Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Marines Ready, But Is JSF?

Sep 30, 2010

By Bill Sweetman@AviationWeek
Washington

Delays in vertical landing tests with the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) version of Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter are driving a reassessment of the U.S. Marine Corps’ plans for the jet’s service entry.

The Marines insist they will achieve initial operational capability (IOC), with eight ship-qualified aircraft and 20 pilots, by late 2012. That is only six months later than the IOC date set in 2006, but the Air Force and Navy have delayed their IOC dates by three years (until early 2016) because of late aircraft deliveries and a slow-starting flight-test program.

Those 2006 plans called for the F-35B to commence vertical landing tests in early 2008, but that did not happen until early 2010. By now, developmental testing of the Block 1 avionics and weapons package should have been completed, but Block 1 has yet to fly on the F-35. This year should have seen delivery of the third low-rate initial production (LRIP) batch of aircraft, but the two LRIP-1 aircraft are in the factory.

One of the actions following the JSF program’s Nunn-McCurdy breach, disclosed in March, was the launch of a technical baseline review (TBR) that supports a Defense Acquisition Board review of the program in November. USAF Materiel Command and Naval Air Systems Command dominate the TBR. Both have, until now, delegated management of the program to the JSF Program Office. One focal point of the review is the path to IOC, and the Marines—aiming for IOC 40-plus months ahead of the other services—are clearly the most difficult case.

There are three main items on the critical path to IOC for the Marines. The most basic is the vertical landing test program. Only one (BF-1) of the five test F-35Bs is configured for early vertical landing tests, and the plan called for 42 vertical landings before the remaining aircraft fly in powered-lift mode. Due to mechanical and other problems, only a dozen or so landings have been performed, and BF-2 is being modified to join the campaign.

Once the 42-landings point is reached, other B-models are expected to clear the envelope for the next critical events. One is the “ready for training” milestone—the point at which the aircraft type can be flown safely by operational pilots rather than test pilots, and without constant monitoring in the test environment. The third major item is ship qualification trials, which had been set for the first half of 2011.

The TBR is looking at the timescale for moving the program through these steps, and at the criteria set for moving from one to the next. The first assignment for the LRIP-1 aircraft—both Air Force A-models—will be to start training Marine instructors under plans discussed a year ago. Consideration is being given to extending the role of the F-35A in Marine IOC preparations.

Other issues are being examined. The problems that have held up Stovl testing will force the redesign of parts, such as actuators and cooling fans, which are failing prematurely. The redesigns will have to be tested and validated, and the modified parts put into production and retrofitted to the LRIP F-35Bs that are being built for the IOC force.

At the same time, the concept of operations for the F-35B may be changing. Discussing the future role of the Marines in August, Navy Undersecretary Robert Work noted that the wider use of weapons such as guided rockets and mortars—projected to spread to low-end threats—could end the forward operations performed by Marine AV-8B Harriers, because of the vulnerability of forward arming and refueling points and other improvised bases.

In an amphibious operation, that could confine F-35Bs to the LHA amphibious warfare ships that support Harriers. But Work raised another issue: the increasing pressure on the space and weight capacity of the LHAs, as F-35Bs and V-22s replace aircraft half their weight. Even the new LHA-6/7 America-class ships, being built without a well deck to accommodate more aircraft and fuel, will be able to carry only 6-10 JSFs in a standard air combat element.

Subsequent ships are expected to revert to a well-deck design. In that case, the Marines’ goal for the JSF—that 420 of the Navy’s 680-aircaft order should be B-models, replacing AV-8Bs and Harriers—could be ill-matched to the deck spots available.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

Bill asks some poignant questions that only time will answer. I sense greater progress in the CTOL mode of the "Bees" than others are willing to give them credit. If LM and the Marines are taken at their word, that the "Landing" button works; then progress (flights and test points) may be faster than we anticipate. Since we have not pushed the FOIA issue with LM and only occasionally get updates, one may wish to assume another half-dozen STOVL have been performed. If so, then that would leave only 15 flights apiece for 01 & 02, not insurmountable if than can keep flying. Smile

F-16.net Sponsor

The problems with actuators, cooling fans and stuff are being addressed and will be resolved in due time. There can be little doubt that the STOVL jet is a sound beast at heart. If those are the extent of its technical challenges to overcome, things are looking pretty good.

Yeah, at least it flies unlike the ill-fated XFV-12.

If XFV-12 had the F135 it would have flown, too.

Put a big enough engine on a brick and it will fly too.. isn't that the saying?

Question isn't whether it will fly, its whether it can reliable and maintained by 20 year olds with a couple months training instead of engineers with PhDs.

bjr1028 wrote:

Question isn't whether it will fly, its whether it can reliable and maintained by 20 year olds with a couple months training instead of engineers with PhDs.

WRT aircraft maintenance, you give far too much credit to engineers and far too little to 20 year olds.

madrat wrote:

If XFV-12 had the F135 it would have flown, too.

I don't think so. I believe aerodynamically it wasn't working out the way it was supposed to. The full scale aircraft wasn't getting nearly the same figures as smaller models did.

They never flew the XFV-12 to figure that out. It was a mock up in full-size only. It wasn't even a bleeding edge design, it was built with mostly parts from other planes.

It got as far as hover testing where it performed far short of expectation. The physical aircraft couldn't do what the paper aircraft was supposed.