Forum: Program and politics

Exclusive: U.S. Air Force to move forward target date for F-35 use Andrea Shalal-Esa, Reuters 20 May 2013

Quote:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force plans to start operational use of Lockheed Martin Corp.-built F-35 fighter jets in mid-2016, a year earlier than planned, using a similar software package as the Marine Corps, two sources familiar with the plans said on Monday....

...The Air Force, Marines and Navy must report to Congress by June 1 on their target dates for initial operational capability, or IOC, which marks the point when the services have enough planes on hand to go to war if needed. Actual deployments usually lag IOC dates by about a year....

...Former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said accelerating operational use of the new warplane would allow the Air Force to learn more about the F-35's integrated battle management system....

...The Navy has set mid-2018 for starting operational use of its C-model F-35, which is designed for use aboard U.S. aircraft carriers. Its deadline or threshold date is early 2019....

...The Air Force jets would use the 3I software, which will include a technology refresh with improved memory processors for some sensors on board.

Bogdan said it was not as clear that work on the final software package would be done in 2017, when the Air Force initially planned to declare IOC...."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 4960.story

BEST to read it all at the jump.

F-16.net Sponsor

Oh my God, they will start pulling our their hair, tearing their clothes, yelling, screaming, running and jumping out windows now! Laughing

They will focus on this last part of the report:

Quote:

The Air Force jets would use the 3I software, which will include a technology refresh with improved memory processors for some sensors on board.

Bogdan said it was not as clear that work on the final software package would be done in 2017, when the Air Force initially planned to declare IOC.

The final 3F software will support use of the aircraft's full war fighting capability, with additional internal and external weapons, and more advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.

That reads like a delay of the full software, or at least a hedging of bets... even if the USAF's IOC date has moved forward. Something for everyone here I guess.

Or, the USAF realized that:

1. If 3I was good enough for several of our Partners to start with, then why not.
2. The cost of F-16 SLEPs was too much and the F-35A at 3I could be very useful prior to 3F.
3. The cost savings of going to MYB and FRP earlier were tremendous (not sure if this applies)
4. It's a tremendous vote of confidence in the plane's abilities at 3I and the Program's abilities to deliver 3F in a timely manner.
5. The only difference between 3I and 3F is a software update with "maybe" a couple of cards thrown in. This can be done in the field.
6. This will likely stabilize the Partners as they will see the USAF going IOC early.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Or, the USAF realized that:

1. If 3I was good enough for several of our Partners to start with, then why not.
2. The cost of F-16 SLEPs was too much and the F-35A at 3I could be very useful prior to 3F.
3. The cost savings of going to MYB and FRP earlier were tremendous (not sure if this applies)
4. It's a tremendous vote of confidence in the plane's abilities at 3I and the Program's abilities to deliver 3F in a timely manner.
5. The only difference between 3I and 3F is a software update with "maybe" a couple of cards thrown in. This can be done in the field.
6. This will likely stabilize the Partners as they will see the USAF going IOC early.

Sure, there are a lot of good reasons to go operational with 3I. The capabilities it offers compare very favorably with what aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter went operational with.

My previous response was directed specifically at the various "concerned, skeptical people," who are convinced the program will utterly fail and that its continued refusal to do so is evidence of a conspiracy to destroy European aviation and blah blah blah...

No worries. Winslow Wheeler will no doubt tell us all why this is a bad idea, too expensive and will fail.

Blah, blah blah.

hobo wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Or, the USAF realized that:

1. If 3I was good enough for several of our Partners to start with, then why not.
2. The cost of F-16 SLEPs was too much and the F-35A at 3I could be very useful prior to 3F.
3. The cost savings of going to MYB and FRP earlier were tremendous (not sure if this applies)
4. It's a tremendous vote of confidence in the plane's abilities at 3I and the Program's abilities to deliver 3F in a timely manner.
5. The only difference between 3I and 3F is a software update with "maybe" a couple of cards thrown in. This can be done in the field.
6. This will likely stabilize the Partners as they will see the USAF going IOC early.

Sure, there are a lot of good reasons to go operational with 3I. The capabilities it offers compare very favorably with what aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter went operational with.

My previous response was directed specifically at the various "concerned, skeptical people," who are convinced the program will utterly fail and that its continued refusal to do so is evidence of a conspiracy to destroy European aviation and blah blah blah...

What will be amusing about this line of thought is that even if delayed a year for 3F capability the F-35 will still be very capable out of the box, especially compared to other fighter programs out there. The Eurofighter still has pretty limited ground attack capabilities and it has been in service for quite a while. The fact is that even at 3I the F-35 will be a more complete weapon system out of the box than most new fighters have been since the end of the Cold War.

bigjku wrote:

What will be amusing about this line of thought is that even if delayed a year for 3F capability the F-35 will still be very capable out of the box, especially compared to other fighter programs out there. The Eurofighter still has pretty limited ground attack capabilities and it has been in service for quite a while. The fact is that even at 3I the F-35 will be a more complete weapon system out of the box than most new fighters have been since the end of the Cold War.

Except the Super Hornet, which can utilize a vast array of weaponry.

If they move the IOC up, it will be interesting is which helmet they go with - Gen II like the Marines, or Gen III like the Navy.

[quote="maus92"]

bigjku wrote:

Except the Super Hornet, which can utilize a vast array of weaponry.

If they move the IOC up, it will be interesting is which helmet they go with - Gen II like the Marines, or Gen III like the Navy.

Read it again... "Complete Weapon System", not just weapons.
1. LPI AESA radar (SH not LPI to the level of F-35)
2. Internal FLIR (External on the SH which induces drag)
3. IRST (the only option for SH is a tank mounted one which induces drag)
4. EODAS (no MLD/MAW on the SH)
5. RwR (SH not as good as F-35)
6. VLO airframe (SH is not even close)
7. Can go full speed when fully fueled and carrying internal weapons. (SH is limited to m1.2-1.4 when carrying the same fuel load and weapons).
8. Direction & LPI datalinks (only broadcast Link-16 on the SH and no SATCOM)
9. Data Fusion (SH close, but not up to F-35's level)
10. Situational Awareness (SH Not even close)

btw, did you know that UAI is not even on the SH's radar...

On the helmet issue, Gen 3 is due in 2015, so plenty of time for USAF IOC with Blk 3I.

The F/A-18E/F Block II test aircraft have datalink capability with Link-16 (2-way) and SATCOM, but not previously budgetted for operational fielded. They have other telemetry systems for test flight telemetry available as well. We had 2-way Link-16 back in early 2000s, with modified Block I jets, but they were only for operational flight tests.

They have performed operational evaluation with EA-18s and F/A-18s using a IFDL pod, with F-22s providing escort and BARCAP and with counter-IADS ELINT to the EA-18Gs behind. There is a political reason why this didn't get fielded in the fleet, as the USAF didn't want to fund Growler ops, and the F-22 budget was already strained, even back then.

Even in early 2000s, for OT&E profiles, some test wings had F-22s for occasional testing with F/A-18E/F jets. We typically carried "sealed" F-22 checklists for emergency use, but OPSEC required them sealed unless actually needed.

The F/A-18F has an extensive ordinance clearance, so UAI isn't as much as a push than for F-22s and F-35s that don't have such weapons clearance. There is a lot going on with the F/A-18F because they are trying to sell more jets to countries like Brazil, and not all if it is directly DoD funded. Boeing have several F/A-18Fs in their operational control, for such testing, at their expense, and most of it is non-public.

There is a huge difference between flight testing for feasibility, sometimes only a dumb "fit check" or minimal software integration, compared to full envelope clearance, and operational status. When comparing platforms, its hard to be certain where on the roadmap each jet is, with only public information.

UAI is important for the ability to respond quickly as new weapons com online.

All F-15Es have UAI and F-16s are getting it in the next tape upgrade (coding is done and he first UAI F-16 has already flown).

Not having UAI means a 4-5 year wait after a new weapon comes online (or has a modification requiring new flight parameters) while UAI take 3-4 months. UAI integration costs 5% of classic weapon integration too.

What happens when JSM or JSOW-Er comes online? The Superhornet will have to wait years to use it while UAI craft get it in months.

UAI is not the "end all, be all", just a giant arrow in an already stuffed quiver.

SpudmanWP wrote:

UAI is important for the ability to respond quickly as new weapons com online.

All F-15Es have UAI and F-16s are getting it in the next tape upgrade (coding is done and he first UAI F-16 has already flown).

Not having UAI means a 4-5 year wait after a new weapon comes online (or has a modification requiring new flight parameters) while UAI take 3-4 months. UAI integration costs 5% of classic weapon integration too.

What happens when JSM or JSOW-Er comes online? The Superhornet will have to wait years to use it while UAI craft get it in months.

UAI is not the "end all, be all", just a giant arrow in an already stuffed quiver.

From Raytheon:

"JSOW-ER will provide the warfighter with a powered spiral of JSOW C-1, extending the range of the weapon from 70 nautical miles (81 statute miles) to 300 nautical miles (345 statute miles)," said Harry Schulte, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems Air Warfare Systems' product line. "Because JSOW-ER has the same outer mold lines and mass properties of the glide JSOW, it can be integrated on any aircraft capable of carrying glide JSOW. The cost of integration is negligible and the impact is reduced."

Launched from a U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F fighter aircraft, the JSOW-ER flew more than 260 nautical miles (almost 300 statute miles), meeting all test objectives."

http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zh ... highlight=

So clearly the capability exists, but is not a POR at this time - the Super Hornet already has 3 anti-ship missiles it can launch (and the F-35 cannot,) plus the glide bombs.

Because JSOW-ER's flight profile (ability to change altitudes, range, time to target, etc) is different from the JSOW, the F-18 would have to wait for an OFP cycle to take advantage of those functions. While this will not cost as much integrating a new weapon, it will still take years to fit into the schedule.

Forum: Program and politics

USAF to move forward target date for F-35A use