The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

What did they not "get right" on the basic model that was part of the spec?
 
SpudmanWP said:
What did they not "get right" on the basic model that was part of the spec?
Click to expand...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-problems-with-the-f-35-that-the-pentagon-found-in-a-2014-report-2015-3?r=US&IR=T

Too long to quote.
 
Ian the only thing relevant to the EOTS in that article, and the 2013-2014 DOT&E report it references is
Deficiencies in the Block 2B mission systems software affecting the WDA events were identified in fusion, radar, passive sensors, identification friend-or-foe, electro-optical targeting system and the aircraft navigation model.
Click to expand...
Which doesn't seem particularly serious if they've since been conducting WDA; you might as well ask how they can produce the Sniper ATP-SE targeting pod if the Sniper ATP had deficiencies during development.
 
It also says it's a deficiency (to be fixed) with the SOFTWARE (Block 2B).... not the HARDWARE (EOTS).
 
The EOTS upgrade is necessary if not critical. The development of the aircraft itself takes too long that its subsystems became obsolete by the time the aircraft become operational. The current EOTS is inferior than alot of the same hardware that are currently available on the market.


The problem doesn't lie with integration of the upgrade with the actual airframe. It's the assembly line. The organizational structure of assembly line of the f-35 is massive and extremely complex and precise (originally in order to give a piece of pie to every partner involved as well as supposedly drive cost down later). Any introduction of upgrades or modification that deviates from the original plan is extremely tricky. NOT a technological challenge, but an organizational one.
 
Now is the perfect time to make the switch. Annual production is slow enough that each shop only uses a corner for a month or so in order to crank out the whole year's worth of orders. EOTS is a small enough component that no single company depends on EOTS as a make-it or break-it item.


Based on the above article, it sounds like an EOTS module can be "Factory Refurbished" to the Advanced standard. So it's relatively simple to begin producing AdvEOTS alongside normal EOTS through the testing stage and slowly convert to all AdvEOTS as it meets it's milestones. This would be similar to the way they still produce AMRAAMs (C7 or D) depending on the customer.
 
So you're going to "factory refurb" the EOTS with new cameras, added sensors, different optics and a new gimbal. So what are you going to retain, the obsolete processors? Rubbish. It's a new system.


It's actually pretty funny watching the F-35 fans minimizing the cost of E/O targeting systems, when a few months ago they were all about how expensive they were, because they were trying to downplay the cost differential between the Super Guppy and the Rhino.


The question for the customers - at least those who have an option to eke out the lives of their current jets - is how many of their jets do they want to slip into "cheaper and better" Block 4.
 
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/10/02/f-35-drops-bombs-from-wings-for-first-time/
 
LowObservable said:
So you're going to "factory refurb" the EOTS with new cameras, added sensors, different optics and a new gimbal. So what are you going to retain, the obsolete processors? Rubbish. It's a new system.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a large amount of common parts to me.


"The aircraft interface structure stays the same. The optical bed stays the same. Many of the sub components stay the same for affordability. The gimbal is new and we add a new SWIR camera."
Click to expand...
 
The aircraft interface structure = same bent tin. The optics and the gimbal are the expensive custom bits, and the focal planes will be outsourced. So this is not going to be minor.


Not end-of-the-world expensive either, but given its effect on training and ops, tempting for an operator to wait...
 
Published on Oct 3, 2015

Two F-35C Lightning II carrier variants conducted their first arrested landings aboard the U.S. Navy's USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) off the coast of the eastern United States on Oct. 2, 2015. The landing kicks off the Pax River Integrated Test Force's two-week follow-on sea trial testing aboard the Eisenhower.

https://youtu.be/wTF2mxxPqgo
 
LowObservable said:
The aircraft interface structure = same bent tin. The optics and the gimbal are the expensive custom bits, and the focal planes will be outsourced. So this is not going to be minor.


Not end-of-the-world expensive either, but given its effect on training and ops, tempting for an operator to wait...
Click to expand...


LM has been insourcing its FPA development and manufacturing for the last 20 years; the higher resolution MWIR FPA is already flying.
The expense of IR optics is no longer the biggest issue; with the explosion of HD IR use in the commercial space
(practically every new Bizjet has an IR camera) availability is a big challenge as Ms. Oprah Winfrey will not be kept waiting.

The key concern for the gimbal would be a new slip ring to accommodate the higher data rates being generated by the new/enlarged sensors but it's something the entire industry is tackling reasonably well.

Training and ops: the ATP -> ATP-SE transition involving two different vendors has gone pretty smoothly.
 
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/04/navy-f-35c-pilot-gears-up-testing-carrier-ike/73106716/
 
BS?

"Pentagon Worries That Russia Can Now Outshoot U.S. Stealth Jets"
by Dave Majumdar
12.04.14

Source:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html

High flying and fast, the F-22 Raptor stealth jet is by far the most lethal fighter America has ever built. But the Raptor—and indeed all U.S. fighters—have a potential Achilles’ heel, according to a half-dozen current and former Air Force officials. The F-22’s long-range air-to-air missiles might not be able to hit an enemy aircraft, thanks to new enemy radar-jamming techniques.

The issue has come to the fore as tensions continue to rise with Russia and a potential conflict between the great powers is once again a possibility—even if a remote one.

“We—the U.S. [Department of Defense]—haven’t been pursuing appropriate methods to counter EA [electronic attack] for years,” a senior Air Force official with extensive experience on the F-22 told The Daily Beast. “So, while we are stealthy, we will have a hard time working our way through the EA to target [an enemy aircraft such as a Russian-built Sukhoi] Su-35s and our missiles will have a hard time killing them.”

The problem is that many potential adversaries, such as the Chinese and the Russians, have developed advanced digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers. These jammers, which effectively memorize an incoming radar signal and repeat it back to the sender, seriously hamper the performance of friendly radars.

Worse, these new jammers essentially blind the small radars found onboard air-to-air missiles like the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, which is the primary long-range weapon for all U.S. and most allied fighter planes.

That means it could take several missile shots to kill an enemy fighter, even for an advanced stealth aircraft like the Raptor. “While exact Pk [probability of kill] numbers are classified, let’s just say that I won’t be killing these guys one for one,” the senior Air Force official said. It’s the “same issue” for earlier American fighters like the F-15, F-16, or F/A-18.

Another Air Force official with experience on the stealthy new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter agreed. “AMRAAM’s had some great upgrades over the years, but at the end of the day, it’s old technology and wasn’t really designed with today’s significant EA in mind,” this official said.

Like boxers, every missile has a reach, a range, a limit to how far it can hit. In the not-too-distant future, the AMRAAM might also be out-ranged by new weapons that are being developed around the world. Particularly, Russia is known to be developing an extremely long-range weapon called the K-100 that has far better reach than anything currently in existence.

The problem is not a new one. Historically, the Pentagon has always prioritized the development of new fighters over the development new weapons—it’s a uniquely American blind spot. During the 1970s, the then brand new F-15A Eagle carried the same antiquated armament as the Vietnam-era F-4 Phantom II. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the F-15 received a weapon in the form of the AMRAAM that could take full advantage of its abilities. The same applies to short-range weapons—it wasn’t until the early 2000s with the introduction of the AIM-9X that the U.S. had a dogfighting weapon that could match or better the Russian R-73 Archer missile.

The Air Force officials all said that some of the American missiles would get through during a fight—there is no question of that—but it would take a lot more weapons than anyone ever expected. The problem is that fighter aircraft don’t carry that many missiles.

The Raptor carries six AMRAAMs and two shorter range AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles inside its weapons bays. At the moment, the F-35 carries only four AMRAAM missiles inside its weapons bays, but that might be expanded to six in the future. Older fighters like the Boeing F-15 Eagle carry no more than eight missiles—while the F-16 usually carries no more than six weapons.

That means that if a fighter has to fire—for instance—three missiles to kill a single enemy fighter, the Pentagon is facing a serious problem.

“Getting a first shot is one thing,” said a former Air Force fighter pilot with extensive experience with Russian weapons. “Needing another shot when you have expended your load is another when your force structure is limited in terms of the number of platforms available for a given operation.”

There are some potential solutions, but all of them mean spending more money to develop new missiles. former Air Force intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula said it’s “critical” that the U.S. and its allies move “air-to-air weapons into a future where they can effectively deal with adversary electronic attack.”

One relatively simple fix would be to develop a missile that picks out its targets using radars with a completely different frequency band. Current fighter radars and missiles operate on what is called the X-band, but they don’t necessarily have to. “Getting out of X band is on option,” said one senior Air Force official.

The Pentagon could also develop a new missile that combines multiple types of sensors such as infrared and radar into the same weapon—which has been attempted without much success in the past.

Right now, the Defense Department—led by the Navy—is working to increase the range of the AIM-9X version of the Sidewinder by 60 percent to give the Pentagon’s fighter fleet some sort of counter to the jamming problem. But even with the extended reach, the modified Sidewinder won’t have anywhere close to the range of an AMRAAM.

The other option is to stuff fighters like the F-22 and F-35 with more missiles that are smaller. Lockheed Martin, for example, is developing a small long-range air-to-air missile called the “Cuda” that could double or triple the number of weapons carried by either U.S. stealth fighter. “Look to a new generation of U.S. air-to-air missiles, like Cuda, to neutralize any potential numerical advantage,” one senior industry official said.

The industry official said that despite the small size, new weapons like the Cuda can offer extremely impressive range because it doesn’t have an explosive warhead—it just runs into the target and destroys it with sheer kinetic energy.

But the senior Air Force official expressed deep skepticism that such a weapon could be both small and far-reaching. “I doubt you can solve range and the need for a large magazine with the same missile,” he said.

This official added that future weapons would be far better at countering enemy jamming—so much so that future fighters will not need to have the sheer speed and maneuverability of an aircraft like the Raptor. “I think top end speed, super cruise, and acceleration will all decline in importance as weapons advance in range and speed,” he said.

For a military that’s committed hundreds of billions of dollars to such advanced fighters, such developments might not exactly be welcome news.
Click to expand...
 
sferrin said:
That article is almost a year old.
Click to expand...

Since the article was written, the FY 2016 budget cancelled the AIM-9X Block III. I don't know the status of Lockheed Martin CUDA.

Is DRFM jamming, or other electronic attack, an issue for missiles such as the Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM? Would the Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM use HOJ?
 
As with all jamming, the closer the missile gets to teh target, the less effective the jamming is.


Good thing the -120D has a new 2-way datalink and GPS INS to help keep it on track.
 
SpudmanWP said:
As with all jamming, the closer the missile gets to teh target, the less effective the jamming is.


Good thing the -120D has a new 2-way datalink and GPS INS to help keep it on track.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the Raytheon AIM-9X Block III is unnecessary because of the new 2-way datalink and GPS INS? Is this why it was cancelled in FY 2016?


"US Navy hopes to increase AIM-9X range by 60%"
18 July, 2013 BY: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-hopes-to-increase-aim-9x-range-by-60-388468/

The US Navy is hoping to increase the range of the new Raytheon AIM-9X Block III by some 60% over current Sidewinder variants due to the unique needs of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) says. The new weapon is scheduled to become operational in 2022.

"The Block III range requirement was in response to Joint Strike Fighter requirements in the 2020+ timeframe," NAVAIR says. "The design is anticipated to increase AIM-9X employment ranges by 60%."

NAVAIR says the current Block II AIM-9X already overlaps some of the range capability of the more powerful Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM, however the new Block III variant will increase that overlap. The AIM-9X Block III's increased range will "provide fighter aircraft with increased capacity of BVR [beyond visual range] weapons for tactical flexibility," NAVAIR says.

The need for that added flexibility arises from the proliferation of advanced digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers that many potential adversaries are adding to their fighter fleets. DRFM jammers have the potential to blind the AMRAAM's onboard radar, which makes the AIM-9X's passive imaging infra-red guidance system a useful alternative means to defeat those threats. While a completely new missile would have been ideal, the Pentagon is faced with era of declining budgets and has to take into account the price tag of any new weapon.

"Programme affordability was a primary concern for new missile development," NAVAIR says. "Modifying the existing AIM-9X for increased range provides a highly affordable solution for meeting the performance requirement."

To create the new AIM-9X Block III, the NAVAIR will primarily focus on the missile's rocket motor. "Increased range will be achieved through a combination of increased rocket motor performance and missile power management," NAVAIR says.

In addition to an improved, more energetic, rocket motor, the enhanced weapon will also have a new insensitive munitions warhead, which will be safer to use onboard an aircraft carrier. However, the Block III will "leverage" the current Block II's guidance unit and electronics-including the missile's AMRAAM-derived datalink.

While the Pentagon needs the new Sidewinder to be a supplemental BVR weapon for situations where friendly fighters are faced with electronic attacks that degrade with radar-guided weapons, it will not compromise on the AIM-9X's close in performance. "The requirement and design call for the same WVR [within visual range]/HOBS [high off-boresight] capabilities as those found in the AIM-9X Block II," NAVAIR says.

The Block III is currently scheduled to enter into its engineering and manufacturing development phase in 2016, NAVAIR says. Subsequently, it will go into developmental testing in 2018 with operational tests starting in 2020. If all goes well, an initial operational capability date is expected in 2022. "The Block III development schedule follows the increased number of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft entering service," NAVAIR says.
Click to expand...
 
It may have been a contributing factor.


Another thing to ponder is that the Superhornet cannot put an AMRAAM on the outer wing station (unlike the F-16) and maybe the AIM-9X Blk3 was a way to get a longer ranged weapon on this station. Maybe this is why they did not simply put a 9X seeker on an AMRAAM body?
 
"Lockheed considering laser weapon concepts for F-35"
05 October, 2015 BY: James Drew Washington DC

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-considering-laser-weapon-concepts-for-f-35-417416/

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 has not yet seen combat, but already the defence manufacturer is exploring “concepts” for installing and employing a high-power fibre laser weapon on the new-generation combat jet for shooting down missiles and other airborne threats.

The company believes it finally has the right technology to produce modular and scalable fibre laser weapons for trucks, ships and aircraft, and a high-power, 60kW example will enter production for the US Army later this month.

The F-35 has been in development since 2001 and only recently was declared fit for combat with the US Marine Corps. However, Lockheed’s Rob Afzal says company engineers are already thinking about how a laser weapon system could fit onto the supersonic stealth fighter and its usefulness in combat.

“Absolutely, we’re looking at concepts for the integration of a laser weapon onto the F-35,” the Lockheed senior fellow for laser and sensor systems said at a media briefing 5 October.

“We’re also looking at the utility and doing models and calculations so you would understand the utility of a leaser weapon system in the F-35.”

Afzal’s comments come amid a revolution in the combining and directing of electric lasers to essentially burn rockets, missiles and unmanned aircraft out of the sky.

The US military has unlocked millions of dollars for directed energy research and development, as has Germany, Russia and China.

In particular, the US Air Force is pursing laser weapon systems for installation on supersonic fighter jets as well as the AC-130J Ghostrider gunship being built for US special forces.

Once introduced, the F-35 will remain in service for 30 to 40 years, and is a likely candidate for a fighter-based airborne laser module.

Lockheed says it would offer an airborne derivative of the system it is developing for the army, which uses spectral beam combining to channel energy from a stack of individual fibre laser modules into a “single, high-power, monolithic beam”.

The company claims laser efficiency rates as high as 40%, and says its modular design is scalable to higher power outputs with significantly more redundancy and resistance to battle damage.

Combined with the Aero-adaptive Aero-optic Beam Control (ABC) turret the company is developing in partnership with the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Air Force Research Laboratory – Lockheed says a functional airborne laser weapon could be deployed by the end of the decade.

“We’re certainly talking to the air force about their plans and roadmap for developing laser weapons for F-35 and other platforms,” says Afzal. “We would want to do that in partnership with the air force, both with the turret and platform.”

The company is taking a number of approaches to aircraft protection, and is also pursuing a miniature self-defense munition through a project called “KICM”.

Lockheed’s first 60kW laser will be delivered to the army “late next year,” and in the meantime the company will begin army-sponsored trials of its ground-based, 30kW high-energy laser testbed called ATHENA at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico later this year.
Click to expand...
 
SpudmanWP said:
Another thing to ponder is that the Superhornet cannot put an AMRAAM on the outer wing station (unlike the F-16) and maybe the AIM-9X Blk3 was a way to get a longer ranged weapon on this station. Maybe this is why they did not simply put a 9X seeker on an AMRAAM body?
Click to expand...

I would have thought that the NAVAIR spokesperson would have mentioned that if that was the case. ???
 
Dragon029 said:
It does have HOJ, but that doesn't make it invulnerable to all jamming.
Click to expand...

I'd like to elaborate on this.

There are towed jammers in use, for example with Typhoon. These towed jammers can have the output power of an onboard system (power supply and processing done by the plane) and at the same time be so far behind the aircraft that home-on-jam would almost guarantee a miss. Missiles with a fuse set to hit-to-kill mode or no proximity fuse at all would almost certainly miss and thus leave intact even the towed jammer.

Example links:
http://theaviationist.com/tag/towed-radar-decoy/
http://www.selex-es.com/-/britecloudlaunch
http://www.selex-es.com/-/ariel
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ale50/

Free-flying decoys exist as well, but they're large and expensive (such as MALD), while other active RF decoys may be dropped like chaff or flares used to be. http://www.selex-es.com/product-portfolio/electronic-warfare/britecloud/britecloud-3


Furthermore, it's perfectly possible to coordinate the ECM between the aircraft and ground emitters in a networked air defence effort. A defending fighter could receive support by ground jammers just as attacking (or defending) aircraft could be supported by aerial standoff jammers.
 
Triton said:
I would have thought that the NAVAIR spokesperson would have mentioned that if that was the case. ???
Click to expand...


The fact that they expressed the desired solution as a further development of the AIM-9X that would require development of unknown systems which leads to not knowing if it can be achieved leads me to that conclusion.


If they simply wanted a medium range IIR missile then they could have simply added the 9x seeker to the AMRAAM body and been done with it. If they wanted to up it's off-rail maneuverability then they could have spent a little amount of dev cash and developed TVC for it in the same fashion as the 9x.


The only reason to eek out some range imporvments without expanding the missile size is if that the missile size is your overriding limitation.


Anyways, that's what I was thinking.
 
Northrop Delivers First Fuselage for Japanese-Made F-35

10/6/2015

​Northrop Grumman delivered the first fuselage for the first F-35 strike fighter to be assembled in Japan. On Oct. 2, the company unveiled the fuselage at its Palmdale, Calif., facility. The fuselage will be a part of the first Japanese-made F-35 assembled at the Final Assembly and Checkout facility in Nagoya. The fuselage will be part of a conventional takeoff and landing variant. Consul General of Japan, Hidehisa Horinouchi, represented Japan at the ceremony. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries will assemble and checkout the Japanese F-35s, according to a program office release. The milestone comes about one month after the first Italian-made F-35 took its first flight on Sept. 7 at Cameri AB, Italy.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Triton said:
I would have thought that the NAVAIR spokesperson would have mentioned that if that was the case. ???
Click to expand...


The fact that they expressed the desired solution as a further development of the AIM-9X that would require development of unknown systems which leads to not knowing if it can be achieved leads me to that conclusion.


If they simply wanted a medium range IIR missile then they could have simply added the 9x seeker to the AMRAAM body and been done with it. If they wanted to up it's off-rail maneuverability then they could have spent a little amount of dev cash and developed TVC for it in the same fashion as the 9x.


The only reason to eek out some range imporvments without expanding the missile size is if that the missile size is your overriding limitation.


Anyways, that's what I was thinking.
Click to expand...

A longer-range weapon to work with the new F/A-18 Super Hornet infrared search and track (IRST) system?
 
I was wondering if an AIM-9X family missile also has a tiny radar cross section on stations 1 and 11 on the F-35?

A new 'stealthy' pylon has been developed for the external ASRAAM and MBDA notes that the finless missile already has a tiny radar cross-section. Carrying the ASRAAM outside the weapons bay brings several advantages, primarily in allowing passive long-range - beyond-visual-range (BVR) - engagements cued by the missile's seeker or the F-35's infrared search and track sensor.
Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-51769-page1.aspx#startofcomments


The fiscal 2016 budget request would cancel the Raytheon AIM-9X Block III, an increased-range version of the air-to-air missile with a more powerful motor. In April 2014, AIM-9X program manager Capt. John Martins said that the Block III was primarily intended for the F-35C because it would permit the fighter to carry six beyond-visual range missiles: four AIM-120s internally and two Block IIIs on outer wing pylons. The Block III would have entered service by 2024. One element of the canceled project, a new warhead meeting insensitive munition standards, will continue into the AIM-9X program
Click to expand...

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35cs-cut-back-us-navy-invests-standoff-weapons
 
Triton said:
A longer-range weapon to work with the new F/A-18 Super Hornet infrared search and track (IRST) system?
Click to expand...


Any sensor can launch any weapon as long as the track is weapon's quality.
 
SpudmanWP said:
If they simply wanted a medium range IIR missile then they could have simply added the 9x seeker to the AMRAAM body and been done with it.
Click to expand...

Not quite. The sensor warms up too much during long flight at Mach3+ due to friction. One could develop a protective cone to be removed for terminal engagement as with IRIS-T SL, but that's much more of a development effort than you suggested.
 
lastdingo said:
Not quite. The sensor warms up too much during long flight at Mach3+ due to friction. One could develop a protective cone to be removed for terminal engagement as with IRIS-T SL, but that's much more of a development effort than you suggested.
Click to expand...

A nose that pops off is nothing like developing a new missile. Much simpler.
 
lastdingo said:
Not quite. The sensor warms up too much during long flight at Mach3+ due to friction.
Click to expand...
If that were an issue then they could change from the current all-boost grain motor to the old style boost/sustain motor design.
 
"Lasers Could Be Coming To The F-35"
by Patrick Tucker
10/06/15

Source:
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/10/lasers-could-be-coming-f-35/122581/

Lockheed Martin’s new modular fiber lasers now convert fully 40 percent of input energy to output, which means that — along with advances in manufacturing, targeting, and size-weight-power minimization — the company’s now talking about putting a laser weapon on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

“We are absolutely looking at concepts for integration,” Robert Afzal, the company’s senior fellow of laser systems and sensors, told reporters yesterday.

Unlike solid-state bulk lasers that rely on crystal components, or powerful but unstable chemical lasers, fiber lasers generate their beams inside fiber optics, making the device more flexible and efficient. Afzal compared it to a prism that works in reverse. Whereas a prism takes light and fractures it into beams of different colors, a fiber laser merges several beams into one.

Moreover, Lockheed Martin has developed a way to adjust a laser weapon’s output by adding modules, allowing it to be tailored for missions or threats.

The company is under contract to deliver a 60-kilowatt fiber laser to the Pentagon next year. “The Army has the option to add more modules and increase power from 60kW to 120kW as a result of the laser’s modularity,” the company said in a press release.

“Because the laser is so electrically efficient, the laser weapon will be smaller than previous technologies,” said Afzal.

Those efficiency gains could make it suitable for jets. The company faces competition from rival General Atomics, which has already delivered a 150-kilowatt solid-state laser to the Pentagon for testing and is looking into mounting one on the company’s Predator C drone.

The Air Force has recently become more bold in its predictions that a laser could be airborne by 2020. For instance, the Missile Defense Agency recently announced that they were revamping the Airborne Laser Program that was shuttered in 2012. The goal is to fly an airborne laser demonstrator in 2021.

“Everybody thinks you have a tendency to talk about high-powered microwaves and lasers and it’s kind of science fiction,” Air Combat Command leader Gen. Herbert Carlisle, the leader of Air Combat Command, said at the recent Air Force Association Air and Space Conference. “But this is a reality. … I believe that we will have a directed energy capability in a pod that can be mounted on a fighter aircraft very soon.”

Afzal cautioned that an F-35 laser was currently mostly a topic of interest and discussion within the company.

“What we’re doing is we’re looking at the concepts. How would a system even go into the F-35? And we’re also looking into the utility and doing models and calculations to see the utility,” he said.

And Air Force officials have hinted that they’re interested in putting a laser on the jet, although other have noted that such a weapon would primarily be intended to protect a plane from enemy aircraft — something the F-35’s stealth features are already supposed to do.

“We’re certainly talking to the Air Force about their plans, their roadmap, for developing laser weapons for F-35 and other platforms. We would want to do that in partnership with the Air Force,” said Iain Mckinnie, business development lead for Laser Sensors and Systems, Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training.
Click to expand...
 
"F-35 Fatal Ejection Fear Riles Congress"
By Lara Seligman 3:06 p.m. EDT October 5, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/10/05/f-35-fatal-ejection-fear-riles-congress/73219260/

WASHINGTON — Concern is mounting on Capitol Hill after recent tests revealed a lightweight F-35 pilot's neck could snap when ejecting at certain speeds.

The fears focus on the Martin-Baker US16E ejection seat. During testing of the new Generation 3 helmet this summer, testers discovered the risk of fatal neck injury when a lighter pilot ejects during slower-speed flights, according to a source with knowledge of the program. Testers discovered the ejection snapped the necks of lighter-weight test dummies, the source said.

Until the problem is fixed, the US military services decided to restrict pilots weighing under 136 pounds from operating the plane, Defense News first reported Oct. 1.

Since the issue emerged, lawmakers have vowed to push for increased oversight of the F-35, with one congresswoman condemning the program for "malpractice." Rep. Jackie Speier, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, slammed the Pentagon for rushing tests to field the plane prematurely.

"We're seeing these flight restrictions because the F-35's ejector seats weren't tested to the level they would be on a normal aircraft, and the Pentagon rushed to field them prematurely. This is yet another example of the kind of procurement malpractice we should be avoiding," the California Democrat said in an email to Defense News last week.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces pledged to hold an oversight hearing on the issue.

"We're having an F-35 hearing scheduled for Oct. 21. I'm certain it will show up then," Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said, noting that he was not previously aware of the ejection seat concern. "I am going to have an oversight hearing on this."

At least one F-35 pilot is affected by the weight restriction, according to Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova, who added that the rule was announced Aug. 27. He said the issue does not affect the first and only female F-35 pilot, Lt. Col. Christina Mau, the 33rd Operations Group deputy commander.

"The bottom line is they have to get into the realm where the seat allows that weight of a pilot less than 136 pounds [to] safely eject out of the airplane," Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, the F-35 integration office director, told Defense News last week.

"They found some areas that, particularly at slower speeds, they were concerned about, so that drove the restriction that we have right now."

The ejection seat issue is not related to the new Generation 3 helmet, built by Rockwell Collins and delivered to the JPO in August, DellaVedova said. But a source with knowledge of the program said the added weight of the new helmet compared to the Gen 2 version aggravates the ejection seat issue.

A standard ejection is a two-stage event, according to Lockheed's F-35 website. First, an explosive charge or rocket motor integrated with the seat breaches the windscreen canopy. Second, the seat and pilot are launched upward via a rail system through the opening at a jarring rate of 12-14 Gs.

In August, testers discovered that when a lighter pilot is ejecting, the Martin-Baker seat rotates forward a bit too much, according to the source. That forward motion combined with the force of the ejection proved too much for the lighter dummies, snapping their necks.

"It's that light pilot and the center of gravity of the seat," Col. Todd Canterbury, who was commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing until June, told Defense News last week. "It all has to do with getting that center of gravity kind of located within the window, we call it, for safe seat-man separation."

Canterbury, who flew F-35 software versions 1B, 2A, 3i and 2B, stressed that the weight restriction is an interim fix and the JPO is working closely with Martin-Baker and aircraft builder Lockheed Martin on a permanent solution.

The Air Force expects that industry will provide a solution to meet the requirement, according to Lt. Col. Christopher Karns.

"We are interested in a solution that is viable for all our pilots and to ensure their safety to the maximum extent practical," Karns said. "It is vitally important to ensure the F-35 community has the safest ejection seat possible. We owe it to our warfighters."

In the meantime, very few pilots appear to be impacted by the problem. The three F-35 pilots at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, are not affected by the restriction, according to Maj. Brad Matherne, assistant director of operations for the 34th Fighter Squadron.

"To be honest, it doesn't affect us at all because all our pilots weigh above 136 pounds, and to my knowledge there is only one Air Force pilot that weighs less than that, at Eglin," Matherne said in an Oct. 1 interview.

For at least one international partner, the new weight restriction is not a concern. None of Norway's F-35 pilots beginning to train on the country's new jets at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, are affected by the weight limit, according to Col. Jarle Nergård, program manager for operations with the Norwegian F-35 Program Office.

Since the Norwegian Air Force has even tighter weight restrictions on its current F-16 fleet, "there isn't a single fighter pilot in the Norwegian Air Force that is affected" by the 136-pound restriction, Nergård told Defense News in an email.

Nergård also said discoveries like this are to be expected in a test program, and that the F-35 is meant to accommodate a greater range of pilot body types and weights than legacy fighter aircraft.

"The incredible amount of force involved once you have an ejection means that you are playing at the limits of human tolerance," Nergård said. "As partners, we do support the interim actions by the US Air Force as they are directly affected by the issue. We all have the safety of our pilots as our No. 1 priority."

Pilot safety is the services' top concern, US officials said.

"Safety is our No. 1 concern and we want to make sure that we give the warfighter the safest ejection seat capable out there," Canterbury, now the chief of the F-35 Integration Office Operations Division, said on Tuesday. "As we discover things, we can weigh the risk of what's acceptable and what's not, and right now, until we fully understand the implication of the seat, safety is our No. 1 priority."

Martin-Baker could not be reached for comment, and Lockheed Martin referred questions to the JPO.
Click to expand...
 
"Italy’s Air Force Chief On The F-35, Eurofighter And Predator
By Robbin Laird on October 12, 2015 at 2:16 PM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/italys-air-force-chief-on-the-f-35-eurofighter-and-predator/

Italy’s Air Force, like that of Britain, is undergoing a double transition as they bring together the F-35 and the Eurofighter.

I met with Air Force Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Pasquale Preziosa and discussed Italy’s way ahead. For Preziosa, the close relationship with the British is important in learning how to accomplish both Eurofighter modernization and working with the F-35.

In the Italian case, the new Cameri facility is a key element for the Italian Air Force. Located on an Italian Air Force base, the Italian government has built a 22-building facility to support the F-35.

The support comes in three parts. First, there is a Final Check Out and Assembly facility, where there is the possibility for assembling Italy’s F-35As and F-35Bs, as well as those for other European F-35 partners, with the first one being the Netherlands.

Second, there’s a wing construction facility where Italy will build a minimum of 835 full wings for the F-35 program. The first wing has already been installed on an American F-35A. Third, there are 22 buildings with more than a million square feet of covered work space to build out support for F-35s operated by the US and allies in Europe.

Given how busy the Mediterranean and the Middle East are as operational areas, the Cameri facility can provide significant operational support to the F-35 fleet in the area.

The general and I started our conversations by focusing on the recent first flight of an Italian-built F-35 in Italian airspace. It also marked the first flight of an F-35 outside of the United States.

“The quality of the aircraft which has come off of the Italian line clearly demonstrates the competence of our industry and the importance of our strategic partnerships with U.S. and global defense industry,” Preziosa said. “The fact that the Dutch Air Force will buy planes from the Italian line is also a recognition of the quality of the Italian effort.”

For Preziosa, the F-35 is really a different type of plane in ways probably not well captured by the term fifth-generation aircraft. “The F-22 and the F-35 are called fifth-generation aircraft, but really the F-35 is the first airplane built for the digital age, we are rapidly moving from the dog-fight concept to the data-fight evolution of the broad utilization of air power. It was conceived in and for that age, and is built around the decision tools in the cockpit and is in fact a ‘flying brain.’

“It is a multi-tasking aircraft, and fits well into the iPhone age. Other aircraft – with the exception of the F-22 – are built to maximize out as multi-mission aircraft, which execute tasks sequentially and directed to do so.

“The F-35 fleet thinks and hunts and can move around the mission set as pilots operate in the battlespace and leverage the data fusion system,” the general said. “It is a battlespace dominance aircraft; not a classic air superiority, air defense or ground attack aircraft. It changes the classic distinctions; confuses them and defines a whole new way to look at a combat aircraft, one built for the joint force age as well. The Army and the Navy will discover, as the F-35 fleet becomes a reality, how significant the F-35 is for their combat efforts.”

Among the things that set the F-35 apart from other fighters, General Preziosa focused on its passive sensors.

“The passive sensing capabilities of the F-35 fleet is largely ignored in the public discussion of the F-35; but this unique combat capability will be crucial in the period ahead to establish air dominance and the kind of combat effects we want to shape and execute,” he said. “Related to and separate from this is what can be called the ‘off-boarding revolution’ whereby the F-35 operates in the battlespace and enables the payload deliverers whether in the Air, Sea on Land to deliver the kind of kinetic effect we would want.”

For Italy, the Eurofighter mustl be modified to work more effectively with the F-35. The payload evolution of the Eurofighter is significant, and weapons modernization will support both the F-35 and the Eurofighter in providing new tools for air operations.

“There is nothing static in airpower; there is always a fluid dynamic, and the F-35 provides a benchmark for now for air power excellence and for several decades moving ahead we will leverage the decision tools and multi-tasking capabilities of the F-35 as well add capabilities to our Air Forces,” the general said.

We discussed the recently announced deal with Kuwait to buy Eurofighters. He said the professionalism and competence of the Italian Air Force were key factors in the final decision.

Preziosa noted that the Kuwaitis were clearly aware of the work the RAF and Italy were doing to ensure that F-35 and Eurofighter would be able to work together. They also focused upon the training infrastructure in Italy and the maturity of the Eurofighter support structure as important elements of down selecting the Eurofighter for the Kuwaiti Air Force.

And, of course, the Saudi use of Eurofighter and their own positive views of the Saudi experience in current Middle Eastern operations played a part as well. The Saudis have relied heavily on the Eurofighter in current air campaigns in Yemen.

A final topic for discussion was the operation of Predators by the Italian Air Force in Djibouti. Here the Predator enterprise (if one might call it that) had already shaped ways to share data, and the data sharing arrangements with Predator presaged some of the ways the F-35 fleet will also share data: “Predator is an important building block moving forward in 21st century air operations, and our data sharing capabilities have provided crucial information to shape combat decisions.”

It should be noted that Italy is the only NATO Air Force to have performed all NATO Interim Air Policing (IAP) missions in Slovenia, Albania, Iceland and the Baltic.
Click to expand...
 
"An Update on Eurofighter Modernization: The Perspective of a Former Italian Air Force Pilot"
2015-10-12 By Robbin Laird

Source:
http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-on-eurofighter-modernization-the-perspective-of-a-former-italian-air-force-pilot/

During my visit to Europe in the early Fall of 2015, one of the subjects of interest was the cross cutting modernization of the Eurofighter with the introduction of the F-35.

Clearly, the Royal Air Force and the Italian Air Force are key players in this process, but I was also able to visit Munich to talk with some key Eurofighter personnel as well.

One of those personnel was Raffaele Beltrame who is the Eurofighter Project Test Pilot for Airbus Defence and Space, Germany.

Previously, he was a Tornado pilot in the Italian Air Force and clearly understands a key element of the Eurofighter transition, namely, the subsuming of Tornado missions within the Eurofighter for the RAF and the IAF.

He has been involved with Eurofighter since the introduction of the plane to the Italian Air Force in 2004.

He highlighted that with the Tornado they could load 2 Paveway GBUs but with Eurofighter they can load 6, and clearly from this standpoint, the aircraft represents an upgrade.

We discussed the upgrade process and the evolution of the Eurofighter as well as Beltrame providing demonstration of developments in the cockpit simulator which is tied in with the situation room at the Eurofighter facility in Munich, where scenarios are worked through for the pilot to work through.

Beltrame provided a number of key takeaways from our discussion.

First, the inclusion of the air to ground mission sets in the Eurofighter are progressing well.

This was not part of the original 1990s design but modifications of the Eurofighter are allowing for this evolution.

The program has implemented a number of aerodynamic improvements to the aircraft which allow for a better execution of both the air to air and air to ground mission sets.

Second, given the ability to hold six air to air missiles along with the air to ground missiles, the pilot can be focused on the air to ground but have available systems to protect himself in the air against intruders.

Third, the organic capabilities of the aircraft are expanding, and with the expansion of capabilities, the effort is to improve the capability of the pilot to manage those expanded tasks.

This is being done by enhanced automation, the use of voice commands, and an improved helmet and pilot interface to manage the information more effectively for the targeting task.

Fourth, the Eurofighter is designed to work in a network.

The further evolution of the Eurofighter is focused on improving its ability to work in a network,, notably one being reshaped by the introduction of the F-35.

For Beltrame, a major change in air combat was underway, whereby the classical C2 structure makes no sense with the coming of the F-35 and the expanded capability of the Eurofighter to execute tasks.

As he put it: “A hierarchy certainly remains; but he who has the best situational awareness should be directing the execution of the missions.”

He also saw a clear trend to enhance the ability of the ability to leverage automated systems to can better domain knowledge to make better decisions, and this was clearly part of the evolving air combat capabilities of 21st century forces, which in turn drove demand for a different kind of C2 system as well.

He focuses as well on the challenge for air power leaders to command a fleet of F-35s and Eurofighters, which would be capable of mixed mission operations over the spectrum of warfare.

The shift from limited and sequential targeting to dynamic targeting of an interactive fleet would be a major challenge moving forward.

In other words, shaping an effective C2 system for a dynamic fleet operating in a fluid battlespace has little in common with the slow motion war which we have experienced over the past 20 years.
Click to expand...
 
Triton said:
"F-35 Fatal Ejection Fear Riles Congress"
By Lara Seligman 3:06 p.m. EDT October 5, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/10/05/f-35-fatal-ejection-fear-riles-congress/73219260/

WASHINGTON — Concern is mounting on Capitol Hill after recent tests revealed a lightweight F-35 pilot's neck could snap when ejecting at certain speeds.

The fears focus on the Martin-Baker US16E ejection seat. During testing of the new Generation 3 helmet this summer, testers discovered the risk of fatal neck injury when a lighter pilot ejects during slower-speed flights, according to a source with knowledge of the program. Testers discovered the ejection snapped the necks of lighter-weight test dummies, the source said.

Until the problem is fixed, the US military services decided to restrict pilots weighing under 136 pounds from operating the plane, Defense News first reported Oct. 1.

Since the issue emerged, lawmakers have vowed to push for increased oversight of the F-35, with one congresswoman condemning the program for "malpractice." Rep. Jackie Speier, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, slammed the Pentagon for rushing tests to field the plane prematurely.

"We're seeing these flight restrictions because the F-35's ejector seats weren't tested to the level they would be on a normal aircraft, and the Pentagon rushed to field them prematurely. This is yet another example of the kind of procurement malpractice we should be avoiding," the California Democrat said in an email to Defense News last week.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces pledged to hold an oversight hearing on the issue.

"We're having an F-35 hearing scheduled for Oct. 21. I'm certain it will show up then," Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said, noting that he was not previously aware of the ejection seat concern. "I am going to have an oversight hearing on this."

At least one F-35 pilot is affected by the weight restriction, according to Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova, who added that the rule was announced Aug. 27. He said the issue does not affect the first and only female F-35 pilot, Lt. Col. Christina Mau, the 33rd Operations Group deputy commander.

"The bottom line is they have to get into the realm where the seat allows that weight of a pilot less than 136 pounds [to] safely eject out of the airplane," Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, the F-35 integration office director, told Defense News last week.

"They found some areas that, particularly at slower speeds, they were concerned about, so that drove the restriction that we have right now."

The ejection seat issue is not related to the new Generation 3 helmet, built by Rockwell Collins and delivered to the JPO in August, DellaVedova said. But a source with knowledge of the program said the added weight of the new helmet compared to the Gen 2 version aggravates the ejection seat issue.

A standard ejection is a two-stage event, according to Lockheed's F-35 website. First, an explosive charge or rocket motor integrated with the seat breaches the windscreen canopy. Second, the seat and pilot are launched upward via a rail system through the opening at a jarring rate of 12-14 Gs.

In August, testers discovered that when a lighter pilot is ejecting, the Martin-Baker seat rotates forward a bit too much, according to the source. That forward motion combined with the force of the ejection proved too much for the lighter dummies, snapping their necks.

"It's that light pilot and the center of gravity of the seat," Col. Todd Canterbury, who was commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing until June, told Defense News last week. "It all has to do with getting that center of gravity kind of located within the window, we call it, for safe seat-man separation."

Canterbury, who flew F-35 software versions 1B, 2A, 3i and 2B, stressed that the weight restriction is an interim fix and the JPO is working closely with Martin-Baker and aircraft builder Lockheed Martin on a permanent solution.

The Air Force expects that industry will provide a solution to meet the requirement, according to Lt. Col. Christopher Karns.

"We are interested in a solution that is viable for all our pilots and to ensure their safety to the maximum extent practical," Karns said. "It is vitally important to ensure the F-35 community has the safest ejection seat possible. We owe it to our warfighters."

In the meantime, very few pilots appear to be impacted by the problem. The three F-35 pilots at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, are not affected by the restriction, according to Maj. Brad Matherne, assistant director of operations for the 34th Fighter Squadron.

"To be honest, it doesn't affect us at all because all our pilots weigh above 136 pounds, and to my knowledge there is only one Air Force pilot that weighs less than that, at Eglin," Matherne said in an Oct. 1 interview.

For at least one international partner, the new weight restriction is not a concern. None of Norway's F-35 pilots beginning to train on the country's new jets at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, are affected by the weight limit, according to Col. Jarle Nergård, program manager for operations with the Norwegian F-35 Program Office.

Since the Norwegian Air Force has even tighter weight restrictions on its current F-16 fleet, "there isn't a single fighter pilot in the Norwegian Air Force that is affected" by the 136-pound restriction, Nergård told Defense News in an email.

Nergård also said discoveries like this are to be expected in a test program, and that the F-35 is meant to accommodate a greater range of pilot body types and weights than legacy fighter aircraft.

"The incredible amount of force involved once you have an ejection means that you are playing at the limits of human tolerance," Nergård said. "As partners, we do support the interim actions by the US Air Force as they are directly affected by the issue. We all have the safety of our pilots as our No. 1 priority."

Pilot safety is the services' top concern, US officials said.

"Safety is our No. 1 concern and we want to make sure that we give the warfighter the safest ejection seat capable out there," Canterbury, now the chief of the F-35 Integration Office Operations Division, said on Tuesday. "As we discover things, we can weigh the risk of what's acceptable and what's not, and right now, until we fully understand the implication of the seat, safety is our No. 1 priority."

Martin-Baker could not be reached for comment, and Lockheed Martin referred questions to the JPO.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Gotta love it when opportunistic politicians leap up on their soap boxes over matters they are clueless on. Gotta grab that limelight with both hands.
 
"American F-35, Russian PAK-FA Are India’s Fifth Generation Fighter Options"
Source : Pinaki Bharracharya with bureau inputs ~ Dated : Tuesday, October 13, 2015 @ 09:30 AM

India may have delayed participating in the Russian Fifth generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project to explore other options, namely the Lockheed Martin built F-35.

A talk in the corridors of South Block, headquarters of the ministry of defence (MoD) goes that the reason the IAF and the MoD is seeking to reduce the numbers of the Russian FGFAs is to have an option of purchasing another variety of fifth generation aircraft.

A former senior air force officer told Defenseworld.net, “they have made the offer indirectly,” referring to the American F-35. He refused to elaborate on what that ‘indirect offer’ was. Some other sources opined that ever since the US lost out on the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contract, it had been trying to get India interested in the F-35.

The ministry’s response to the American feelers is not yet known. But the fact remains that the prototype development contract for the Russian FGFA, PAK-FA or T-50, has not yet been concluded despite pressure from Russia to sign the contract. In December 2010, India had earmarked $295 million for getting the project started. The prototype development contract entails an investment of US$350 million.

India slowed down its participation in the prototype development and reduced its original order for 166 single-seater and 48 two-seater fighters to 127 single-seater PAK FA which was further bought down to about 35-55 units.

The latest information is that India might order the PAK-FA in a fly away condition after Russia completes its development schedule of the aircraft putting in all the technologies and weapons it originally promised including super-cruise and a high degree of radar immunity.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/14277/American_F_35__Russian_PAK_FA_Are_India___s_Fifth_Generation_Fighter_Options#.Vh1dMZRHarU
Click to expand...
 
Triton said:
"American F-35, Russian PAK-FA Are India’s Fifth Generation Fighter Options"
Source : Pinaki Bharracharya with bureau inputs ~ Dated : Tuesday, October 13, 2015 @ 09:30 AM

India may have delayed participating in the Russian Fifth generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project to explore other options, namely the Lockheed Martin built F-35.

A talk in the corridors of South Block, headquarters of the ministry of defence (MoD) goes that the reason the IAF and the MoD is seeking to reduce the numbers of the Russian FGFAs is to have an option of purchasing another variety of fifth generation aircraft.

A former senior air force officer told Defenseworld.net, “they have made the offer indirectly,” referring to the American F-35. He refused to elaborate on what that ‘indirect offer’ was. Some other sources opined that ever since the US lost out on the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contract, it had been trying to get India interested in the F-35.

The ministry’s response to the American feelers is not yet known. But the fact remains that the prototype development contract for the Russian FGFA, PAK-FA or T-50, has not yet been concluded despite pressure from Russia to sign the contract. In December 2010, India had earmarked $295 million for getting the project started. The prototype development contract entails an investment of US$350 million.

India slowed down its participation in the prototype development and reduced its original order for 166 single-seater and 48 two-seater fighters to 127 single-seater PAK FA which was further bought down to about 35-55 units.

The latest information is that India might order the PAK-FA in a fly away condition after Russia completes its development schedule of the aircraft putting in all the technologies and weapons it originally promised including super-cruise and a high degree of radar immunity.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/14277/American_F_35__Russian_PAK_FA_Are_India___s_Fifth_Generation_Fighter_Options#.Vh1dMZRHarU
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if F35's for India becomes a more concrete prospect.
At this stage may well just be spin to try to get concessions from Russia re: costs and timescales of their tailored PAK-FA (FGFA).
Russia's seriously throttling back on the PAK-FA must be very concerning for India's military and politicians given their financial and political investment in the FGFA and the practical impossibility of a domestic back-up given the ongoing fiasco of the LCA.
However given that the Rafale ultimately proved too expensive for Indian tastes except for a small limited order (36, perhaps to be topped-up with further small orders) doubt there will ever be the appetite for a F35 purchase except for similar limited numbers.
And that's before you get into the politics for the US re: Pakistan and re: China associated with an Indian F35 order.
 
Given the outrageous demands India has made of others I sure hope we don't offer them the F-35.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom