Thursday, September 10, 2015

A Few Days Off Brings Us To : The F-35

"Today there are 126 F-35s of various models in service (plus 19 test aircraft); by the end of 2019, that will skyrocket to 493. “When we have those 493 airplanes out in the field in 2019, guess how many of them will be in what I consider to be the right configuration?” Bogdan asked the ComDef conference here. “Not. A. One. Every one of the airplanes coming off the production line today and coming off the production line for the next two and a half years, plus all the airplanes we’ve built already, will need some form of modification to get them up to the full capability that we promised the warfighter. That is a massive undertaking..”

So says,  Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, program executive officer (PEO) for the F-35.
This is from an intensive series of articles supplied by"Breaking Defense".

Currently exciting news comes from Italy: Via Defense News

In summary Italian interest have built or should say assembled its first F-35 at an airport plant, and rolled it out the door. It flew off for an hour and twenty-two minutes. How about that, it's a F-35 project milestone?

Now comes the entanglement of production the F-35 finds itself in, through the concept called "concurrency". They were right starting the word with "Con", as in con job. The above Bogdan quote best describes concurrency at its peak. "Not A One", is like any other F-35. Bits and pieces litter the production trail, marking a project falling apart along the production way. The mitigation of the problem is found with block production runs, hoping containment stays within each block. However, containment of production progress, within a concurrent plan allows seepage flowing into any block when having daily updates applied to anyone's model on-the-line!

Sad Sack is defending America from the production floor. Before "anyone" buys the next bomb shelter, there is some hope for future military programs. Concurrency is a buzzword waiting for the next military industrial complex idea. It will be retired by a new conceptual phrase, perhaps, "Next Fighter Up". The sum of all changes has to reach a culmination where all fighters are consistent within not a block but through entire division of military applications and concept. 

Starting with one frame, and applying that frame to three different applications is a nightmare. The Air Force, Marine, and Navy is a concurrent design flaw concept. The Marines affect both the Navy and Air Force potential capability. The Marine design must adapt a central fan for STOVL operations. The Carrier version is beefed-up and heavier than the Air Force version. The Air Force version is limited on speed and agility of what an advanced fighter could have been if it had not been penalized by the Navy and Marine versions in base designs. The Concurrent Three Musketeer sentiments flows with "A One for all and all for one," mess.

The limitations arrive with having flying characteristics marginally different than the F-16. There are faster more nimble fighters available as adversaries. However, they lack the electronic sophistications of the F-35 which gives them "internal" air superiority, and a very long reach with some invisibility.

This brings us to the biggest problem, internal computer codes that have to have so many updates. The code corrections are awaiting its implementation while in testing mode, assuring program stability and validation. The "main edge" over other adversarial aircraft is scattered all over the concurrent production floor within each "Block model" having a different "Block code version", installed controlling its secret military platforms. It is reaching its final giant Cluster F*** and then it will fly concurrently with Block 11, as its role model.

What the military and Lockheed are now doing for these dismal concurrent conditions is sweeping up the technological crumbs that were swept off the table after each "Block Release".