F-35 Lightning II developments

[Coati]

F-35s cleared to resume flight operations
28 Feb 2013 Dave Majumdar

"The suspension of F-35A flight operations has been lifted for the air force," the USAF says.

USAF F-35 flight operations at Eglin AFB, Florida, will resume on 5 March because 4 March is a previously scheduled maintenance training day, service officials say. The US Marine Corps' short take-off vertical landing F-35Bs will resume flying at the Florida base on 1 March. "The Marines' F-35B will fly tomorrow afternoon at Eglin," the USAF says.

Operations at other bases are also cleared to be resumed....

...The JPO adds that the engine does not need to be redesigned is required as a result of this event."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ns-382909/

[Coati]

Small correction for LRIP-8. A total of 48 aircraft is planned in this LRIP, for the USN, USAF, USMC and 5 foreign countries:

"...The planned breakout for LRIP 8 is as follows: 19 F-35As for the Air Force, six F-35Bs for the Marines, four F-35Cs for the Navy, four F-35Bs for the U.K., two F-35As for Norway, four F-35As for Italy, five F-35As for Israel and four F-35As for Japan.”

[tally]

A little birdy told me LMTAS delivered two F-35's to Edwards today. Tail numbers are unknown to me.

[wamovements]

They both made a stop at Luke AFB before continuing to Edwards AFB. One of them seems to be 09-5006, but there is some heathaze at the Luke AFB released pictures at https://www.facebook.com/Luke56thFW?fref=ts

[tally]

09-5005/OT and 09-5006/OT were the ones delievered through Luke on to Edwards.

[aviodromefriend]

2nd aircraft destined for the RNLAF was rolled out this week. More at http://www.defensie.nl/luchtmacht/actue ... at_fabriek

[tally]

10-5009/OT and 10-5010/OT delivered to Nellis, Wed Mar 6. However 5010 was slated for Edwards.

In additon the following 35's were active locally at Navy Ft Worth, Mar 6:
168721/VK-03
168723/VK-05
(168724)/VK-06
10-5012/OT

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[wamovements]

5010 was slated for Edwards.

Not correct:
09-5004 - 09-5007 (AF-17 - AF-20) are for the 31st TES at Edwards These are Blokck 1B configured
10-5009 - 10-5012 (AF-21 - AF-24) are for the 422nd TES at Nellis AFB. These are Block 2A configured

[Coati]

In additon the following 35's were active locally at Navy Ft Worth, Mar 6:
168723/VK-05
(168724)/VK-06

Hi Tally, these two were not yet reported as flying AFAIK, first flights? Do you know if 168722/VK-04 already flew?

Joost

[tally]

In additon the following 35's were active locally at Navy Ft Worth, Mar 6:
168723/VK-05
(168724)/VK-06

Hi Tally, these two were not yet reported as flying AFAIK, first flights? Do you know if 168722/VK-04 already flew?

Joost

VK-04 had a ground aboard last Tuesday. So no first flight as of yet.

168313, not sure if it ever delivered, was ferried to Eglin last Tuesday as well.

Seb.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Coati]

Ok thanks, Seb!

168313 was delivered temporary to NAS PAX the 4th of October to augment the IOT&E fleet.

Joost

[Richard from Rotterdam]

Interesting read: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... shot-down/

The U.S. Air Force version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has shortcomings that will get pilots shot down in combat, according to a leaked Pentagon report evaluating combat testing of the plane.
“The out-of-cockpit visibility in the F-35A is less than other Air Force fighter aircraft,” states the report from the Defense Department's Directorate of Operational Test and Evaluation, referring to a pilot’s ability to see the sky around them.

Test pilots’ comments quoted in the report are more blunt.
“The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” said one. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned [down] every time” in dogfights, opined another.

The report, known as an Operational Utility Evaluation, was posted online by spending watchdog the Project on Government Oversight.
A spokesman for Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor on the $400 billion multi-service F-35 program, which is developing three different versions of the plane for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, defended the aircraft’s performance.
The Air Force undertook its own Operational Utility Evaluation on the F-35A last year, said Lockheed Spokesman Michael J. Rein. The service’s Air Evaluation and Training Command found the plane “ready to conduct safe and effective flying training operations,” he said.

In addition to limited visibility, the aircraft’s much touted multi-million dollar electronic helmet mounted display — which is supposed to project important technical information onto the faceplate of the pilot’s helmet — “presented frequent problems for the pilots,” according to the report.
These included “misalignment of the virtual horizon display with the actual horizon, inoperative or flickering displays, and focal problems — where the pilot would have either blurry or ‘double vision’ in the display,” the report states.
The report shows that the F-35A “is flawed beyond redemption,” commented POGO staffer and veteran defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler.
The Air Force did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[Piet Luijken]

Public Affairs Release - 3/7/2013 - EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla.
Two officers from the operational test community are among the six pilots in the first F-35 Lightning II pilot training course after an Air Education and Training Command decision to start training here in January. Lt. Col. Benjamin Bishop, the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron director of operations, is one of the students who flew their first sortie in March. He will transition his F-15E Strike Eagle warfighting skills to the F-35 before he returns to Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., next month. "It's exciting, an honor to be a part of the future of airpower," he said. "The aircraft performed as I expected. It's a different feel and a different aircraft to get used to but both are easy to fly. Like any new aircraft, it's a different system to learn and I'm getting used to the basic maneuvers."

According to Nellis, four F-35s will begin arriving soon. The 422nd TES will add the F-35A to its list of aircraft they execute command-directed operational test and evaluation for like the A/OA-10, F-15C, F-15E, F-16CM and F-22A hardware, software, and weapons upgrades prior to combat Air Force release. The squadron conducts tactics development, foreign materiel exploitation and special access programs to optimize system combat capability. "We will develop the tactics and technical procedures for the F-35 and how it fits in the bigger airpower picture for the U.S.," said Bishop about the work ahead of him after graduating here leading OT for the fifth generation aircraft.

Capt. Brad Matherne is the other 422nd TES student transitioning to the joint strike fighter and he will return to Nellis to lead the new F-35 division. The structure in their organization has a division for the five other aircraft. When both Lt.Col Bishop & Capt. Matherne return to Nellis, they will plan for their squadron to demonstrate the F-35's combat capabilities as software becomes available.

ACC's OT community has already paved the way for Bishop's team by standing up a unit at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., where developmental test of the aircraft continues concurrently in the joint strike fighter program. He was able to greet three pilots from that unit in the ATC halls as they arrived in March to be a part of the second class. This pace should continue for the 33rd FW throughout 2013 with an estimate of 36 pilots graduating the course by the end of year.

ACC was able to get in on the Air Force's acquisition life cycle early to build their expertise with the aircraft by sending operational test pilots through the first few courses at Eglin. As the Air Force's declaration authority for F-35A Initial Operational Capability, the command will make a decision based on achieving sufficient levels of readiness in both capability and capacity. Specific criteria established by the commander of ACC include the ability to conduct basic close air support, interdiction, and suppression/destruction of enemy air defense missions, with the targeting, payload, and other performance characteristics that entails.

There is currently no specific timeframe identified for anticipated IOC.

[Henk Voortwijs]

Test Pilots: Stealth Jet’s Blind Spot Will Get It ‘Gunned Every Time’

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the military’s expensive main warplane of the future, has a huge blind spot directly behind it. Pilots say that could get them shot down in close-quarters combat, where the flier with the better visibility has the killing advantage.

“Aft visibility could turn out to be a significant problem for all F-35 pilots in the future,” the Pentagon acknowledged in a report (.pdf) obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C. watchdog group.

That admission should not come as a surprise to observers of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Critics of the delayed, over-budget F-35 — which is built in three versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps — have been trying for years to draw attention to the plane’s blind spot, only to be dismissed by the government and Lockheed Martin, the Joint Strike Fighter’s primary builder.

The damning report, dated Feb. 15, summarized the experiences of four test pilots who flew the F-35A — the relatively lightweight Air Force version — during a September-to-November trial run of the Joint Strike Fighter’s planned training program at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The report mentions a number of shortfalls of the highly complex F-35, including sensors, communications and aerial refueling gear that aren’t yet fully designed or just don’t work right.

No aspect of the report is more damning than the pilots’ critiques of the F-35′s rearward visibility. “All four student pilots commented on the out-of-cockpit visibility of the F-35, an issue which not only adversely affects training, but safety and survivability as well,” the report states. The Joint Strike Fighter is a stealth plane designed to avoid detection by radar, but if it ends up in a short-range dogfight, a distinct possibility even in this high-tech age, it’s the pilot’s eyes that matter most.


Meant to replace almost all of the military’s jet fighters at an initial cost of more than $400 billion, the F-35 has a clamshell-style windshield with a good view to the front and sides. But it’s got no line of sight to the rear, which is blocked by the pilot’s seat and the plane’s upper fuselage spine. Today’s A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s and F-22s, by contrast, have so-called “bubble canopies” with good all-round vision.

The limitations of the F-35′s canopy are “partially a result of designing a common pilot escape system [a.k.a. ejection seat] for all three variants to the requirements of the short-take-off and vertical landing environment.” In other words, the Joint Strike Fighter’s windshield is constrained by the need to fit a standard ejection seat and the downward-facing engine of the Marine Corps variant, which allows that model to take off and land vertically and is located directly behind the cockpit.

The pilots, who formerly flew A-10s and F-16s, didn’t seem interested in excuses. Their comments, quoted in the report, are scathingly direct.

“Difficult to see [other aircraft in the visual traffic] pattern due to canopy bow,” one said.

“Staying visual with wingman during tactical formation maneuvering a little tougher than [older] legacy [jets] due to reduced rearward visibility from cockpit,” another added.

Said a third, “A pilot will find it nearly impossible to check [their six o'clock position] under G [force].”

“The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” one pilot reported.

Most damningly: “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time” during a dogfight.

The pilots’ sentiments echo warnings by Pierre Sprey, one of the original designers of the A-10 and F-16. Joined occasionally by former national security staffer Winslow Wheeler and ex-Pentagon test director Tom Christie, Sprey has repeatedly spoken out against the military’s tendency to downplay pilot visibility in recent warplane design efforts. At a presentation in Washington six years ago, Sprey told Danger Room that the F-22, also built by Lockheed Martin, featured a more limited view from the cockpit than the company’s older F-16 — and that the F-35, then still in early design and testing, would be far worse still.

Lockheed and the military’s response has been to tout the benefits of the Joint Strike Fighter’s sensors, which Lockheed vice president Steve O’Bryan last year characterized as “world-beating.” The F-35 has six wide-angle cameras installed along the fuselage that are supposed to stream a steady, 360-degree view directly to the pilot’s specially designed helmet display. In essence, the warplane should see for the pilot.

But the helmet display doesn’t work yet, another shortfall highlighted by the Pentagon report. For now — and perhaps forever if the display’s problems don’t get resolved — Joint Strike Fighter pilots rely solely on their eyes for their view outside the jet. And their vision is incomplete owing to the F-35′s design compromises.

“There is no simple relief to limitations of the F-35 cockpit visibility,” the report states. Instead, the Pentagon admits it is more or less hoping that the problem will somehow go away on its own. “It remains to be seen whether or not, in these more advanced aspects of training, the visibility issues will rise to the level of safety issues, or if, instead, the visibility limitations are something that pilots adapt to over time and with more experience.”

But wishful thinking is no basis for warplane design. Especially when the plane in question is supposed to form the backbone of the entire U.S. air arsenal.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03 ... lind-spot/

[Coati]

Three first flights with F-35Bs: BF-24 (early last week), and the obove mentioned BF-25 and BF-26 on March 6.