culprit for missing the IOC date next summer is the time required to modify enough F-35Bs to the proper configuration, F-35 Program Executive Officer USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan warned this fall.

This work is not made easier as the program is focused on returning the test and operational fleets to normal flying status after a June 23 F-35A engine fire prompted a temporary fleetwide grounding followed by limited flight operations pending an accident investigation.

The F-35 Joint Program Office and F135 prime contractor Pratt and Whitney have narrowed down the potential fixes to a single preferred one, but approval still is required to move forward.

The root cause of the engine fire was too narrow a trench in the abradable strip lining the third stage of the integrally bladed rotor; this allowed for the stators to rub the lining. Excessive friction led to a 1,900F internal temperature, nearly twice what is expected in that section, and microcracking in the stators eventually caused them to break apart.

The initial problem with this aircraft occurred three weeks prior to the fire when a pilot conducted a routine ridge-riding maneuver that combined yaw, roll and gs. Such a maneuver had not been done on such a new aircraft.

In earlier jets, the trench surrounding the stators was gently "burned in," unbeknownst to developers and operators, because these were the jets used to slowly open the flight envelope.

Meanwhile, the program office is conducting a methodical "burn-in" process for its test fleet to allow them to return to normal flying status and move forward with testing as planned. The fourth jet of 20 in the flight test fleet is undergoing that process now, according to JPO spokeswoman Kyra Hawn.

Click to expand...

PACIFIC OCEAN (Nov. 3, 2014) The Navy made aviation history Nov. 3 as an F-35C Lightning II carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter conducted its first arrested landing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) off the coast of San Diego. The arrested landing is part of initial at-sea Developmental Testing I (DT-I) for the F-35C, which commenced Nov. 3 and is expected to last two weeks. (U.S. Navy video/Released)

Click to expand...

http://youtu.be/STVAM85y3i0

http://youtu.be/3BOt0a_tGRg

http://youtu.be/UlxxeogPBoE

• http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84238
• http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/11/f-35c-carrier-variant-is-at-sea-finally/

Closeup of the redesigned tailhook just before grabbing the wire.

Click to expand...

The F-35 joint strike fighter is scheduled to achieve initial operational capability (IOC) for the Air Force in August of 2016. And for the first time, the man in charge of the F-35 program is warning that date looks unlikely.

“I am very worried now that my promise to [the Air Force] to give them all the things they need to declare IOC on August 1 of 2016 I might not be able to give them,” Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the F-35 program executive, told reporters Oct. 30.

For critics of the F-35, this will be just more proof that the stealthy, fifth-generation jet is a boondoggle, a failed program, the infamous billion dollar “Jet That Ate The Pentagon.” And certainly, the F-35 has a long history of issues, with Bogdan often referring to its history of cost overruns and failed promises as “tragic.”

But this story comes with a twist: the issue worrying Bogdan isn’t one of technology. Instead, it’s a logistical one largely outside the control of the F-35 program office – and it ties into a plane that first flew in 1972.

The A-10 Warthog, it seems, may have just claimed the Air Force’s F-35 IOC date as its latest victim.

Here’s how it happened. To hit IOC in August 2016, the Air Force has a number of requirements. One of those is to have 1,100 trained maintainers available across the US.

Of that 1,100, the Air Force planned to draw 800 maintainers from the pool of A-10 crews out there. Makes sense, right? The A-10 was being retired and the F-35 spun up, so this is a way to keep experienced maintenance professionals in the service and move them onto the plane of the future.

Except, well… Congress had thoughts.

As has been well documented, the plan to retire the A-10 met sharp resistance on the Hill. And while the Air Force intends to continue trying to retire the plane, barring a shocking turnaround the A-10 is sticking around for at least one more year, and potentially beyond. Which means those 800 maintainers who were going to be moved to the F-35 are still needed in their current roles.

So ok, could the program just train new maintainers rather than take those from the A-10? It’s not that simple, according to Bogdan, because it takes a lot longer to train new maintainers than retrain experienced professionals. In his own words:

“A combination of those 1,100 people include new trainees and experienced maintainers from other platforms. Why that’s important to me is it takes a much longer time to get a new guy up to speed maintaining an F-35 than it does to get an experienced guy. We have different training syllabuses, and different training requirements, and different certification levels for a guy who comes in who is a tech sergeant or a master sergeant who used to be a level 7 maintainer on a fighter airplane as opposed to a one-striper.

…

So I went back and did an analysis and found that out of that 1,100, [the Air Force was] planning on giving me 800 experienced guys and now you tell me you can’t, and you can only backfill with younger guys, [and] it’s going to take me longer to train all your 1,100 maintainers.

How much longer? Bogdan said that an experienced maintainer, like the 800 he was expecting to get from the A-10 pool, can do the F-35 maintenance training 9-12 months more quickly than a new serviceman.

“Even if they can give me enough people, if they don’t give me enough experienced people it’s still going to take me longer to get them to the right number of maintainers for IOC,” he said.

Which leaves the Air Force in a precarious position, and one that everyone in the service and Bogdan’s office alike has tried very hard to avoid: being forced to acknowledge that the August 1 2016 IOC date is now at risk.

Asked what a more realistic date may be, Bogdan indicated he will work with the Air Force to find a solution, but “I don’t know yet.

Click to expand...