F-35A Readiness Training Operational Utility Evaluation PDF

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25877
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 18:36

Recent reminder from the LM bagman...

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... bag#245473

F-35 soars when it comes to stealth and sensors 22 Feb 2013 Lauren Davis

http://www.electroline.com.au/articles/ ... nd-sensors

"...“The data from these sensors are stitched together to give the pilot a 360° spherical image of the outside world. No other aeroplane has that,” said Clemence. He added that not only does this give the plane an advantage when it comes to missile and aircraft detection, but video can be pumped into the visor to allow the pilot to see the outside world.

“We’ve done recent testing where the test pilot actually put a vision-restrictive device over his visor, [THAT MYTHICAL 'BAG'! :roll: ] so he couldn’t optically see the outside world, but he had the sensor information pumped into his visor and he was able to virtually see the outside world,” said Clemence....

...“For somebody who is used to knobs and switches and old avionics, it takes a little bit of getting used to. But after a couple of flights, you start building cockpit efficiency and you really start to enjoy it.”...
&
from: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... bag#229021

A White Paper By: Lockheed Martin – An Overview of The F-35 Cockpit

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/an-o ... all-about/
OR 2.4Mb PDF at:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-15870.html

Truncated quote (best to read original quote or entire article but just for the bag:

"...The fact is that the helmet is already in use and the reviews from the pilots are overwhelmingly positive. One pilot went so far as to say, “I could fly the whole mission with a helmet bag over the top of my head and just look through the sensors and fly the airplane safely.”

Another pilot recently stated, “I wouldn’t go back to a fixed HUD (Head-Up Display)...."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25877
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 22:55

Prices soar, enthusiasm dives for F-35 Lightning; pilots worry about visibility problem 07 Mar 2013 Rowan Scarborough

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... #pagebreak

“The Pentagon’s top brass are second-guessing the F-35 Lightning — the most expensive weapons system in history — as spending cuts tighten the military’s budget and a new report says F-35 pilots can’t see that well out of the cockpit.

The Navy’s former top officer believes the Defense Department should consider replacing the F-35A — the Air Force’s variant of the so-called Joint Strike Fighter — with the aircraft carrier model, the F-35C.

But Air Force pilots dismiss the idea of flying a heavier fighter jet, and instead propose that the Marine Corps abandon its version, the F-35B, arguing that its costly helicopter-style landing feature is useful only at air shows....

...Second thoughts
Retired Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations from 2007 to 2011, wrote a recent article for his new employer, the Hoover Institution, on how to reduce military costs. One idea: scrap the F-35A.

“My whole idea there was, even though there are a lot of commonalities, if you had one conventional takeoff-and-landing [feature], would you save on training pipeline? Would you save on the depot level work because of the fact you just have that one variant going through rework lines and perhaps logistics would come down?” Adm. Roughead told The Washington Times. “And then software changes would be more common to that one variant.” [AFAIK the software is overwhelmingly the same with of course some differences for each variant - the whole idea of having a family of three - no?]

Adm. Roughead, a career surface ship and fleet commander, said he canceled the DDG 1000, a next-generation destroyer, in 2008 because of projected long-term costs.

Pentagon officials have said in audit reports that the F-35’s 30-year, $1 trillion operating bill is not affordable.

“Both the Navy and the Air Force would fly the C,” Adm. Roughead said of his proposal. “You need the [F-35] coming off of aircraft carriers simply because of what the environments are going to be 10, 20, 30 years from now.

“You’ve got to stay with the carrier variant. But because it’s a conventional takeoff-and-landing aircraft, can you then make that one of two, as opposed to one of three, variants?”..."

Much more of this article is about other stuff from the OUE report earlier but whatever...
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 00:04

Doesn't Adm. Roughead a surface warfare officer background?

The USAF buying F-35Cs would have advantages to the USN, but it is a stupid idea this far along. The idea that buying a bigger/more expensive jet to save money isn't reality. IF the F135-PW-400 could put out another 5-10k of thrust operationally, then it might be a doable idea if decided early on.

How much did the Swiss spend to create a F-18 variant ( with non-carrier, higher G rating, no ground attack features) for their needs. Relatively little, because the tooling was ~95% identical.

The F-35A shares more structural commonality with the F-35B, than the F-35C, the production savings wouldn't be that much, and more importantly the F-35C is currently the most expensive variant, and will most likely stay that way.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 01:48

Isn't the 'C more expensive than the 'A? With the physical aircraft designs basically finalized at this point, how would reducing the number of variants save any money?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 02:20

spazsinbad wrote:
So, someone would appear to be wrong here. Or we just have different organizations seeing the same data and coming to very different conclusions.

-and-

...This is not Gilmore's first criticism of the program. And it is not the first time he bas been ignored or overuled by a service or the JPO, as AOL D readers know. We'll have to see how Congress reacts to this."



The office of the Director, OT&E was created by Congress to provide independent evaluation of weapons and other procurement programs, reporting through the civilian chain of command. His reports go to the service secretaries, the SecDef, and directly to Congress. The director is a civilian appointed by the president, and confirmed by Congress. The director has a reporting and advisory function, so he cannot be "overruled," and has no statutory authority. His purpose is to evaluate and ensure that all information is made available to the ultimate decision makers who can then decide how to proceed. So, yea, I'd imagine that there is inevitably going to be friction between DOT&E and the program offices and officers who are building their careers on the success of programs under their direction.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 02:54

Sure does make it difficult now to get rid of this guy . . . He and his minions will just point fingers and say it is because they did their job too well, we're telling too much truth, blah, blah, blah.

A good job security report.
Offline

arkadyrenko

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 313
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 04:08

Luke, did you actually read the report?

What worries me most, more than the restricted flight parameters, is the computer systems. F-35 depends upon advanced programs to an unprecedented degree; I think that may prove to be a very expensive mistake.

(I like the requirement for 3 signatures to refuel the airplane and 90 minutes, on average, to download data after a sortie...)

And fixing CPU programs won't be easy, especially as the F-35 becomes much much more complex. Lockheed probably can't just add more programmers. ALIS could run behind the plane development for a while.

As for knocking the F-35 defect reports, it is better that we hear this stuff now, rather than in 5 years when the whole program falls apart in a catastrophic mess.

The threat for the F-35 program is maintaining a solid public face, with sequester running down the pipeline. We can already see the knives out for the F-35 in the Times article. They will only grow sharper. (I think that explains why the program chief has to take a tough guy approach, otherwise his comment that the project is improving wouldn't be believable.)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25877
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 04:14

"(I think that explains why the program chief has to take a tough guy approach, otherwise his comment that the project is improving wouldn't be believable.)" Simple reasons are never enough eh. Always the wheels within wheels explanation. Gen. Bogdan is believable because he speaks his mind. Simples.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

aceshigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2011, 19:26
  • Location: Norway

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 08:01

spazsinbad wrote:"(I think that explains why the program chief has to take a tough guy approach, otherwise his comment that the project is improving wouldn't be believable.)" Simple reasons are never enough eh. Always the wheels within wheels explanation. Gen. Bogdan is believable because he speaks his mind. Simples.


It's not that I don't agree with Gen Bogdan in what he says. I understand his frustration. What I am questioning is the wisdom of airing this dirty loundry in public and how it can affect the program overall. If this move make those costumers sitting on the fence more sceptical, he may ending up shooting the program in the head. The Avalon show was supposed to be a showcase for the F-35, and what happened? Only negative headlines, followed by news of Turkey deciding to postpone the order for their first jets.
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7063
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 08:09

spazsinbad wrote:useful only at air shows.



Image

:roll:

Useful only at airshows? I feel the same way about the F-22 :lol:

spazsinbad wrote:Retired Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations from 2007 to 2011, wrote a recent article for his new employer, the Hoover Institution, on how to reduce military costs. One idea: scrap the F-35A.



Its amazing how for an aircraft that "everyone hates" how forthcoming people are about someone else cashing in their version.

Option 3. Scrap the C and have the USN buy the B :lol: (would never ever happen of course)
Last edited by XanderCrews on 08 Mar 2013, 08:16, edited 1 time in total.
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7063
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 08:16

double
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25877
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 09:00

The glass is either half full or half empty - or whatever. I cannot see how Gen. Bogdan's remarks cruelled anything unless they were misrepresented, as he himself has suggested. Australians like people to speak their minds - preferably in a self deprecating, humourous - way as long as it is truthful. No problem. However I can understand why others invent problems with this approach, that otherwise only exist in their own minds, encouraged by the re-inventing of the meaning of quotes for some other agenda. What amazes me is the reality. I have been reading about the demise of the F-35 family for a long time and here we are... Go figure.

Turkey did not cancel but delayed - so did Australia. Negative headlines? Who generates those? The people wanting to see the glass half full. I don't need to see rosy headlines if they are not warranted; nor do I wish to see 'invented' headlines declaring the end of everything because of a hiccup blown out of proportion. I know this dance will go on and on until another 'big issue' takes the attention of the littlies.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 447
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 09:42

The report from the test pilots are good, they know that the plane is restricted, but it is their job to report the problems, any problem, so that no problem will be over looked at the development.
The headrest issue, (let's call it an issue for the moment), was reported by a pilot, the team then discuss it and agree on if there is a workaround or if the problem shall be fixed. I guess the workaround for the headrest visibility is, as suggested, the HMD coupled with the EODAS. Case closed, next problem and so on.
The problem is when these reports are taken out of context as a few reporters have done. Agenda or not, you don't get the right picture.


my 5 cent
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 16:02

[quote="neptune"]...The class room training was completed before the latest Feb13, grounding and now that the planes are back up flying, the 5 flight syllabus should be completed very soon, Mar13. 36 students are planned to complete Block 1A training during 2013.
.....quote]

Old news, the first class completed their first flights yesterday;
http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123339039

Lt. Col. Benjamin Bishop, the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron director of operations, walks toward an F-35A Lightning II at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., March 6 for his first sortie in the new aircraft. Bishop is among the first pilots to begin the official training that began in January.

Now I see they are scheduling 72 students for 2013.

"Oh the humanity!", of congress's testing organinzation; you know the wailing and knashing of teeth and all that other dark room stuff! Meanwhile the students are flying! :lol:
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Mar 2013, 16:40

arkadyrenko wrote:What worries me most, more than the restricted flight parameters,
Can we please observe a little context here. This report is on the first 6 weeks of a 40 week training course and is limited to what a Block 1A F-35 is allowed to do.

Yes, I said allowed. The F-35 is more than capable of doing 9+g, mach 1.66, 75 AoA, etc. However, those areas of the flight envelope were not certified when Blk1A was completed. Before you say “see, it’s late”, keep in mind that the expansion of the flight envelope was part of the Block progression plan from the beginning. Here is that plan as of a couple of years ago.

Image

arkadyrenko wrote:What worries me most… is the computer systems. F-35 depends upon advanced programs to an unprecedented degree; I think that may prove to be a very expensive mistake.
Every modern fighter has a computer controlling every aspect of the plane. What sets the F-35 apart is that they are integrated very deeply and offer new features like a PHS. Also, the F-35 has systems built into the computer architecture that ensures safe operation to a higher degree than even the F-22. Most, if not all, of the systems running on the ICS are virtual machine (VM) based with automatic failover and based on a middleware hardware connection.

What this means:
1. In a traditional fighter, if the computer controlling a function fails, that’s it, you’re done. In the F-35, each VM handles one function and can be rebooted as needed and will only affect that one function. Even if the ICS card running the VM fails on a hardware level, other ICS cards will start a copy of the VM. If there are too many VMs for the available ICS cards, then a VM priority system determines which are critical.
2. Middleware (MW) is a piece of software that allows hardware to be changed without having to go through the levels of integration traditionally needed. Think of it as a driver in Windows. It allows them to change a piece of hardware (display, FLIR, etc) without the need to go through the code and rewrite the areas that deal with the new hardware.

Take the FLIR for example. The FLIR sends info the FLIR-MW, which passes it along to the ICS, which integrates it with the rest of the data, which send s it to the Display-MW (or Datalink-MW, HMD-MW, etc), which presents the battlefield picture to the pilot. In this example, the most complex part is the integration and would not have to be changed if the FLIR or Displays (and their middleware components) were upgraded. Also note that the display is actually two completely separate displays where if one failed, the other can take over its duties.
3. In either case, this ensures that the avionics in the F-35 will be more stable and have better recovery options than any other fighter flying today.

arkadyrenko wrote: And fixing CPU programs won't be easy, especially as the F-35 becomes much much more complex. Lockheed probably can't just add more programmers.
Speaking as a programmer, fixing the avionics is one of the easiest (yet time consuming) aspects of the F-35. Since it’s mostly software driven, it’s much easier to diagnose, correct, and upgrade than hardware based avionics systems. Need more processing power or memory, upgrade the CPU cards (which they plan on doing in Tech Refresh 2). Since the ICS cards themselves run on the middleware architecture, the softeare does not have to be rewritten for the new chips. You can relatively easily go from the current dual core to a 4/6/8 core setup based on what chips are available at the time of upgrade. Btw, Tech Refresh 1 went from a single core to the current dual core setup without rewriting everything.

arkadyrenko wrote: ALIS could run behind the plane development for a while.
ALIS will always follow development since it will not know what to monitor or how to monitor it until its development is complete.

arkadyrenko wrote: As for knocking the F-35 defect reports, it is better that we hear this stuff now, rather than in 5 years when the whole program falls apart in a catastrophic mess.
I’m not knocking the report, only the over-reaction to it and some people’s blowing it completely out of context. I have no problem with these kinds of reports and I wish we could see them all. I really miss the MARS reports when they were released via the FOIA. I was hoping that they would continue to be, but each report requires a FOIA request (I know, I tried).

Funny thing I have noticed, only the bad news gets leaked.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests