F-35 - Fra Inside Defence

Det er dessverre ikke mye positivt å rapportere. Jeg har ikke lest noe om testing av brake chute, bortsett fra at Norge har bestilt slik integrering. Som jeg har skrevet adskillige ganger: Ingen vet i dag hvor mye en maskin vil koste over flyets levetid. Mottoet til Barth Eide synes å være: Koste hva det koste vil.

Report predicts 'cascade' of problems

DOD Systems Engineering Experts See More F-35 Software Delays

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 16, 2012

The Defense Department's systems engineering experts expect more delays in the development of complex software essential for the operation of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, according to a previously unreported Pentagon assessment provided to lawmakers.

The warning that current delays will likely trigger more setbacks in the development of the high-priority software appears in the Pentagon acquisition directorate's latest annual report to Congress on developmental testing and systems engineering, a copy of which was obtained by Inside the Pentagon. The assessment runs contrary to recent assurances provided to Congress by the program's chief that the software delays are under control.

The March report, signed by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering Stephen Welby and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation Edward Greer, notes the F-35 software endeavor has implemented technical-baseline-review recommendations for "schedule, resources and overall block planning to better align capabilities with deliveries and milestones." But future iterations of the software are likely to be delayed, according to the report.

"However, software delivery will remain a challenge and will likely pressure the new baseline," the report states, noting for example that Block 1B capabilities for the third batch of low-rate-initial-production F-35 aircraft will likely be delayed three months or more due to difficulties with security implementation.

"Delays will likely cascade to follow-on blocks and resource allocations," the report adds.

During a May 8 Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee hearing, Vice Adm. David Venlet, the program executive officer, said the software is his top focus. Venlet acknowledged the development of software -- particularly the latest version, Block IIA -- is behind schedule, but he also downplayed the probability of the setbacks spreading to future software iterations.

"Specifically in the Block IIA release, the flight tests, just to help you understand the time I'm talking about, there is about a three-month pressure of delivering a particular release of Block II in the flight test," he said. "That is going to have an impact on training, but not a large impact and, as in the big picture of the program, not going to pressurize Block III."

"In the full air system," he added, "the ground system software -- we call it ALIS, the autonomic logistic information system -- the particular version with Block I has about a year impact to it. That was in view when we did the technical baseline review. That is not a new revelation. But even that . . . will have about 80 percent of the capability of the eventual Block III. So by absorbing that year on ALIS, the ground system, we will have a sound foundation to get the last 20 percent out by Block III."

After the hearing, Venlet underscored to reporters that the F-35 would not provide the required capabilities unless the department gets the software right. "The manifestation of the capabilities that this aircraft brings through its sensors depends upon the successful working of the software that knits them all together and presents the information to the aircrew and off-board to other folks," he said.

Venlet acknowledged the magnitude of the software challenge has program officials worried. "It is the size of the task that gives us great concern and it is the discipline in executing that that will take our full attention steadily every month of every year until we're done," he said. "It is a matter of capacity and lab space, it is an issue of the quality of the software, how much retest does it require, and it's the discovery when you start to integrate the powerful sensors, so when you start to take the radar software, the electro-optics software systems, the communications and data links and you start to fuse all of that, you will learn things, and so it's the regression testing."

A May 8 statement from F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin noted that 90 percent of Block IIA airborne software code was complete and that more than 85 percent of that code was in the midst of being tested in flight or in the lab. Flight tests for Block IIA are being conducted at Edwards Air Force Base, CA, and will continue through this year, Lockheed stated, noting Block IIA is scheduled to be "ready for training" in the summer of 2013.

At press time (May 16), Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Laurie Quincy said Block IA software supports activities at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, and that Block IB is in flight tests and receiving good feedback. Concurrently, industry is also developing Block II and Block III and doing initial development for Blocks IIB, IIIi and IIIF, she said.

Quincy said Block IIA, which was impacted by Block 1B delays, is about three months behind schedule. "Lockheed Martin and the F-35 joint program office have agreed that the variance is small and contained," she said. "We have added resources to the software development team and are focused on recovering to the schedule."

According to the Pentagon's systems engineering assessment of the F-35 program, "software development and test, manufacturing and sustainment engineering require close monitoring." In addition to fixing the software, the program needs to make strides in reliability, manufacturing and integration, according to the report.

"Air vehicle reliability is well below goals, as may be expected early in development," DOD writes. "The program will need to aggressively address and fund reliability growth." And production-readiness-review ratings for the F-35 should be better. "Although progress has been made since the 2009 review, most suppliers are still rated 'yellow' or 'red' for high-rate production," DOD writes.

The program has mitigation plans to address integration issues and risks in the helmet, mission systems architecture and fusion, pilot-vehicle interface, structures, short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing propulsion, and contractor systems integration management, the report adds, noting the program completed a system requirements review for the Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) in February 2011. "Although assessed as successful, the program will need to complete low-level derived requirements for the HMDS," DOD writes.

Compared to a year ago, the report adds, the program's risk-management process has improved and is "actively addressing numerous technical risks in development, manufacturing, and sustainment."

F-35 developmental testing remains in the "very early stages," but so far, the limited test data and analysis show "little to-no margin in the ability to meet the F-35A and C combat radius, F-35B vertical landing bring back, and short takeoff distance," the report states. In addition to the helmet deficiencies, the report notes, developmental testing has revealed cracks in the aircraft, higher than predicted buffet in test flights, the need to redesign the arresting hook for the F-35C carrier variant, design problems that impede effective and safe dumping of fuel and problems with the integrated power package that led to a catastrophic failure and the temporary grounding of aircraft. -- Christopher J. Castelli, with additional reporting by Gabe Starosta

Related News: Aircraft