The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
Something Old, Something New

As the dust settles on the Senate's F-22 vote, Congressional Quarterly's Josh Rogin reports that Capitol Hill is starting to look more critically at the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. So far, the JSF has led a charmed life - but now, a coalition of adversaries is emerging, centered around supporters of the F/A-18 and F-22.

The essence of the attack is not new. It was reported last year that a Joint Estimating Team (JET), comprising people with experience in other flight-test programs, had predicted a two-year delay beyond the current schedule, which sets the completion of operational testing in 2014. The Government Accountability Office cited the JET's conclusions in its March report. Neither is it news that the JSF program office does not agree with the JET

What is new, however, is that Congress is complaining that not even a redacted version of the JET report has been issued, possibly tilting the F-22 debate and making it much easier for program insiders to dismiss the JET's conclusions. Also, some of the people who played a leading role in the official response to the JET, including acquisition chief John Young, have left the Pentagon. 

It could also be a little harder now to persuade Congress that all is tickety-boo with the flight-test schedule. As we noted in March, the FY2009 goal for the JSF program was 317 sorties.  The total so far (excluding the CATBird test bed) is more like 30 flights, with a little more than two months to go. 

 

Tags: ar99F-22F-35
Email this post
User Image
Jeb Hoge wrote:
Somewhere in the halls of Congress, there's a group probably giggling "one down, one to go" after spiking F-22. Watch for the WaPo to run a story on how far behind the F-35 is, the near-unsurmountable engineering challenges that it presents, and how much it will ultimately cost.
7/24/2009 8:36 AM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
How are you going to exclude the CATBIRD. Please no more SPINNING!
7/24/2009 9:40 AM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
I don't have an accurate CATBird estimate on hand. Do you think the number is closer to 20, 40 or 100? And I am already giving the team the benefit of the doubt, because the GAO report that cited the data did not specify whether that 317 included CATBird.
7/24/2009 9:49 AM CDT
User Image
Royce wrote:
It won't make much difference. Figure it takes about $3.5 billion a year to procure 20 Raptors. The USAF's aircraft procurement budget in FY2010 is around $12 billion, and if you use that as a base for 2011 and 2012 it's going to be impossible to come up with enough money to build the F-22 cost effectively at the same time that the USAF is adding to airlift, tanker, and ISR platforms along with F-35 funding. The service would need to make a push to abandon F-35 and embrace some lower cost solution to recapitalize the fighter fleet. Is it ready to do that?
7/24/2009 9:55 AM CDT
User Image
RSF wrote:
The spinning here is acting like CatBird somehow replicates the conditions that exist in a supersonic fighter. Internal components and systems still need to be tested in the actually airframe, where they will be exposed to negative and positive G's, extreme heat and cold, and function along side other equipment that may or may not interfere with their function. CatBird is a flying systems/components integration lab, and it does not replace the actual required flight testing of the JSF.
7/24/2009 10:04 AM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
The CATBIRD testing is relative if its being used by the JSF team as part of their flight testing schedule/numbers. Whether it replicates actual conditions in a fighter is not relevant. The same testing regime was used in the design of the F-22 and has been used to design systems on other fighters. It is basically an industry standard now.
7/24/2009 10:12 AM CDT
User Image
RSF wrote:
Funny that you mention the F-22, and that is why it is relevant! CatBird was first used for the F-22 program, and it still went on to do extensive flight testing. Flight testing is still required, period! The same methodical flight testing, and follow up analysis still occurs throughout the industry, now assisted with computers. This testing methodology dates back to the Wright Brothers first flights, and it works and saves lives.
7/24/2009 10:46 AM CDT
User Image
jhae22 wrote:
RSF wrote:
Funny that you mention the F-22, and that is why it is relevant! CatBird was first used for the F-22 program, and it still went on to do extensive flight testing. Flight testing is still required, period! The same methodical flight testing, and follow up analysis still occurs throughout the industry, now assisted with computers. This testing methodology dates back to the Wright Brothers first flights, and it works and saves lives.

==============================================
You're forgetting something: we can't let reality get in the way of the party line. Regardless of safety, if it does not agree with the projected F-35 schedule, it obviously isn't worth it. We can't have anything conflicting with the OSD Official Truth (TM).

7/24/2009 1:32 PM CDT
User Image
Horde wrote:
RSF -do I detect a fellow Flight Tester within these gems of wisdom?

jhae22 - You may just be right about the 'party line' and their 'alternate realities'.

We have asked Bubba who reckons the biggest risk to the JSF program is "people asking questions"!

Some of the questions that have been asked can be found at the end of this link.

Don't quite understand why they have not had the decency to answer. Maybe just to busy spinning . . . or could it be they are running out of spin?

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-190209-1.html



7/24/2009 5:06 PM CDT
User Image
jhae22 wrote:
Since I'm not expressly familiar with CATBird, and I don't want to spend the $25 to purchase AIAA-2008-157, what portion of actual flight testing is CATBird supposed to simulate? As in, what specific avionics? Flight control software? Radar, etc.? If control software is included, how does CATBird simulate manuevers that would overstress the B737 test mount?
7/24/2009 6:13 PM CDT
1 2 >> Last
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos