Flight Tests Of Next F-35 Block Underway

Aviation Week and Space Technology ^ | 6/12/2010 | Graham Warwick

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Amid restructuring and soaring cost projections, the Joint Strike Fighter is ticking off milestones that were expected months ago, but the gathering test pace must be maintained if the program is to stay on its new track and avoid further delays and cost growth.

In two key milestones, the first Lockheed Martin F-35 mission-system test aircraft, BF-4, has returned to flight after modification, and the 737-based Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATBird) has begun flying with the latest Block 1 software for the mission system.

Development of all software (on and off board) is more than 80% complete, but the mission-system software is only 56% finished and was running six months behind before the JSF program was restructured in April to add 13 months to development, says Eric George, director of mission system and software. The new plan is “an executable program,” he says, and includes margin. “We’ve not typically been in that position.”

Lawmakers remain skeptical, and a key defense committee has tied 2011 funding to achieving test milestones by year-end, including flying Block 1 software in the F-35. All provisions in the legislation are milestones the Pentagon and contractor have said they will meet, says a congressional staffer. But in recertifying the JSF program, the Pentagon says areas of concern remain in software integration and flight test. In addition to more time, the replan is adding software engineers and system integration resources—$84 million for more software developers and $125 million for a third integration laboratory to come on line in the second quarter of 2012. As a stopgap the USRL—a reprogramming laboratory Lockheed Martin is building for Eglin AFB, Fla.—will be used for software development testing.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Ping

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

I sure hope they get the bugs worked out soon,,,

We need to put it on the line ASAP...

[buzzer]

They should simply stop all this f-35 garbage and build f-22s instead. The F-22 is the clearly the better airplane. The only reason to prefer the f-35 were lower cost estimates which proofed wrong ending up in a airplane that will cost more then a f-22 with less capabilities.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

151 as of December 2009 (187 planned),,,

I’ll park that first,,,

As I understand O’Bammy killed the program,,,

That sure ain’t many aircraft...

[Red Dog #1]

Wanna bet you get half of what you want? I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the F-35 gets canceled and the F-22 isn’t resurrected. Remember the stories a few days ago about big military cuts coming? Some Dem congressmen were openly talking about killing the F-35.

[lowtaxsmallgov]

I liken the F22/F35 situation to a baseball game:

Say we’re leading 3-1 in the 5th inning - much like the current circumstances we are clearly in the lead, though the ultimate outcome is far from definite. The F35 is an incremental improvement, like maybe adding another run to take a 4-1 lead - nice, but not daunting to the enemy and they will continue to struggle and hope to overcome. The F22 is like a 7-run 5th that breaks the game open and forces the evil empire (USSR, NYY) to capitulate, to give it up and try again some other day. They take out their regulars and rest them (Jeter, A-Rod, Tex), and don’t bother using their best relievers (Joba, Mo).

The F22 would guarantee the United States of America air supremacy for the next 20-30 years. That’s only a bad think if you don’t believe in American Exceptionalism, like for example, our President.

Obama Philosophy:
If: F22 = American Exceptionalism
And: American Exceptionalism = bad
Then: F22 = bad

[OA5599]

I had written this on the last F-22/F-35 thread I participated in:

---

The fly away cost of another batch of F-22s is $140 million each. Due to the sunken cost of R&D, the F-22 is often quoted as being about $350 million each. (We’ve spent about $65 billion on the F-22 and will get roughly 187 total.) But each new jet won’t cost $350 million each.

The F-35 program was supposed to be $200 billion with 2500 of them produced. It has been readjusted to $300 billion. (A 50% increase!) That makes each plane $120 million each. (The fly away cost is supposedly $85 million, but none have been delivered yet.)

So there it is. $140 million for each new Raptor vs. $120 million each for the first 2500 Lightning IIs. (And for comparison, Boeing quotes $100 million for their latest F-15, the Silent Eagle.)

---

BTW, I’m still having difficulty saying *Boeing* F-15 Eagle.

Oh, and one of the biggest arguments I hear against the F-22 is that it isn’t a multi-roll aircraft and can’t carry as much ordnance as the F-35.

This is due to the figures quoted on websites stating that the F-35 can carry 18,000lbs of ordnance and the F-22 can only carry two 1000lb bombs (plus four missiles).

The problem with that is that these people are only quoting the F-22’s INTERNAL capability. The F-22 has four detachable hardpoints on its wings which can hold 20,000lbs of ordnance too. No one seems to remember that fact.

So it’s actually 22,000lbs of bombs plus four missiles for the F-22 vs. 18,000lbs of ordnance total for the F-35.

[A.A. Cunningham]

multi-roll(sic)

multi-role

[A.A. Cunningham]

The only reason to prefer the f-35 were lower cost estimates

What do you propose that the Marine Corps and Navy do since the F-22 cannot operate from a LHA/LHD or CVN, facts which you obviously have overlooked in your casual "analysis"?

[OA5599]

That’s not the first time I’ve done that.

I’m always debating with my liberal friends about the roll of government. Kind of takes the sting out of my argument.

I think I eat too much or something.

[buzzer]

Upgraded F-18s or buy some cheaper Eurofighters/Rafale/Saab Viggen ....

[A.A. Cunningham]

Upgraded F-18s or buy some cheaper Eurofighters/Rafale/Saab Viggen ....

None of which can operate from an LHA/LHD.

The Super Hornet already exists and all the other platforms are foreign. Considering the EADS/Boeing tanker battle are you sure that's the solution you want to be offering.

Try again.

[Vroomfondel]

ping

[valkyry1]

They would not have been able to build 3 versions of the F-22 like they did the F-35. They would not have been able to make the F-22 carrier certified.

[magslinger]

SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

[lentulusgracchus]

The only reason to prefer the f-35 were lower cost estimates .....

Not really. Here are some more:

• Navalized aircraft -- none in the F-22 program

• Marine Corps V/STOL variant to replace AV-8 Harrier II

• Allied nations' participation, incl. Royal Navy carrier wings for their two new large CV's.

If I think of any more later I'll add them.

[DesScorp]

"Some Dem congressmen were openly talking about killing the F-35."

No, they weren't. And that's the problem. They should be, because the JSF is the F-111 all over again. I'd much rather have updated, new build F-16's in the fleet. Cheaper (thus, we can buy more), easier to maintain, and better performing. Frank and Paul just want to cut the F-35 buy, not kill the program, unfortunately. Which will make the $122 million dollar "cheap" fighter even more expensive per plane. Time to kill this white elephant nonsense.

[DesScorp]

"What do you propose that the Marine Corps and Navy do since the F-22 cannot operate from a LHA/LHD or CVN, facts which you obviously have overlooked in your casual "analysis"?"

Keep buying Super Hornets for the Navy, and either updated Harriers for the USMC, or just make them use attack helicopters for ground support. Why can't the Navy do support for the Corps anyway?

[Christian_Capitalist]

F-35 is still the true multi-role fighter in the mix. The F-22 can't do VTOL work. The F-22 can't do Carrier work. Maybe it could have if we'd gone ahead with development of the proposed Naval variant, but we didn't.

In other words, there's a place for the F-35 in all of this, because of the supplemental roles it can play, even if the F-22 is (of course) the better fighter. I still like the program for what it's designed to do.

And ultimately, I don't think we're getting the F-22 program back except maybe for incremental adds. (If that). So the F-35 is probably all we're gonna have to go with -- and I think it's probably going to be pretty good, in most of its various missions.