Japan Nails Down Purchase Of First Four F-35s

WASHINGTON: A letter formally committing Japan to buy the first four of 42 F-35s is expected to land in the hands of Lockheed Martin and U.S. government officials today or tomorrow. We heard this from two very well informed sources.

While Japan has formally announced its intention to buy -- and then warned the U.S. it would cancel the deal should the price rise too much -- this is the first official action by Japan that will result in the purchase of aircraft.

For more news and information on the swiftly-changing defense industry, please sign up for the AOL Defense newsletter. For the quickest updates, like us on Facebook.

The four planes would be delivered in fiscal 2016.

The Japanese press has pegged the full life cycle costs of the 42 F-35As at just shy of $13 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress at the end of April about the potential for a $10 billion sale to Japan for the first four Joint Strike Fighters, with an option for an the other 38. The truth is somewhere in there.

South Korea is expected to announce its intention to buy F-35s quite soon. Some F-35 critics went on the record in a South Korean paper today warning that purchase of the fifth generation aircraft would be a major mistake.

The story in the progressive newspaper, The Hankyoreh, quoted AOL Defense Board of Contributor member Winslow Wheeler to this effect: "It's a failed design from the get-go and it's proving itself to be completely unaffordable."

We will point out that the Japanese government was extremely skeptical of buying the F-35 until they were granted a highly classified briefing about its capabilities and the results from exercises such as Northern Edge. We understand that the Japanese were deeply impressed with what they learned at that briefing and that is what tipped the scales in their decision making. Of course, the Chinese J-20 didn't hurt.

Lockheed’s comprehensive Q&A on the F-35

You’ve heard what Congress’ watchdog has to say about the F-35 program – it’s crazily over budget; outrageously behind schedule; and it has a lot of technical catching up before it can perform as advertised.

So what does Lightning II-builder Lockheed Martin say?

Steve O’Bryan, the vice president for F-35 business development, went into granular detail with reporters Tuesday at Lockheed’s annual media day outside Washington. It will not surprise you that his view of the world’s biggest defense program is slightly different from that of the Government Accountability Office.

O’Bryan acknowledged that F-35 is not where it should be, but he presented a series of data-rich slides and tried to make the case that all other things equal, this program is on track and doing well. Herewith, we’ve broken O’Bryan’s hour-long brief into a smaller set of digestible questions and answers, using his latest data and details.

Q: What kind of performance have you demonstrated on the three F-35 variants?

A: The jets have made 546 flights so far this year, compared to 401 planned, plus the jets continue to stay ahead of their scheduled test points. The Air Force’s F-35A has been flown through much of its performance envelope, all the way out to Mach 1.6; above 40,000 feet; and out to 9 Gs. Testing with “clean wings” – absent external pylons, stores or weapons – is going pretty well, and that’s important because that’s the configuration in which they’ll almost always fly in the real world.

“I have to tell you, as we see the future of the F-35 and look at the use case, clean wing is how we’re going fly this airplane 90 percent of the time,” O’Bryan said. “That is with internal weapons and internal air-to-air missiles – where we are right now is approaching 60 percent of clean wing full envelope test points. We are moving along; we are hitting all parts of the envelope; we are seeing a high-performing fifth-generation airplane.”

The Marine Corps’ F-35B is not quite as far along as the A, Lockheed says, since it’s the middle sibling, but it too has demonstrated much of its performance envelope. It has flown up to Mach 1.5, around 49,000 feet, and pulled up to 7 Gs. It has marked off more than half of its clean wing envelope test points.

The Navy’s C model, as the baby, is the least far along, though O’Bryan said “it’s fair to say we’re ahead of plan on flights and test points.” The C has flown at Mach 1.4, up toward 40,000 feet, and been taken to 7.5 Gs.

Q: What about weapons?

A: The F-35 has begun “weapons separation tests,” with the goal of building up to an actual, no-kidding weapons release later this year.

Q: What about the F-35’s onboard sensors, electronic warfare capabilities, targeting and pilot systems?

A: “As you can probably imagine, it’s very difficult for me to get an unclassified public release on the electronic warfare system, on the electronic attack, or other things, but I’ve tried to get as much as I possibly can,” O’Bryan said. He showed video that came from the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System and its Electro-Optical Targeting System, as well as a sensor picture from its synthetic aperture radar.

The F-35’s sensors and targeting capabilities are world-beating, Lockheed says, and O’Bryan gave one example: “What’s unique about the F-35 is the resolution that I can’t talk about, but what it enables is auto target recognition and auto target locating. So you get the ability to see and classify tanks, [armored personnel carriers], double-digit [surface-to-air missile] launchers that are unique. No other airplane has that capability. It’s able to do it through the weather and because of the computer power of the F-35 it is something unique to the F-35.”

In addition to its radar and laser targeting, the jet has six mid-wave infrared cameras that feed video right into the pilot’s helmet, enabling her to look anywhere, including through the floor of the airplane. The IR video is incredibly detailed, O’Bryan boasted. He showed video of an F-16 from the DAS perspective, and pointed out that even though it was not a conventional TV image, you could see the rivets on the fuselage and even the tail markings that showed the Viper was from Edwards AFB, Calif.

Q: Sounds pretty high speed, but isn’t the helmet the pilot needs to use all this jacked up?

A: Lockheed wouldn’t use that term – O’Bryan said the company believes it can make its original pilot helmet work as promised. He detailed the three major problems it has faced: “Latency” — a lag between what DAS sees and what it shows the pilot; “jitter” — the effect a jet’s natural shaking has on the image the pilot sees; and “night acuity” – how sensitive an F-35’s sensors are in total darkness.

O’Bryan said Lockheed believes new software – ah yes, software; we’ll get to that in a moment – can eliminate the latency problem. As of now the lag between what DAS sees and what a pilot sees is “measured in milliseconds.” Engineers think they can solve “jitter” by incorporating “inertial stabilization units,” like the ones you might find in a digital camera lens. And a new camera will enable Lockheed to improve an F-35’s night acuity, to the point where you can land a B on an amphib at midnight, in the middle of the ocean, with no lights.

In the meantime, as you read here last week, the program is also pursuing a second, less wham-o-dyne helmet in case the first one doesn’t materialize as promised. But could it take advantage of the cameras and sensors built into the F-35? O’Bryan said he didn’t know. The original helmet has flown “successfully” more than 2,000 times, he said, and Lockheed believes it can bring it into spec.

Meanwhile, the GAO report said it’s costing $80 million to both improve the original helmet and pursue a second one in parallel.

Q: Government watchdogs have said the F-35 software situation “is as complicated as anything on earth.” What’s the latest?

A: O’Bryan talked about it very carefully. He said 87 percent of the software the F-35 needs is flying on airplanes today, including test versions of the next major block due out this summer. He said 94 percent of it has been developed in the lab.

“The variance is small and it is contained,” he said. “Lockheed Martin and [DoD F-35 program executive officer] Vice Adm. David Venlet agree the schedule is adequate to support the software build and funding is adequate to complete the software build.”

O’Bryan said that Lockheed has added a “$100 million lab” to work on F-35 software and added “200 heads” to the software effort. He said Lockheed and the program are “recovering schedule” on the software, and he laid down a marker for when we’ll be able to see how it’s going.

“The test of that will be when we release the complete Block 2A software to flight test – that’s where I’d be able to give you a metric to demonstrate that,” O’Bryan said. It should appear “this summer. I’d ask you to measure us to that.”

O’Bryan did not discuss — and in fairness, no one asked him about — the Autonomic Logistics Information System, the software that F-35s and their crews will use to manage parts and maintenance. GAO has said that is even further behind than the airplanes’ software.

Q: All right, we’ve talked about the helmet and the software. What about the C’s tailhook redesign?

A: Here’s what O’Bryan said: “The distance between the main landing gear and the tailhook on the F-35C is the shortest of any naval aviation carrier airplane that we’ve had. Because we have to hide the hook — because if you had a hook exposed you wouldn’t be as stealthy airplane, that distance is tighter than any other. So it means when you roll over the wire when you land on the deck, the wire goes flush to the deck, and then you have to pick that wire up as it’s generally on the deck. So what we’ve had to do is re-design the hook shank.

Every airplane’s hook shank — as you’d imagine, you ground those things down, dragging it around, so it’s a remove-and-replace kind of thing. It has a bolt through the back of it and it holds on to the hook and we’ve redesigned that to have a lower center of gravity, or in a more mundane way, to make it a sharper hook point. And that allows us to pick up the wire. And we’ve already done testing on that. We’ve done it at 80, 90 and 100 knots and we’ve got a good design for the hook point now.

The other thing we need to do is, we need to make sure that the hook stays flush on the deck. So what you don’t want — and I was a Navy pilot, so I apologize if I’m using a lot of vernacular here – you want to keep that hook on the deck so it doesn’t bounce, or the words we used was skip. It can do that a couple different ways. It can move laterally and it can hit other stuff and just bounce, if you will. Another technical term. So what we’ve done is we’re going to modify what’s called the hold-down damper, kind of a good name for a thing because it does exactly that, it holds the hooks down, it dampens any oscillation. We’ll increase pressure on hook to do that.

The whole thing is a remove-and-replace assembly so any modifications we make to it is an easy fix.”

Q: So when will we actually see an F-35C make its first trap aboard an aircraft carrier?

A: O’Bryan: “We’re accumulating loads; we’ve done rolling arrestments; we’ll do field arrestments next year and the plan is to go to the boat in early 2014, well in time to make the US Navy [initial operational capability].

Q: Wait a tick – according to the Joint Program Office, there is no official IOC for these jets right now. Is that an internal Lockheed IOC or one the Navy uses internally?

A: O’Bryan: “Why can I say that? I think you’ll see the amount of margin I have to say that means it’s reasonable to assume that. The Navy stated IOC publicly as post-Block 3F software, which the [F-35]A completes before the B, which completes before the C. On that, we’re not scheduled finish Block 3F testing until after 2016. So going to the boat in 2014 – they’ve said IOC is post-Block 3F, so there’s some margin there.”

Q: There was another component kerfuffle about a variant of this airplane: Canada had a little political dustup awhile back because its aerial refueling tankers use the probe-and-drogue system for its CF-18 Hornets. In that setup, the tanker trails a basket and fighter extends its own probe to refuel. But Canada plans to buy F-35As, which were designed for the U.S. Air Force’s refueling system, in which a human operator aboard the tanker flies a boom into a port on the fighter – in this case, on the A’s spine, aft of the cockpit. So has Lockheed talked with Canada about buying Navy-model Cs, to keep the probe-and-drogue setup, or modifying its As?

A: O’Bryan: “We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We‘ve done a number of studies – funded studies, not projects – funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”

So if you’re keeping score at home, you could almost count this as a fourth variant of the F-35 – because this program wasn’t complicated enough.

F-35 pilots left blind

The ill-fated F-22 fighter jet isn’t the only aircraft that has the Pentagon scratching their head. A new report published by the US Government Accountability Office reveals that the insanely expensive F-35 plane has its fair share of problems too.

As the US Air Force tries to examine the culprit behind the dozens of reported incidents logged onboard its fleet of F-22s, its allegedly more advanced sister plane isn’t sitting too pretty either. According to the GAO’s annual report on the F-35, the future of the program pegged at costing the Pentagon more than $1.5 trillion over the next three decades is up in the air. The planes, on the other hand — well, not so much.

At the center of the controversy keeping Air Force officials scrambling for explanations is a state-of-the-art visor that is supposed to provide pilots with up-to-the-second information about the aircraft’s every move. The report says that the visor is "integral to the mission systems architecture,” which is now being jeopardized because the headgear isn’t providing pilots with the right information. The problem seems to be with the visor’s inability to counter the turbulence the planes encounter during their mission that move them at upwards of 1,200 miles-per-hour, which is instead creating an error being called “display jitter,” described as “the undesired shaking of display, making symbology unreadable.”

Since the F-35 is expected to operate in tandem with a correctly calibrated visor, these jitters aren’t just causing headaches for the pilots expected to wear them. The website Foreign Policy reports that since the system relies on working headgear, the Pentagon is now developing a replacement piece that is expected to add another $80 million to the program’s price tag, which has already exceeded the estimated cost by around $1 billion.

Although the F-35 isn’t expected to be up and running until 2018, the actual launch date might be even later. The GAO’s report reveals that the plane also has been documented to have problems with landing in tight spaces and the software that helps power it is in desperate need of an upgrade. Then there is another issue involving the craft’s tailhook, which, if corrected, might cause even more problems to arise. If redesigned, the GAO says that "other aircraft structural modifications may also be required,” skyrocketing the completion cost to even more astronomical numbers.

Amid testing of the fleet, the Air Force has already grounded around $400 billion worth of F-35 fighters no fewer than three times. Earlier this year, US Air Force Major General John F. Thompson, deputy Joint Strike Force Program executive officer, told reporters that the military vowed to see no further delays in the F-35 program that has so far been marred with mishaps. Both Britain and Australia had expressed interesting in purchasing F-35s from the Pentagon to be used in their own military, but in March asked for more time to consider the contract after the last slew of incidents had foreign air forces reconsidering.

Norway and USA agree to collaborate on integration of Joint Strike Missile (JSM) on F-35

Norway and USA agree to collaborate on integration of Joint Strike Missile (JSM) on F-35. This opens great opportunities for KONGSBERG and other Norwegian industry.

Today Defence Minister Espen Barth Eide announced that the Norwegian Government has decided to start the process to finalize the development of JSM and integration on F-35. The decision comes as a consequence of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s confirmation of US support for integration.

Through the development of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), the Norwegian Armed Forces has established KONGSBERG and other Norwegian industry in the top tier as a supplier of long-range, precision strike missiles that will meet military requirements in a 20 to 30-year perspective.

“It is of great importance that the US authorities have confirmed their support for the integration of the JSM on the F-35. In doing so, the operational needs of the Norwegian Armed Forces and international partners will be met. Furthermore, this will be an important contribution to the industrial content of the F-35 procurement. JSM is the world leader in its category and further strengthens the F-35's operational capacity", states Walter Qvam, CEO of KONGSBERG.

“KONGSBERG has involved a number of Norwegian subcontractors in the first phases of the JSM development. Today's decision for the integration of JSM on F-35 open up new opportunities for a long-term Norwegian industrial success that may be worth as much as NOK 25 billion. In future full-scale production, the JSM programme could translate into 450 jobs at KONGSBERG and significant assignments for more than 100 Norwegian subcontractors for several decades", comments Harald Ånnestad, president of Kongsberg Defence Systems.

As part of the JSM development programme, new operational capabilities will be developed and tested for subsequent upgrading of KONGSBERG's Naval Strike Missile (NSM). The NSM is now in production for the Armed Forces of Poland and Norway.

Norway buys 2 US-built Joint Strike Fighter jets

Norway on Friday ordered the first two fighter jets of an expected combined order of 52 from Lockheed Martin's troubled Joint Strike Fighter program as it embarked on a 2008 plan to replace its aging fleet of F-16 combat aircraft.

Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide said in a statement that the F-35A Lightning II jets are expected to arrive in 2015, with a further 50 aircraft expected to follow two years later at a total cost of 60 billion kroner ($10 billion).

"This marks a key milestone in the Norwegian F-35 program, and the beginning of the largest public procurement in Norwegian history," Barth Eide said.

He added that parliament had authorized the initial purchase on Thursday and the first two jets will be based in the U.S., where they will be used to train Norwegian pilots.

Norway is a funding partner in the Joint Strike Fighter program, which the U.S. Defense Department has described as the largest fighter aircraft program in history.

The program aims to replace a wide range of existing fighter, strike, and ground attack aircraft for the U.S., and eight partner countries: Norway, Britain, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands.

The Lockheed Martin Corp. program, however, has been troubled by repeated blowouts in cost as well as delivery schedules.

Critics have also questioned whether the multirole jet offers sufficient improvement in capabilities over existing top-of-the line fighters to justify its extreme unit costs.

Last month, Britain abandoned proposals to buy a particular type of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter because it said the cost of ship modifications to accommodate the F-35c variants would be about 2 billion pounds ($3.2 billion).

The U.S. and Australia have delayed their orders, and the Netherlands has said it will trim its order.

Controversy grows over F-35 flight test

Controversy is growing over Lockheed Martin being unable to allow Korean pilots to test-fly its F-35 fighter jet ahead of Seoul's decision in October on who will win its massive procurement project.

The U.S. defence firm confirmed on Sunday that Korea will not be able to fly the aircraft as the development of the single-seat stealth fighter jet has yet to be completed.

"At this time the F-35 fleet is fully occupied with test, training and delivery activities, so Korea will not be able to fly the aircraft," Lockheed Martin said in an email.

"Potential customers like Korea have the opportunity for multiple pilots to fly the high-fidelity Manned Tactical Simulator similar to operations conducted by the U.S. Services and F-35 international partners and customers."

The F-35 is one of the strongest candidates in the so-called FX-III project. Under the project, the Seoul government plans to purchase a high-end fleet of about 60 fighter jets with a budget of around 8.3 trillion won (US$7.06 billion), seeking to deploy them from 2016.

Other candidates are Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon made by European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company N.V.

As it is Seoul's mammoth project to bolster its air power, which is critical in modern warfare, critics said that test-flying the expensive product is crucial, and that the simulation test is insufficient.

"Even if we were not able to test-fly any high-level aerial maneuvers, we, at least, need to feel and check it firsthand. Testing it only with a simulator is not sufficient," said Yang Uk, a senior research fellow at Korea Defence and Security Forum.

"As it is a single-seat platform, it is difficult for an untrained pilot to fly it alone. It would take much time to train a pilot for the test flight itself. For this, we don't have enough time before October when we choose the winner of the FX-III project."

Amid this controversy, Lockheed Martin highlighted the credibility of its simulator.

"The F-35 has a classified, high-fidelity Manned Tactical Simulator that is used by the three U.S. services, eight partner nations and other potential operators to evaluate the F-35 and develop 5th Generation tactics," the company said.

"All of the international nations who have selected and ordered the F-35 have evaluated its capabilities using the Manned Tactical Simulator."

For the project, Seoul is to conduct an onsite evaluation of the F-35 in July, the F-15SE in August and the Eurofighter Typhoon in September.

The only completed fighter is the Eurofighter Typhoon. Boeing's F-15SE is expected to use its existing F-15 platform for the test flight, sources said. Critics say that it would be unfair to test only the F-35 using the simulator.

The Defence Acquisition Program Administration in charge of the project said that the procedures for the flight test have yet to be finalized as they are to submit their proposals on the procurement project on June 18.

"We will use all available methods to test candidate fighters should we be unable to test-fly (the F-35). It is inappropriate to say that it is just nothing just because we cannot test-fly it," a DAPA official told The Korea Herald, declining to be named.

"We will purchase the aircraft that will be used for the next three decades. It is like purchasing items in the spot market or futures market."

DAPA Commissioner Noh Dae-lae said that the controversy stems from the decision to include the "fighter of the future" into the competition, apparently hinting that it is not a serious problem to test the F-35 using a simulator.

"The question is whether to include the F-35 on the candidate list and make the project more competitive. It is a matter of which one is to serve the national interests better," he said on his Twitter account.

Lockheed Martin calls it the "only all-aspect stealthy fifth-generation" fighter.

But rising costs and delays in its development have apparently sapped confidence in the massive program to make the new radar-evading fighter that involves nine countries including the U.S.

Boeing has focused on its fighter jet's cost-effectiveness and "tactically useful" radar cross section reduction. But critics doubt the stealth capabilities of the F-15SE, calling it a "semi-stealth jet" compared with the F-35.

The Seoul government has recently begun moving faster to secure stealth fighters as calls have persisted for the military to acquire strategic precision-guided weaponry that can deal with asymmetrical threats from the North.

F-35 At The Centre Of Lockheed Martin Strike

Lockheed Martin has found itself at the centre of a bitter union strike that shows no signs of simmering down.

The machinists’ union officials filed a complaint against Lockheed Martin on June 6 claiming unfair labor practices. The move comes during a seven-week strike against the fighter aircraft maker.

Since April 19, the day Lockheed Martin made its final contract offer, the union has filed six complaints with the National Labor Relations Board office in Fort Worth. The latest complaint says that the company moved the F-35 fighter jet work to Marietta, Ga., as a way of "interfering with, restraining and coercing" workers on strike in Fort Worth.

"We want them to follow the law. They have been breaking the law," said Robert Wood, spokesman for District Lodge 776 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

"Since the new F-35 center wing assembly line opened in our Marietta facility, the company has planned to move all center wing assembly work from Fort Worth," Lockheed spokesman Joe Stout said. "Lockheed Martin is not taking work away from our Fort Worth facility as a result of the work stoppage".

Stout also said that the decision to move the work F-35 wing assemblies was taken months "before we knew of the possibility of a strike" in Fort Worth.

While no formal negotiations have been scheduled, both parties are refusing to budge

Does F-35 Have Same Oxygen Problems As F-22? More Oversight Needed, Say Experts

Given the recent allegations by F-22 Raptor pilots that the aircraft has potentially deadly oxygen-system problems, it’s not surprising that questions are also being raised about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—which has strikingly similar design elements. Lockheed Martin, which makes both aircrafts, has recently said that “the F-35 and F-22 have common aircraft oxygen system suppliers, but the systems are very different.”

But a ‘concerned’ POGO commenter asked us if there’s any chance the F-35 could have the same oxygen problems, anyways. Not content to simply parrot Lockheed’s answer, we decided to pose the question to two defense experts: Winslow Wheeler, the director of POGO's Straus Military Reform Project and Pierre Sprey, who co-designed the F-16 and A-10 jets.

You can read their full responses below, but the short answer is, there is still a lot more monitoring that needs to be done on the F-35 before Lockheed or the Air Force can conclusively say that the aircraft is safe (not to mention, the F-22—which very clearly appears to have problems—needs to be grounded until the oxygen malfunction is resolved.) The elite pilots who fly these planes deserve prompt, complete independent oversight.

Pierre Sprey says:

Given that all previous stealth aircrafts—the F-117, the B-2 and the F-22—have each shown evidence that their stealth coatings can be extremely toxic to production workers, pilots, and/or maintainers, it would be unconscionable for the Congressional Armed Services Committees and the Department of Defense (DoD) Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) to fail to demand an immediate, intensive toxicological monitoring of the F-35's stealth coatings.

Specifically, levels of all toxic components of the F-35's stealth materials that could be breathed by production workers, pilots and maintainers need to be meticulously, frequently, and accurately monitored on the production line, in the maintenance hangars, and in flight… Congress and the Director of OT&E should demand an unclassified report, within 4 months, of the quantitative results of this monitoring, together with an assessment of the potential long-term and short-term health effects on workers, pilots and maintainers by independent toxicologists from the Department of Health and Human Services, not from DoD.

There have been no public reports of it. Both the On-Board Oxygen Generating System and other suspects, like the stealth materials, have technical differences—they are not identical to what's in/on the F-22. It is something that should be closely monitored for the F-35. I doubt the Air Force or Lockheed will be forthcoming, and the pilots (test pilots both corporate and service) may also be less inclined to come forward than National Guard or active service pilots. It will be tough to get an independent view unless someone wakes up and demands a Government Accountability Office or Inspector General inquiry.