Internationale fighter ontwikkelingen

[Ace1]

Congress to block A-10 retirement pending F-35 combat evaluation

The chairman of the US Senate House Armed Services Committee says lawmakers aren't likely to authorise the retirement of any more legacy warplanes until there is "no doubt" that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II can adequately fulfil its intended roles.

The statement by Senator John McCain at a Joint Strike Fighter congressional hearing on 26 April comes as members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) consider legislation to outlaw retirement of the Fairchild Republic A-10C, at least until the F-35 completes its initial operational evaluation and comparison testing with the "Warthog". The Air Force wants to start drawing down A-10C squadrons beginning in fiscal 2018 and the final airframe would move to desert storage in 2021.

The F-35 isn't expected to begin its operational assesment until late 2017 or perhaps even some time in 2018, but language included in HASC chairman Mac Thornberry's mark of the fiscal year 2017 defence policy bill would retain 171 A-10Cs until JSF operational testing is complete.

The Pentgaon's current programme of record buys 2,443 Lightning IIs for $379 billion through 2040 to replace the A-10, F/A-18, F-16 and AV-8B. Comparison testing between the F-35 and those platforms is meant to certify that the $100 million multirole fighters can successfully accomplish every mission assigned to those types, including close air support (CAS), surface attack, suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses, offensive and defensive air warfare and aerial reconnaissance.
The US Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation J Michael Gilmore said at the congressional hearing that the F-35 won't exactly match the close air support capabilities of A-10, which was designed in the 1970s expressly for that purpose, but it might perform the role better in a high-threat combat scenario.

However, the F-35's higher fuel burn rate, weapons limitations and smaller gun put it at a disadvantage compared to the A-10, he notes.

Gilmore says if a combat-loaded F-35B jump jet travelled 250nm to provide air cover for troops, it could only spend 25-40mins in the area before refuelling compared to 1h without external tanks for the A-10.

"Recent exercises involving the use of F-35A and F-35B aircraft in limited close air support mission environments have shown that the fuel burn rate with internal weapons – two bombs and two air-to-air missiles – is 10-20% higher than the F-16, depending on the variant, and about 50-70% higher than the A-10," Gilmore notes in written testimony.

"The F-35 has a lightweight, 25mm cannon, internally mounted on the F-35A with 182 rounds, and in an external pod with 220 rounds for the F-35B and F-35C, while the A-10 has a 30mm cannon with 1,150 rounds," he adds. "Even though the A-10 gun has a higher rate of fire, the A-10 gun can fire for over 17s versus approximately 4s for the F-35, providing the capability for many more gun attacks."

Gilmore and Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall said at the hearing that the F-35 will perform the CAS mission very differently to the A-10 and will rely more on precision weapons like the Boeing GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, a weapon that has made even the Cold War Boeing B-1B bomber an effective CAS aircraft.

Kendall says he is a "huge proponent and fan of the A-10" but there isn't enough force structure or funding available to the DOD continue operating single-mission aircraft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/congress-to-block-a-10-retirement-pending-f-35-comba-424673/

[Ace1]

F-35 chief considers fix for troubling Block 3i software faults

After 15 years of development and billions of dollars of investment, software glitches continue to hamper Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II operations and in one case, just one of six US Air Force F-35As on a mock deployment to Mountain Home AFB in Idaho were able to takeoff during an alert launch exercise.

"The Air Force attempted two alert launch procedures during the Mountain Home deployment, where multiple F-35A aircraft were preflighted and prepared for a rapid launch, but only one of the six aircraft was able to complete the alert launch sequence and successfully takeoff," the Pentagon's top weapons tester disclosed in written testimony to Congress on 26 April. "Problems during startup that required system or aircraft shutdowns and restarts – a symptom of immature systems and software – prevented the other alert launches from being completed."

The deployment took place in February in preparation for the first trial deployment of the 34th Fighter Squadron of Hill AFB, Utah, which is slated to declare initial operational capability (IOC) with Block 3i aircraft sometime between August and December this year.

It is one of many examples of failed launches attributed to "immature software" that has been loaded into the 179 aircraft Lockheed has already delivered to the Pentagon and international customers since concurrent production and development began in 2007 "well before the stability of the design could be confirmed through testing".

In another "relatively recent" example detailed by the US Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation J Michael Gilmore, two of four aircraft loaded with an early version of Block 3F had to abort an attempted electronic warfare "super scenario" mission because of software stability problems experienced during startup. "Also, when the aircraft operated in a dense and realistic electromagnetic environment, the current avionics problems caused poor detection and fusion performance, which is exacerbated in multi-ship F-35 formations," Gilmore adds.

Software issues continue to be a problem for US Marin Corps F-35Bs loaded with Block 2B software, even though those aircraft are supposedly the most stable, with a reported average of "8h between software stability events".

Gilmore says if used in combat, the F-35B would need help avoiding threats, acquiring targets and controlling weapons. The Block 2B aircraft are only equipped to carry two bombs and two air-to-air missiles internally, but are also hobbled by "fusion, electronic warfare and weapons employment" deficiencies that cause "ambiguous threat displays, limited ability to respond to threats, and a requirement for offboard sources to provide accurate coordinates for precision attack".

Software issues also plague the latest Block 3i aircraft, which are modified with an improved processor. On 25 March, the F-35 Joint Programme Office (JPO) began flight testing the Block 3iR6.21 software version. Gilmore reports that during the first 30 flights (76 total flight hours) "no less than 27 power cycles were required to get all systems functioning between initial startup and takoff", ranging from full "cold iron" aircraft restarts to component or battery recycling.

The spike in reported software troubles comes as the F-35 programme moves away from parallel coding of multiple, concurrent software blocks to a sequential programming effort, something that F-35 programme chief Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan believes will make the incremental improvement process significantly more efficient.

Bogdan says he has been encouraged by the demonstrated stability of the newest iteration of Block 3i and he expects to make a decision by 1 May as to whether that's the software load that the Air Force's first F-35A combat group will declare IOC with later this year.

The average time between Block 3i "stability events" currently stands at once every three or four hours compared to 8h for Block 2B, says Bogdan, but the latest Block 3i iteration that has been tested over 44 flights and 96 flight hours appears to have tripled in reliability – one failure every 15h, approximately. Bogdan praised Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems and a DOD "red team" for working through the root-cause of these latest software issues and finding a solution. If the initial results prove accurate, Bogdan says it will become the last version of Block 3i.

"Once all the operational tests are done this week, I will make a decision if that version of 3i software is it. I'm leaning toward it being 'it'," Bogdan tells reporters after the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on 26 April. "Other than safety of flight things, that's going to be the software [the Air Force] declares IOC with. No more 2B, no more 3i and no more 3F at the same time – just concentrate on 3F. We think we'll gain some efficienciesthere."

Even if the software issues are fixed to a reasonable extent, there is still 60 days of "schedule risk" that could set back the Air Force's IOC declaration with the conventional A-model. That risk relates to the long-troubled, back-end logistics and aircraft health monitoring network known as the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) that manages the flow of spare parts to aircraft at every main base and deployed location. The latest iteration of ALIS (version 2.0.2) incorporates data from the F-35 afterburning turbofan propulsion system, built by Pratt & Whitney. Incorporating this data and other ALIS fixes has proven to be extremely difficult, says Bogdan.

"All of the things that are necessary for [the USAF] to make that [IOC] decision are on track for a 1 August 2016 declaration with the exception of ALIS," he said during the congressional hearing. "I believe ALIS is approximately 60 days behind, and therefore, I would put ALIS delivery – which is a criteria for them – at about 1 October 2016 as opposed to August."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-chief-considers-fix-for-troubling-block-3i-soft-424650/

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

F35 fighter jets recommended to Danish government by expert group - radio

April, 28-2016

COPENHAGEN, April 28 (Reuters) - Denmark should buy 28 of Lockheed Martin's F35 Lightning fighter jets to replace its present F16 jets, an expert group formed by the Danish Ministry of Defence has recommended to the government, according to local radio.

The group found that the Lightning was better than Eurofighter's Typhoon and Boeing Co's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in four priority areas: military combat, economy, strategics and Danish industrial cooperation with the producer, Radio24syv said citing sources close to the negotiations.

The expert group recommended that Denmark should buy 28 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, it said.

Denmark's decision will be closely watched, as several other nations also have to decide whether to replace their aged warplanes with Lockheed Martin Corp's brand new F-35 or play safe with cheaper, older-generation planes such the Super Hornets.

Now it is up to the government and the political parties supporting the purchase of new fighter jets to decide which one to pick.

Denmark's Defence Ministry did not reply to requests from Reuters. Spokesmen from various political parties declined to comment.

(Reporting by Erik Matzen; Editing by Dominic Evans)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/f35-fighter-jets-recommended-danish-113528877.html

[Lex]

Verzoeke het artikel betreffende JPO goed na te lezen. Een deel ervan staat dubbel gepost. 

[Ace1]

​ANALYSIS: House panel approves funds for 11 F-35s and 14 F/A-18s

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II might be the world's costliest and most divisive warplane, but there's something to be said for the seemingly Teflon-coated Joint Strike Fighter's resiliency.

On 28 April, just days after the developmental aircraft's many flaws were enumerated at a Senate hearing, the US House Armed Services Committee agreed on a defence policy that would fund 11 more F-35s in fiscal year 2017, on top of the 63 aircraft already requested by the US services.

Congress, despite many members being vocal critics of the aircraft, has made adding money for F-35s something of an annual tradition, having also added 11 more Lightning IIs than requested in the current fiscal year 2016 defence budget.

Though US lawmakers decry the concurrent development and production of such a sophisticated and technologically difficult piece of military hardware, they don't seem at all concerned about bolstering production with extra aircraft.

The decision to develop and built the JSF aircraft simultaneously was described this week as "acquisition malpractice" and the cause of a "long nightmare". That's because every one of the approximately 500 aircraft that will be delivered prior to the introduction of the full warfighting Block 3F configuration in 2018, at the end of the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase, will need to be retrofitted at great expense.

However, Pentagon officials note that the aircraft and propulsion system's fundamental design is stable and the main challenges relate to updatable software and the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which still hasn't successfully incorporated engine data.

The Pentagon's top weapons tester J Michael Gilmore told Congress this week that after fifteen years of development and one year out from the planned start of operational testing in late 2017, the F-35 "remains immature and provides limited combat capability", although corrections are being made.

The Defence Department's acquisition czar Frank Kendall says the "F-35 is no longer a programme that keeps me up at night" and testing is about 90% complete. "I do expect additional discovery, but I will be surprised if a major design problem surfaces at this point," he says.

Along with the 11 more F-35s, the House Armed Services panel also authorised funding for 14 more Boeing F/A-18E/Fs for the US Navy. If approved by the full Congress, those extra Super Hornet orders would help keep production in St Louis, Missouri humming at a sustainable level, even if some international orders don't materialise.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-house-panel-approves-funds-for-11-f-35s-a-424747/

[Ace1]

F-35 office has 2,590 staff and $70 million annual budget

It takes 2,590 military personnel, government civilians and full-time equivalent contractors and $70 million per year to run the world's largest and most expensive military aircraft programme, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

That's according to the US Defense Department's F-35 chief Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan, who disclosed the staff count and annual budget of the F-35 Joint Programme Office (JPO) at a congressional hearing about the $379 billion fighter procurement this week.

The numbers include the two F-35 test forces located Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland and Edwards AFB in California.

Headquartered near the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, the JPO is managing the acquisition of 2,443 aircraft for the US military services as well as hundreds more for the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea.

The acquisition has almost doubled in cost since the F-35 development contract was awarded to the fighter jet's manufacturer Lockheed Martin in October 2001. To date, 179 aircraft have been delivered compared to the 1,013 that were forecast 15 years ago.

The JPO staffing numbers were requested by US Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Senator John McCain, an outspoken F-35 critic, who said at the hearing on 26 April that the programme's record of performance "has been both a scandal and a tragedy".

27 APRIL, 2016 BY: JAMES DREW WASHINGTON DC
It takes 2,590 military personnel, government civilians and full-time equivalent contractors and $70 million per year to run the world's largest and most expensive military aircraft programme, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

That's according to the US Defense Department's F-35 chief Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan, who disclosed the staff count and annual budget of the F-35 Joint Programme Office (JPO) at a congressional hearing about the $379 billion fighter procurement this week.

The numbers include the two F-35 test forces located Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland and Edwards AFB in California.

Headquartered near the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, the JPO is managing the acquisition of 2,443 aircraft for the US military services as well as hundreds more for the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea.

The acquisition has almost doubled in cost since the F-35 development contract was awarded to the fighter jet's manufacturer Lockheed Martin in October 2001. To date, 179 aircraft have been delivered compared to the 1,013 that were forecast 15 years ago.

The JPO staffing numbers were requested by US Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Senator John McCain, an outspoken F-35 critic, who said at the hearing on 26 April that the programme's record of performance "has been both a scandal and a tragedy".

"The information that I have is it's nearly 3,000 [staff] and the cost is $300 million a year. But $70 million a year to run an office is pretty disturbing," McCain said in response the JPO numbers. That $70 million per year pays for salaries, office space, computers, IT support and other costs.

Asked after the hearing if that was an appropriate staffing level and budget for a programme of the F-35's magnitude, Bogdan said: "I don't know if that's enough or not, or if it's too much. It's what we have.

"You ought to look at the F-35 numbers and remember that we're building three variants for 14 customers, so maybe it's not a bad size for three programme offices," he adds, referring to the aircraft's three variants, which are just 20-25% common compared to the 70-90% commonality expected at the start of the programme.

"I think the difference between the number Senator McCain mentioned, at least on the dollar side, is the bill for navy and air force civilians and military personnel. [That bill] doesn't come to me."

The Pentagon's annual tab for the F-35 is expected to average $13 billion over the next 22 years, according to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). Its last aircraft will arrive by 2040 and the type will remain in service through 2070.

Lockheed delivered just six aircraft in the between January and March, which is slightly lower than expected because of the transition between production lots, the company disclosed on 26 April in its first quarter earnings results. The company says it remains on track to deliver 53 aircraft as planned this year.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-office-has-2590-staff-and-70-million-annual-b-424696/

[Ace1]

Congress appears ready to let the Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk go

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) is considering a legislative provision that would allow the US Air Force to finally junk the famed Lockheed Martin F-117A Nighthawk.

The aircraft was officially retired from service in April 2008, but Congress demanded that all aircraft mothballed from 30 September 2006 onward be maintained "in a condition that would allow recall of that aircraft to future service".

The ghost fleet is now accomodated in special climate-controlled hangars at the Tonopah Test Range at Nellis AFB, Nevada – the location dubbed Area 51. There have been dozens of reported sightings and pictures of the aircraft flying since 2008, including sightings of an aircraft being refuelled in flight.

The pioneer of the US military's stealth aircraft revolution, which owes its distinct "Hopeless Diamond" shape to its ability to scatter radar energy, first flew in 1981 but remained shrouded in secrecy until 1988, when the air force acknowledged its existence at a press conference.

Lockheed's Skunk Works division assembled 59 Nighthawks for the Pentagon between August 1982 and July 1990, but stealth technology and adversary radar detection methods quickly moved past the F-117 and the Air Force quickly turned to newer, more low-observable types like the Lockheed F-22, Northrop Grumman B-2 and now F-35 and B-21.

Now, ten years after the F-117A provision was enacted as part of the 2007 National Defence Authorisation Act, US lawmakers appear willing to let the storied single-seat stealth jet move to the aerospace maintenance and regeneration yard in Arizona, where they'll probably be torn apart or less likely, scavenged for hard-to-find parts.

If carried forward by the full committee today, the provision by HASC chairman Mac Thornberry would "remove the requirement that certain F-117 aircraft be maintained in a condition that would allow recall of those aircraft to future service" if approved by the full Congress.

The F-117 is most noted for its involvement in Operation Desert Storm in 1991 against Saddam Hussein's forces. That was the first American-led military campaign to make comprehensive use of stealth aircraft.

The F-117 flew 1,299 sorties during that war, achieving an 80% mission success rate with no losses or significant battle damage, according to the air force. The twin General Electric F404-powered high-subsonic aircraft's primary armaments were internally stored laser-guided Paveway bombs, of which more than 9,300 were dropped on targets in Iraq in 1991.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/congress-appears-ready-to-let-the-lockheed-f-117a-ni-424690/

[Ace1]

Will The F-35 Learn From Past Missteps?

The U.S. Air Force's largest weapon program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, on which the U.S. will spend more than $400 billion, has hit a stride. The question is how long the program will be able to sustain it.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition chief, told the Senate Armed Services Committee during an April 26 hearing how the Lockheed Martin fighter program has moved beyond the problems of its past. In 2009 he was alarmed by the program's risky plan to concurrently buy aircraft while development continued, calling it "acquisition malpractice." But he said that after a lot of work and oversight, the program has stabilized.

"The F-35 program is no longer one that keeps me up at night," Kendall said, adding that he would be surprised if a major design problem cropped up.

The Marine Corps declared initial operational capability last year and the Air Force is on track to do so by the end of this year. Current law limits funding until the Air Force certifies that the fighter will have full combat capability in terms of hardware, software and weapons by 2018. And Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program executive officer, says software stability issues are being addressed and that the 3F version of software will be delivered in 2018 with full capability. He plans to recommend that Air Force Secretary Deborah James make the certification.

Congress is invested in seeing the program succeed. The House Armed Services Committee is proposing to add 11 additional F-35s to its fiscal 2017 defense policy bill.

And yet, congressional watchdogs are warning that risk lies ahead in the next increment of modernization, called Block 4, and that checks to ensure the program is accountable are lacking.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office has recommended that the Block 4 program, based on its cost, should be declared a major defense acquisition program in its own right. GAO's Michael Sullivan said the F-22 program introduced similar upgrades within the overall program. "Then a $2 billion estimate for those new capabilities became $11 billion, and there was no accountability," he said.

Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation, told senators that current plans for Block 4 need to be "scrubbed rigorously."

"The program's proposed 'F-35 Modernization Planning Schedule' is overly optimistic and does not properly align with the program's current software development schedule, which is also unrealistic," Gilmore says in his written testimony.

The program recently said Block 4 will require new processors at a cost of $700 million that must now be factored into fiscal 2018 budget plans. The first Block 4 software release is planned for late 2020, but it doesn't propose to correct deficiencies to the previous Block 3F software. That kind of schedule adds risk, Gilmore says.

Whether the program has learned the lessons of its past acquisition problems, stemming from plans that proved to be too good to be true, remains to be seen.

"I see a number of unrealistic expectations with Block 4," Gilmore said. "They should take a look at those issues. That will be a good test."

Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) unsuccessfully attempted to add a provision to the defense authorization bill that would make Block 4 its own major acquisition program during the House Armed Services Committee's April 27 markup. She drew a parallel to the F-22 program, saying the Pentagon initially resisted separating modernization from that advanced fighter effort. After billions of dollars in cost growth and delays, Congress stepped in to require F-22 modernization to be broken out in 2013. Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), who leads the air and land forces subcommittee, argued that creating the separate program for the F-35's Block 4 would add about $13 million to the program's cost and delay delivery of the software by about a year. Overall the committee agreed with him, voting 41 to 20 to reject the amendment.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/will-f-35-learn-past-missteps?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160428_AW-05_93&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000002205251&utm_campaign=5752&utm_medium=email&elq2=3743eaf07af64be188ee062150fa1f43

[Sparkplug]

Gloves come off in fight to win Denmark's combat jet order

By Erik Matzen and Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen | April 26, 2016

* Denmark to pick either Boeing or Lockheed Martin jets - sources

U.S. defence giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing have stepped up their battle in Denmark to win a $5 billion order for combat jets which is due to be decided next month, with an advertising blitz in newspapers and on billboards by Boeing reflecting the importance they give to winning the deal.

The result of the Danish government's lengthy deliberations is expected to make waves around the global defence market, as several other nations also have to decide whether to replace their aged warplanes with Lockheed Martin Corp's brand new F-35 Lightnings or play safe with cheaper, older-generation planes such as Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

With so much at stake in terms of prestige, the bitter rivalry between the two has erupted into a public spat in Denmark as Boeing compares its rival's new aircraft to a scandal over the botched purchase of Italian trains a decade ago.

"The choice of fighter jets is not just about Denmark's defence. It's also about working from day one," Boeing has said in newspaper and billboard ads, in a clear reference to the F-35 which entered service last July for the U.S. Marine Corps but is still completing a development program which began in 2001.

The U.S. Air Force is slated to declare an initial squadron of F-35s ready for combat later this year.

In the ads a full-page photograph shows some of the defective trains that had yet to be fully developed at the time of order. Technical problems with the 85 trains, of which less than half are in use to date, ended up costing the Danish state hundreds of millions of dollars, causing a public outcry.

Towards the end of the campaign which started in March and peaked in April in newspapers, on outdoor billboards, radio spots and door-to-door distribution, Boeing had bought ads worth 9.65 million crowns ($1.5 million), excluding discounts, according to TNS Gallup Adfacts.

But by reminding Danes of a past purchasing scandal, the ad campaign has raised hackles in some quarters over the use of such tactics but nevertheless has also sparked a public debate about the merits of investing in untried technology.

"We don't use such methods in Denmark," said one defence lawmaker who is involved in the decisionmaking process.

"Boeing ought to be careful not to be hit by its own boomerang, if we get disgusted by the company. Right now, Boeing is close to giving me this feeling," the person said in reaction to the ad campaign.

However, in the wider public - more accustomed to ads for organic cheese than fighter jets - the discussion quickly shifted from what type of plane should be purchased to whether Denmark should buy new warplanes at all.

Boeing has defended its advertising.

"The informational campaign was created firmly out of respect and understanding of the documented Danish acquisition process which has a phase of public debate," Tom Bell, the top sales executive for Boeing's defence business, told Reuters.

And Boeing executives are publicly bullish about their chances of winning the Danish order for up to 30 jets, but privately concede winning Denmark would be a long shot, making the ad campaign seem like a last-ditch effort.

"Winning Denmark is absolutely vital for Boeing which has limited firm export orders left for the (Super Hornet) and is desperate for business," said Francis Tusa, Editor of Defence Analysis.

Outside the traditional major arms purchasers in the Gulf, nations currently shopping for fighters include Belgium, Indonesia and Malaysia, while eastern Europe is looking for secondhand aircraft..

The United States is poised to approve two long-delayed sales of Boeing fighter sales to the Gulf including 28 Super Hornets worth $3 billion for Kuwait.

A separate but unfunded U.S. Navy requirement calls for another 12 jets, but Boeing remains keen to win new export orders to shore up future production for its fighters in St Louis.

For Lockheed Martin, losing the Danish order could dent market confidence in the F-35.

Denmark is one of eight original partners that helped fund development of the F-35 and flies Lockheed F-16 jets alongside Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. Norway and the Netherlands have ordered F-35s and Belgium has expressed interest.

However, the $379 billion F-35 program has been plagued with cost overruns and delays, although U.S. officials say the program has met its cost and schedule targets since a major restructuring in 2010, and acquisition costs are now finally coming down.

Software issues and problems with a complex logistics system still pose challenges, according to a U.S. congressional report released this month, which said the lack of a back-up system could potentially ground the U.S. F-35 fleet.

Lockheed officials say they are confident that the new jet's superior data-processing and "fusing" capabilities, coupled with its ability to evade radar, will ultimately prevail over the older-generation Super Hornets.

A third contender in Denmark, the Eurofighter Typhoon made by Airbus Group, BAE Systems and Finmeccanica , officially remains on the shortlist, but Danish government sources say it is no longer being considered.

Eurofighter said it was confident of winning more orders after a recent deal for 28 planes in Kuwait. (Additional reporting by Tim Hepher in Paris, Andrea Shalal in Washington; Editing by Greg Mahlich)

http://www.reuters.com/article/global-aerospace-denmark-idUSL3N17B3XA

[Ace1]

[Ace1]

Israel's F-35 App And Its Implications

Has Israel set a precedent?

Israel has announced it will equip the F-35s it starts receiving this December with its own command, control, communications and computing (C4) system. The software, produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), is an upgrade of an existing C4 system the Israeli air force flies on its F-15 and F-16s.

By adapting proprietary software to the F-35, Israel has leveraged the strike fighter's open-architecture software design long touted by Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program Office (JPO). In effect, IAI has written the first "app" for the F-35 and, arguably, set a precedent for F-35 software independence.

"Imagine putting some new applications on your mobile phone," says Benni Cohen, general manager of IAI's Lahav Division. "It is not difficult. You can do it without touching the mission systems."

His metaphor is a useful one. While the specifics are not exactly the same, think of the F-35's software backbone as an "operating system" like Apple's iOS and IAI's C4 software, which sits atop it as an "application." With the right application interface, developers can write new apps for the F-35, adding new functionality.


Israel will receive its first F-35 JSF in December and is writing its own software for the multinational platform.

"Yes, it is straightforward to tap into that [F-35 system] data and build upon that information to make new applications or add new functionality that benefits the overall fight," John Clark agrees. Clark is director of mission systems and software at Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, which is working with the U.S. Air Force to craft a software protocol called Open Mission Systems (OMS), designed to enable faster technology insertion into existing and future platforms.

By standardizing the process for moving data around the F-35's open architecture backbone, OMS will enable more rapid software development and mission systems integration. The protocol is still in development but is planned to be introduced on the F-35 "in the near future," says Lockheed. By working independently, however, Israel may have already changed the game.

Israel will not add its C4 system using OMS but instead exploit the F-35's existing openness. Whenever OMS does arrive, the fact that someone has already written an app for the aircraft now provides F-35 customers the option to add their own software, rather than waiting for upgrades planned by the U.S. Current plans for the JSF partner nations to develop a follow-on Block 4 software package are not expected to start until 2018 and will take six years.

"The folks at IAI doing that will certainly bring up [the issue] as more partner nations have the desire to do that," says Clark. "But it is also a double-edged sword. They do not get the benefits of the rest of the ecosystem the F-35 has by deviating."

Clark points out the F-35 program has a defined joint standards process intended to align partner nations with common enterprise support across the board, for software or hardware.

"Each country has the choice to make on how much value it puts on the enterprise support structure to maintain systems long-term," he says. "If there is an interoperability issue with one, you see it get fixed and the fix applies to all, as opposed to an interoperability issue that may exist with an IAI one-off."



The crux of the issue is how many other JSF partners will look at what Israel is pioneering and desire similar one-off software programs. Their motivations could range from strategic/tactical independence to the timing of JSF program software releases and, possibly, commercial concerns. Ironically, the open architecture design of F-35 systems potentially abets such desires. 

"The open architecture gives the Israeli air force the option to operate new systems and to address, let us say, special needs without needing to change versions of the airplane's software," says Cohen.

What are those "special needs"? "It gives the Israeli air force the capability for EW [electronic warfare] that is not part of the software for the normal F-35." Cohen says.

The explanation aligns well with comments made to Aviation Week in 2012 by a senior Israeli air force official: "We think the stealth protection will be good for 5-10 years, but the aircraft will be in service for 30-40 years, so we need EW capabilities [on the F-35] that can be rapidly improved. The basic F-35 design is OK. We can make do with adding integrated software" (AW&ST Aug. 6, 2012, p. 28). 

The ability to write its own apps is consistent with Israel's general desire for a level of independence from U.S. control. This emphasis on flexibility is evidenced by its push for an exemption from the JPO to carry out maintenance work in-country, rather than at predetermined Lockheed Martin-established logistics centers in Europe and elsewhere. 

"The idea is to give the [Israeli air force] the opportunity and capability to add new applications without the [backbone] system blocking that opportunity," Cohen adds. "If you decide to add another system, another missile, another capability, you do not need to touch the mission system, you just add the new application."

Simply adding a new application sounds appealing and efficient, but the JPO sounds a cautionary, and possibly conflicting, note on the precedent of JSF partners writing their own apps.

"By U.S. government policy, any integration of F-35 software must be done with U.S. government oversight and with the two prime contractors' involvement. Having open architecture systems on the F-35 will make it easier to integrate future improvements onto the aircraft, but it does not equate to every country or industry having free rein to integrate their own add-on software and systems," says the JPO.

Whether or not JSF partners add their own apps and functionality, the schedule for U.S. software updates once the program concludes its developmental phase could provide additional motivation to operate independently.

According to the JPO, hardware and software releases will alternate on a four-year schedule. A software release will be followed two years later by a hardware release and so on. But it is a schedule that simply does not align with software development and operational realities.

"This is the idea of our system," Cohen says. "Instead of waiting two years or four years for another [software update] version, we can [update] it in 4-5 months."

"The speed at which you could make [software] changes could certainly play a role in what is motivating partner nations," Clark allows. "I do not know that it is the only factor, but I don't have firm data to say one way or the other."

The JPO does not acknowledge the timing of its software releases as problematic: "We are working with all partners and [Foreign Military Sales (FMS)] customers to ensure we all have timely updates to meet various sovereign requirements in the coming years."

If Israel and other partners are sufficiently motivated to write their own apps, several questions arise, starting with interoperability. While commonality is foundational to the F-35 program, Skunk Works' Clark says conflicts can be managed. 

"The Israelis are very innovative," he says. "I would expect they will work in their own way, but that does not preclude having interoperability with other standards. It just means that when interoperability is sought, they'll have to ensure that whatever implementation they have built on top of the data provided via F-35 can operate with other pieces of software or hardware. . . . With our [OMS] effort we are trying to minimize the upfront systems engineering required to do those sorts of things."

Interoperability will not be an issue, the JPO assures, again citing U.S. oversight of the two contractors involved (Lockheed and IAI). The office adds that it "applies strong systems engineering rigor and discipline to all software development efforts supporting both partners and FMS customers."

The prospect of writing apps for the F-35 also raises the issue of cybersecurity. Commercial software development security experts repeatedly point out that the intersection of manufacturer and vendor software is perhaps the chief point of vulnerability for integrated systems.

Clark concedes that developing apps for the F-35 is analogous but stresses the program has sufficient security assurance in place. "We all see the news in the broader context of what is going on in the cyberenvironment," he says. "If you look at what the banking industry has to deal with, those are the type of [security] technologies that we are exploring and evaluating to try to apply to our airborne avionics environment."

The F-35's open architecture design follows strict principles on the provision of data for third-party evaluation, according to Lockheed. There are high assurance guards within the system that can integrate cross-domain devices while keeping mission systems and outside apps separate.

IAI's Cohen says the company is confident its C4 software will not have any influence on the security of the overall system. But what if a partner nation does not strictly adhere to correct security protocols, or makes a mistake?

"It depends on what application you are talking about and what data that system is trying to access. There is no one easy answer on that," Clark admits.

Another question is whether F-35 users that create their own apps could share or potentially sell them? Would IAI consider that possibility?

"Yes," Cohen answers. "We would need special permission to export [new applications]. We would need an export license."

Surely, F-35 users must have U.S. government authorization to market, sell or discuss non-U.S. add-ons, software updates, non-U.S. weapons, or any other F-35 equipment the program office emphasizes. Interestingly, the JPO does not completely shut the door to partner-to-partner nation add-on/software sales, saying, "The U.S. government will review each situation individually as countries discuss their intent with us."

Could the possibility of JSF user-to-user sales combined with the issues of software control, independence, updates and security see the F-35 program again mimic the Apple mobile device world? Could the U.S. set up its own F-35 "App Store"?

Lockheed has "brainstormed" the idea, Clark confirms. "It could provide for a greater ecosystem of software developers and tailorization of the system for unique needs, but we are still sorting out how we would manifest that in a way that would not just be a marketing pitch," he says.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/israel-s-f-35-app-and-its-implications?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160426_AW-05_950&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000002205251&utm_campaign=5717&utm_medium=email&elq2=5aa2b0ebe63d4861a2fe55ab77e66305

[Sparkplug]

Lockheed Martin readies Japan's first F-35A for September roll-out, advances international programmes

Kelvin Wong, Fort Worth, Texas - IHS Jane's International Defence Review | 25 April 2016


Japan's first F-35A will roll out of Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant in September 2016, which will subsequently be assigned to Luke Air Force Base for training the first batch of Japanese F-35 pilots. A US Air Force F-35A is pictured on the flight line at the same facility. Source: IHS/Kelvin Wong

Key Points
• Japan's first F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is expected to be fully assembled at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth production facility in time for a 29 September roll-out
• Other new international customers, such as Israel and South Korea, are also expected to receive their first aircraft within the next two years

Japan's first conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, designated aircraft AX-1, is on track for roll-out on 29 September, IHS Jane's has learnt during a tour of Lockheed Martin's F-35 production facility in Fort Worth, Texas, where the first four aircraft destined for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) are being assembled.

AX-1 will then undergo a series of tests before being delivered on a yet to be determined date to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona - which has been selected as the primary training centre for US and international operators of the F-35A variant - to support training of the first cadre of JASDF pilots for the type.

In late 2011 the country committed to a buy of 42 F-35As via the US Department of Defense's (DoD's) Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme at a cost of about USD20 billion. The package also includes the establishment of local assembly, and maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) capabilities, such as the final assembly and check-out (FACO) facility based at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' (MHI's) Nagoya Aerospace Systems Works Komaki Minami Plant in Aichi Prefecture.

The deal calls for AX-1 through AX-4 to be assembled at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth production facility while the remaining 38 will be assembled and delivered by the MHI FACO plant. Lockheed Martin announced in December 2015 that the first F-35A to be built in Japan, AX-5, has entered the 'mate' process in the facility's Electronic Mate and Assembly Station (EMAS), where the major components of the aircraft are joined together to form its main structure.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options ihs.com/contact

To read the full article, Client Login

(339 of 1014 words)

http://www.janes.com/article/59759/lockheed-martin-readies-japan-s-first-f-35a-for-september-roll-out-advances-international-programmes

[Ace1]

Naar mijn mening is CATOBAR nooit echt aan de orde geweest voor de Queen Elizabeth klasse. Er van uit gaande dat electromagnetisch catapulteren onhaalbaar is voor de Britten. De kabels & pullies dwars door de dekken, dat teken je niet later zomaar in het ontwerp. De arresting gear hetzelfde verhaal. De stoomketels, de heaters (non-nucleair), hoe stook je die? Het kan wel maar de stoomketels permanent heet houden kost wel muntjes. Een beetje futuristisch gedacht moet je aan waterstof generatoren of vloeibaar gas denken mocht je het energetisch probleem "conventioneel" willen oplossen zonder gebruik te maken van stookolie of kolen.

Sowieso is de F -35B voor veel naties (Italië, Spanje,Japan, Zuid-Korea) de enige optie. BAe Systems bepaald dan toch in enige mate wat de keuze werd.

De kosten voor het ombouwen van de Queen Elizabeth klasse waren te duur maar men was wel bezig met een Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System voor de Queen Elizabeth klasse.

Advantages

Compared to steam catapults, EMALS weighs less, occupies less space, requires less maintenance and manpower, is more reliable, recharges more quickly, and uses less energy. Steam catapults, which use about 1350 pounds of steam per launch, have extensive mechanical, pneumatic, and hydraulic subsystems.  EMALS uses no steam, which makes it suitable for the Navy's planned all-electric ships.

Compared to steam catapults, EMALS can control the launch performance with greater precision, allowing it to launch more kinds of aircraft, from heavy fighter jets to light unmanned aircraft.

Each one of the four disk alternators in the EMALS system can deliver 29 percent more energy than a steam catapult's approximately 95 megajoules; each disk alternator can supply up to 121 megajoules. The EMALS will also be more efficient than the 5-percent efficiency of steam catapults.

Converteam UK were working on an electro-magnetic catapult (EMCAT) system for the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier. In August 2009, speculation mounted that the UK may drop the STOVL F-35B for the CTOL F-35C model, which would have meant the carriers being built to operate conventional takeoff and landing aircraft utilizing the UK-designed non-steam EMCAT catapults

In October 2010, the UK Government announced it had opted to buy the F-35C, using a then-undecided CATOBAR system. A contract was signed in December 2011 with General Atomics of San Diego to develop EMALS for the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. However, in May 2012, the UK Government reversed its decision after the projected costs rose to double the original estimate and delivery moved back to 2023, cancelling the F-35C option and reverting to its original decision to buy the STOVL F-35B

The Indian navy has shown interest in installing EMALS for its planned CATOBAR Supercarrier INS Vishal  Indian government has shown interest to produce the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System locally with the assistance of General Atomics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System#cite_note-27

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Want More F-22s? Here's What That Would Take

April 22, 2016 By Marcus Weisgerber 

Congress is inquiring about restarting the Raptor production line, cold for almost five years now.

U.S. lawmakers have asked the Air Force about the possibility of restarting production of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, an endeavor that would be far more complicated than signing a check and flipping the lights back on.

In its review of the 2017 defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee asked service leaders to look into what it would take to build 194 new Raptors, enough to finally meet the Air Force's long-stated requirement of 381 jets. HASC chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, and others say the world has changed since 2009, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates halted the F-22 program at 187 aircraft in order to double down on the multirole F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. For one thing, the stealthy, supercruising Raptor was expected to keep the U.S. as undisputed king of air-to-air combat for decades. That turned to be overly optimistic.

"We've seen both Russia and China develop airplanes faster than was anticipated," Air Force Lt. Gen. James Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a March 8 hearing.

Meanwhile, the prospect of conflict with those two nations seems less far-fetched than it once did. Indeed, the F-22 made its first two operational deployments to Europe — last August and again this month — in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and aggressive maneuvers in Eastern Europe.

"I don't know that [more F-22s] is the answer, but in my town hall meetings, I get asked about this," Thornberry said Thursday at a Defense Writers Group breakfast. "I think enough members were getting the question that the decision was made, see what [the Pentagon] says about that," he said. "The answer may well come back: 'It doesn't make sense.' I don't know, but we'll ask the question."

Part of the answer will surely be: easier said than done.

Finding the Money

First, the Air Force would need to find a boatload of money that it doesn't have. The service is already buying fewer F-35 Joint Strike Fighters than it wants to because of the budget crunch. It also has plans to buy aerial refueling tankers, stealth bombers, radar planes, search-and-rescue helicopters, jet trainers, a new Air Force One, and ICBM-security helicopters. "If the F-22 is restarted, it will likely come at the expense of some of those other aircraft programs," said Todd Harrison, a Pentagon budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Two years before Lockheed shuttered the F-22's final assembly line, a RAND study calculate that restarting production to build 75 new jets would cost $17 billion. Adjust for inflation and boost production to 194 Raptors, and the total price tag likely approaches $30 billion.

"We're talking tens of billions of dollars to buy these jets, at the exact time that the Air Force has an aircraft modernization bow wave that's just incredible," Harrison said. "This would just add right on top of the peak years of the Air Force's bow wave."

Meanwhile, the Pentagon's budget is capped through 2021, meaning Congress and the next president would have to break and reforge the existing budget deal to free up the money.

Perhaps the U.S. could defray the cost of restarting production by selling some F-22s abroad? Japan, Israel, and Australia all have wanted the Raptor at one time or another. There's a hitch, however: it's illegal to sell the jet abroad. That law was written by Rep. Dave Obey, D-Ohio, who retired in 2011 after more than 40 years in Congress. Still, the lawmakers who requested the study don't see the Obey Amendment as a show-stopper; they are asking the Air Force to assess the potential market.

Reengineering the Plane

A second problem, or perhaps an opportunity, is that the new Raptor would need new electronic guts. The original electronic specifications are long obsolete; the plane first flew in 1997 and entered service in 2005. Indeed, the Air Force is now amid a $1.5 billion effort to bring all 183 existing F-22s up to a single software and hardware standard.

Redesigned, more modern electronics could breathe new life and longevity into the F-22. First off, the prospective new Raptors won't start arriving for five years or even longer, meaning that to build them to today's standard means they will be half a decade old coming off the line. For another thing, much of the internal hardware is dated, so it will have to be created from scratch anyway.

Some have suggested equipping the new F-22s — call them F-22Bs — with the more advanced computer processors and radar of its younger cousin, the F-35.

"The F-35 is an amazing mission equipment package in search of a good air vehicle and the F-22 is an amazing air vehicle in search of a good mission equipment package," said Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group. The twin-engine Raptor is, for example, far more agile than the Lightning II.

Perhaps the F-22B could even be fitted with the secret jet engine being built by Pratt & Whitney for the new B-21 stealth bomber, allowing it to leap a generation of power plant technology, Aboulafia said.

"There's a chance for a migration of technology to come full circle," he said.

While the guts of the F-22 would need an upgrade, the plane's structural design is sound, Aboulafia said.

Finding a Place to Build it

Then there's finding space to build the plane and its almost innumerable specialty components. Lockheed, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney were the three big F-22 contractors, but there were more than 1,000 F-22 suppliers from firms in 44 states, according to the Congressional Research Service. Lockheed said 25,000 jobs were directly tied to the project.

The factory floor spaces that once assembled the world's most complex fighter jet have long since been given over to newer projects. In the Seattle factory that used to build Raptor wings and aft fuselages, Boeing now does commercial work. Pratt, which built its final Raptor F119 engine in 2012, now overhauls the engines at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma.

Final assembly took place at Air Force Plant 6, nestled in the northwest corner of Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Georgia. Lockheed now uses the space is now used to build C-130J, make center wings for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and overhaul massive C-5 Galaxy cargo planes.

After the final F-22 was delivered to the Air Force in early 2012, all of the tooling and structures were packed up and sent to the Sierra Army Depot, in northeast California near the Nevada border.

Even if new space could be found and the tooling set up once more, it would take considerable effort to assemble and train a new workforce to build the F-22. Lockheed took care to capture as much knowledge as possible before the line closed. "Every F-22 assembly process has also been videotaped, photographed, recorded, and stored," the company wrote in 2012.

But Harrison said that only goes so far. "If you have videos, that will help, but you lose a lot of your learning-curve efficiencies," he said. "You're basically starting over with a new workforce."

All in all, if the Air Force study recommends restarting production, and somehow the money is found, the design updated, the supply chain rebuilt, the production spaces reconstituted, and a new workforce trained up, the new Raptors would not arrive until after 2020.

"It would be almost a decade shut down by the time this would actually get going again," Harrison said.

But for true believers, national security is worth the time and trouble. T. Michael Moseley, the former Air Force chief of staff who locked horns with Gates over the F-22, still believes the service needs more Raptors. "I believe a restart is absolutely required to be able to modernize/recap the [Air Force]," he said.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/04/want-more-f-22s-heres-what-would-take/127729/

[Zeewier]

Ze hebben sowieso al bakken met geld verspilt door de klasse niet geschikt te maken voor CATOBAR toestellen.

Naar mijn mening is CATOBAR nooit echt aan de orde geweest voor de Queen Elizabeth klasse. Er van uit gaande dat electromagnetisch catapulteren onhaalbaar is voor de Britten. De kabels & pullies dwars door de dekken, dat teken je niet later zomaar in het ontwerp. De arresting gear hetzelfde verhaal. De stoomketels, de heaters (non-nucleair), hoe stook je die? Het kan wel maar de stoomketels permanent heet houden kost wel muntjes. Een beetje futuristisch gedacht moet je aan waterstof generatoren of vloeibaar gas denken mocht je het energetisch probleem "conventioneel" willen oplossen zonder gebruik te maken van stookolie of kolen.

Sowieso is de F -35B voor veel naties (Italië, Spanje,Japan, Zuid-Korea) de enige optie. BAe Systems bepaald dan toch in enige mate wat de keuze werd.