F-35 Program Docs

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

gabriele

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2015, 19:42

Unread post24 Apr 2015, 10:41

eskodas wrote:Anyone have the document for this

DOTE 2014 Live Fire Test and Evaluation
F-35B Full-Scale Structural System Vulnerability Assessment

AAA and missile fragment-induced damage stressed
the structural limitations of the forward fuselage fuel
tanks (F-1 and F-2). Cascading effects from the F-1 tank
damage included a large fuel release into the cockpit and
damage to the pilot seat mounting structure. To mitigate
the vulnerability to the pilot, the Program Office has
recently altered the F-35B fuel burn strategy so that the
F-1 tank behind the pilot empties sooner. Threat-induced
damage in these fuel tank tests also caused large fuel
discharge into the engine inlet, which would have likely
caused engine failures due to fuel ingestion. The engine
was not installed for these tests.



There are chances of learning a lot more about this test in a future edition of the Joint Aircraft Survivability Journal. It carried some very nice articles on the F-135 Live Fire survivability tests, and on the AA-1 live fire tests. I hope they will write about BG-1 live fire tests too, at some point.

http://jaspo.csd.disa.mil/asnewsletter.html
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 938
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 May 2015, 07:12

April 2015 GAO report. Not reported much by press probably because no major negatives noted.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669619.pdf

Pg 17/18: Aircraft deliveries for last 2 contract years = 3.6 months late on average (which is not significant). Aircraft deliveries: 9 (2011), 30 (2012), 35 (2013) & 36 (2014) <- should not include SDD as SDD was delivered before 2011. This suggests LM may have caught up into lot 7 deliveries already by today. Could see Israel receiving its first F-35A soon.

Pg 19: Labor hours downward trend.

Pg 21: Still facing supplier late and quality issues but not affecting delivery rates.

Pg 11: 2B/3i - 3 months behind schedule. 3F - 6 months behind schedule (not significant)

Pg 5: Costs on overall downward trend.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7692
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post12 Jun 2015, 20:45

September 1994 DoD report (137 pages) going deep into the thoughts, requirements, and timelines of JAST.

Just in case you were wondering and despite popular opinion, STOVL was part of the program BEFORE Congress merged it with CALF.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a292094.pdf
Attachments
a292094[1].pdf
(5.01 MiB) Downloaded 470 times
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21219
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Jun 2015, 23:32

'SWP' what a great find - many thanks for this. The original PDF is not 'text readable' I have made it so and if anyone requires a 'text readable' PDF for 'copy/paste' then please say so. Meanwhile here is the summary (copy / pasted).
REPORT OF THE DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD TASK FORCE ON JOINT ADVANCED STRIKE TECHNOLOGY (JAST) PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 1994

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION
In 1993, with a new administration and significant changes in the national security environment, the Office of the Secretary of Defense initiated a Bottom-Up Review (BUR) to address the balance among budget priorities, national military strategy, and forces. Initially, the BUR defined a broad range of future contingencies that could require U.S. military forces-land, sea, air, and space-and a force level to meet those contingencies.

At that time, there were plans to acquire four new aircraft over the next decade and a half-the Air Force's F-22 and Multi-Role Fighter (MRF), and the Navy's F/A-18E/F and A/F-X. In addition, a Science and Technology program was under way at the Advanced Research Projects Agency focusing on the Marine Corps requirement for an Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) aircraft.

The Air Force's F-22 was envisioned as the means to sustain an adequate margin of air superiority capability over any future adversary. The MRF was designed to be the future mainstay multi-mission sortie generator in the Air Force inventory. The F-16-currently filling that role-is expected to reach the end of its useful service life 15 years hence.

The Navy's needs were more immediate. First was a more capable, longer-range variant of the F/A-18 for use by both the Navy and Marine Corps. The F/A-18E/F program was well into development. Second, the cancellation of the A-12 in 1991 left the Navy with the unfulfilled requirement for first-daysurvivable, stand-alone, longer-range strike capability. The AIF-X was to satisfy that requirement.

The ASTOVL program objective was to produce one or more test articles to demonstrate improved short/vertical take-off and landing capabilities that could satisfy the Marine Corps requirement more substantially than could the AV-8B. It might also fill some future Navy ship-based aircraft needs. A second conventional take-off and landing variant configured with additional fuel tanks in place of the ASTOVL's lift propulsion was envisioned for possible use by the Air Force.

The BUR's deliberations reviewed the need for these programs and whether they were affordable. The BUR found that there were not enough resources to support all these programs in the Future Years Defense Program. Still, there was a valid need for the diverse capabilities they were intended to provide. The decision was to continue with the F-22 and F/A-18E/F programs and to cancel the AIF-X and MRF. The decision on ASTOVL was to continue that research, but to require some commitment of resources by at least two of the three Services before building a flying prototype.

The BUR also confirmed the Services' continuing needs that were to be addressed by the cancelled A/F-X and MRF programs. That led to establishing the Joint Advanced Strike Technology Program in July 1993. Throughout the remainder of this summary and in the full report, this program is referred to simply as JAST.

In an Appendix to its November 1993 report on Tactical Air Warfare, the Defense Science Board (DSB) provided some early suggestions to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology) on the structure and focus for the JAST Program. Subsequently, in April of 1994, the Defense Science Board was asked to form a Task Force to examine several areas in more detail - “the structure of JAST; the schedule, sequencing of activities, emphases and levels of effort appropriate; innovative, high payoff concepts for inclusion in the program; and the acquisition strategy for aircraft that might result.” This report responds to that request and addresses the nine questions in the Terms of Reference (TOR) memorandum (signed 10 May 1994). The TOR is at Appendix A.

The Task Force saw the JAST organization and approach as a special situation in which the limited though important purpose was to address advanced next-generation strike systems needs. The Task Force went to some lengths to ensure that responses were focused on the terms of reference specifically for the JAST program. At the same time, most of the Task Force's work is applicable to a far wider range of acquisition policy and management issues. The Task Force strongly recommends that this work be used in that broader context as well as in support of the specific purposes of JAST.

The Task Force first convened in April of 1994 and met periodically through early September. The Task Force members are listed in Appendix B. The meeting schedule and other events are listed in Appendix C."
&
"2. Multi-Service Requirements
The Task Force reviewed the work of the Services, the BUR, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the JAST Program Office, and previous DSB efforts to gain appreciation and understanding of mission needs and requirements for next-generation strike systems. More definition of broad requirements is needed to lead to JAST products with characteristics that will provide useful military options to help meet diverse challenges to U.S. national interests in the post-cold war environment.

Analysis and the lessons of recent history suggest that key JAST requirements for new aircraft should include the capability to (I) operate with minimum support in the theater, (2) operate in small formations or a single aircraft with minimum or no close escort or penetrating supporting elements, (3) operate in high threat areas with minimum attrition, and (4) deliver precision weapons that provide high lethality against a variety of targets, while precluding unwanted collateral damage. Further, noting the diversity and global nature of the possible future challenges to U.S. interests, we stress the importance of a family of advanced strike capabilities available from land- and sea-based options.

The Task Force considered requirements from two perspectives-sustaining force levels (quantity) and force modernization (quality). Needs are grouped into three time periods; near-, mid-, and far-term, with JAST-based products addressing the mid-term. There are shortfalls in sustaining force levels in the near-term before the planned IOC of a JAST-based aircraft (2007-2010), but the magnitude of that problem is not compelling, as there are procurement, remanufacture, or service life extension options that can meet Services’ needs to sustain the force.

The key need for JAST-based products is force modernization in the mid-term. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps presented diverse needs. The Navy requirement is for a “first-day-survivable, stand-alone, strike fighter” - a capability they need today. However, in the absence of a near-term solution, that is a need to be addressed by JAST. The Air Force requirement is for a future replacement for the F-16, their current “multi-role sortie generator.” The timing of that need is consistent with a plausible IOC for a JAST-based next-generation strike fighter. The Marine Corps is seeking a STOVL aircraft with better payload and survivability than that of the AV-8B. As with the Air Force, the timing of the Marine Corps’ requirement fits the achievable JAST schedule.

These diverse requirements are difficult to reconcile in a multi-Service vehicle. The Task Force supports the need for the FA-18E/F to fill the near-term need for a Navy multi-mission, sortie producer. However, that solution defers satisfying the Navy’s need for a “high-end” strike aircraft. We are concerned with the projected 15-year wait for a Navy strike aircraft that would have adequate first-day survivability while delivering precision weapons.

The Task Force did not attempt to present a particular solution or to stipulate particular requirements. The Task Force did emphasize that there will be no solution to multi-Service strike system needs until joint requirements are better defined.

The Task Force found that the numbers of new aircraft needed to sustain force levels in all three Services require that there be revolutionary improvements in aircraft affordability. Figure ES-2 summarizes findings and recommendations."
&
"...• JAST-based aircraft should be designed to leverage the strike architecture to include off-board systems

• The Services should consider subordinating the marginal safety issues of one vs. two engines to affordability and commonality

• JAST should quickly sort out the relative merits of incremental improvements from the two person crew and the added affordability of a single cockpit design

• JAST also should quickly sort out the need for internal vs. external carriage of weapons against the range of scenarios, threats, and targets addressed..."
&
"......The issue of one vs. two engines also will be difficult to resolve with convincing logic. There have been many studies on the subject. Most show a safety edge for two engines given rough equality in mission and operating conditions but none of the studies is conclusive. So, one versus two engine decisions have been primarily based on thrust needs rather than on safety. The F-14, F-15 and F-18 needed the thrust from two engines. The F-16 did not. The STOVL design virtually dictates a single high-thrust engine. In any case, the Task Force concluded that, with modem engine reliability, the one vs. two engine question is not a conclusive flight safety issue. Affordability and performance should be the drivers.

Given the range of thrust output of available modern engines, it might be wise to consider simply mandating single engine designs because of affordability...."
&
"...The perception is that stealth designs are fragile and expensive to maintain. The past decade has seen significant progress in creating more durable, environmentally friendly materials. Similarly, enhanced designs have been developed to reduce the maintenance of openings and apertures in LO systems.

Limited resources have not allowed any significant updates to the F-117 to reduce the supportability cost due to LO. The B-2 was designed to further reduce the cost of LO maintenance, and its performance is just beginning to emerge as the system gains operational experience. The F-22 is being designed to even further reduce the LO maintenance cost while significantly reducing the overall supportability burden.

The JAST should support demonstrations in both laboratory and operational environments that will validate the robustness of today's most promising LO materials and designs...."

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a292094.pdf (5.1Mb)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21219
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Aug 2015, 06:09

Latest FAST FACTS from LM re F-35 as at 22 Jul 2015 (3Q in their jargon):

https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... 3q2015.pdf (70Kb)

Attached below because these things disappear eventually.
Attachments
f-35fast_facts3q2015.pdf
(69.78 KiB) Downloaded 617 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21219
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Oct 2015, 14:48

Latest LM FAST FACTS dated 22 Oct 2015 - 4th quarter in their jargon from attached:
"F-35 Delivery Status
162 F-35s have been delivered to the Department of Defense as of Oct. 20:
• 142 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Aircraft
o 81 F-35As (including four international aircraft)
o 43 F-35Bs (including three international aircraft)
o 18 F-35Cs

• 20 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft complete the test and development fleet:
o Edwards AFB, Calif. - four F-35As.
o PAX River NAS, Md. - five F-35Bs and four F-35Cs.
o This count includes six static aircraft and AA-1 stationed around the world."


https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... q2015_.pdf
Attachments
f-35fast_facts4q2015_.pdf
(80.79 KiB) Downloaded 630 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Smithsguy

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2005, 19:04

Unread post08 Feb 2016, 20:59

The DOT&E 2015 F-35 Annual Report (as recently and oft referenced)
Attachments
DOT&E 2015 F-35 Annual Report.pdf
The DOT&E 2015 F-35 Annual Report
(350.79 KiB) Downloaded 372 times
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21219
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 16:18

LM Fast Facts dated 01 Feb 2016: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... 1q2016.pdf (63Kb)
Attachments
f-35fast_facts_1q2016.pdf
(62.4 KiB) Downloaded 388 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

luke_sandoz

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 476
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post09 Apr 2016, 14:49

LockMart speaks via SLD.

Download all 70+pages at the bottom of the page
Attachments
image.png
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21219
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Apr 2016, 15:40

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 391
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post09 Apr 2016, 19:04

Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21219
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Apr 2016, 21:58

Thanks - looks as though only a minor change to front page (author names added) has been made, with same no. of pages.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post10 Apr 2016, 05:23

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) - Dec 2015
Attachments
F35-sar-2016.pdf
(662.11 KiB) Downloaded 772 times
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21219
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Apr 2016, 07:04

From above SAR for F-35 the F-35A Operating Cost (as explained in Gif & same same PDF attached):

download/file.php?id=22832
"...Given the significant increase in military capabilities provided, it is reasonable to expect F-35A to cost more to operate and sustain than 4th generation legacy aircraft."
Attachments
Operating and Support Cost F35-sar-2016 EDITonePage.pdf
(12.35 KiB) Downloaded 437 times
F-35A 2015 SAR Operating & Support Cost.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21219
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 May 2016, 23:20

Next Installment of FAST FACTS - 2nd Quarter 2016, 09 May 2016 - just the facts ma'am nothing but the facts - attached.
"...F-35s have flown nearly 60,000 cumulative flight hours since Dec. 2006...."

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... 2q2016.pdf
Attachments
f-35fast_facts_2q2016.pdf
(66.75 KiB) Downloaded 446 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests