Signing Up

The Stage 2 buy profile sees eight aircraft delivered in LRIP 11 in 2019, and then a delivery rate of 15 per year in 2020-22 as part of the planned multi-year procurement(MYP) contract, with the final two following in 2023. The 72 aircraft are sufficient to support four squadrons each of 15 aircraft, and a maintenance and attrition reserve of 12 jets.

“The second pass decision for Stage 2 of Phase 2A/2B gets us to 72 aircraft and gives us the capacity to run three operational squadrons and one training squadron, plus all of the associated infrastructure that goes with that,” new DMO JSF Project Head, AVM Chris Deeble told Australian Aviation. “In that regard, it is effectively a great decision for us as we move forward.

It allows us to pull together the rest of the capability that was in theinitial pass of 14 aircraft, but now we can complete the whole picture for Air Force. ” The process of getting the approval was not an easy one for the former New Air Combat Capability (NACC), now JSF Integrated Project Team. A previous cabinet submission process was halted at the 11th hour in May 2012 when then Defence Minister Stephen Smith announced a two year delay to the approval decision, ostensibly to “align” the RAAF’s planned initial operating capability (IOC) with that of the USAF.

“I’m an old DGAD (Director General – Aerospace Development) and I’ve worked in the CDG (Capability Development Group) environment, and getting any capability through is time consuming and there are many hurdles to jump over,” offered AVM Deeble. “[Particularly] with JSF given its political sensitivity, its community sensitivity, some of the issues associated with the program, and the changes in leadership all through its evolution. None of these have surprised me, but they have potentially changed people’s perception of what the capability means. ” The project has generally enjoyed bipartisan political support in Australia, but NACC and the RAAF have still had to continually update the ‘business case’ for the aircraft. This is so decision makers could better understand the ongoing risks in the project and how they were being addressed, to understand how the capability was evolving through the development process, and what opportunities and benefits were opening up for Australian industry.

“The Liberal government made the original decision, the Labor government supported the decision and approved Stage 1, and this Liberal government has actually

Getting any capability through is time consuming and there are many hurdles to jump over. AVM DEEBLE

approved it,” said AVM Deeble. “I think it’s a good indication that government understood what we were doing. The team has done a very good job – they’ve brought it together, they’ve worked through the internal politics within Defence well, I think they’ve been able to demonstrate the worth of the case, and in a pretty difficult economic climate. ” The timing of the Stage 2 decision was based on a number of considerations. It was important to have the authority to move forward in time to be part of the planned LRIP 10 and LRIP 11 buys which are expected to be finalised in the next few months, and to schedule the bulk of RAAF’s production to coincide with the cost ‘sweet spot’ of full rate production.

“If you look at the [production] ramp-up and getting the aircraft delivered to support the squadron training, there are a number of factors that come into play,” explained AVM Deeble. “Clearly picking the LRIP that represented the sweet spot in terms of cost is important, as you get to the lots of15 we’re [going to be buying], we’re at full-rate production in multi-year buys. We’ll be in a different situation and therefore a different spend profile, so we’re trying to manage the buy to hit that sweet spot in the ‘bathtub’. ”

Cost

The $12. 4 billion price tag for Stage 2 revealed by the Prime Minister will be sufficient to buy 58 F-35As and to achieve a full operational capability (FOC) with 72 F-35As in 2023. “We’re quite a complex project,” AVM Deeble said. “The reality is we’re delivering a capability, it’s not just delivering aircraft. So we’re supporting Air Force in effectively setting up the basis to operate. ” Of that amount, $1. 6 billion will go towards the development of new basing facilities at RAAF Bases Williamtown and Tindal as well as at the forward bases of RAAF Darwin, Learmonth, Sherger and Curtin. The permanent facilities are modelled off those of the integrated training centres that have been built at Eglin AFB in Florida and are under construction at Luke AFB, MCAS Yuma, and MCAS Beaufort. They will also include new squadron headquarters, simulator buildings, and training classrooms, including six full motion ‘dome’ simulators at Williamtown, and two at Tindal.

Other elements included in the $12. 4 billion include training at US and Australian locations, electronic warfare system reprogramming labs and their support elements, information systems labs, an initial weapons package, support and test equipment, ground support equipment, an initial spares holding, warehouse and logistics infrastructure and project administration. The initial weapons package will support the Australian-specific operational evaluation process which will lead to IOC. Weapons war stocks and follow-on weapons such as a maritime strike missile and other precision weapons are covered under a separate Project JP 3023 (see breakout).

Importantly, the project’s forecast $12. 4 billion spend has been factored in 2018 ‘then-year’ dollars. “I think we have sufficient contingency to cater for the sort of things that drive additional costs of production,” said AVM Deeble. “Included in this is the exchange rate – some 30 per cent of the aircraft is developed by BAE in the UK and Alenia in Italy, and as a consequence of that the Euro and Pound will have an impact on roughly a third of the budget.

“But I think we have sufficient contingency to handle those sorts of things,” he added. “Clearly as customers’ [numbers] ebb and flow through time, changes in production rates as we’re coming down on the bathtub curve will also have an impact. But there are FMS customers now that are interested,and some of those countries are looking at adding extra buys into the equation and will probably fill the gaps as partners reduce or defer their buys. ”

Milestones

The first major Australian program milestone going forward will be the induction of AU-1 and AU-2 into the USAF training pool at Luke AFB in Arizona in early 2015. This will coincide with the RAAF’s first F-35 pilots – SQNLDRs Andrew Jackson and David Bell – starting their training, from late 2014 at Eglin AFB and mid-2015 at Luke AFB respectively.

After that, the numbers of pilots and maintainers to be trained on the aircraft will steadily increase until the RAAF is ready to bring the first four aircraft back to Australia in 2018 to commence an operationaltest and evaluation (OT&E) phase. OT&E will build on that work done by the USAF, and will focus on Australian-specific items such as the aircraft’s ability to integrate with the E-7 AEW&C and Vigilare command and control capabilities, clearance testing with KC-30A MRTT tankers, the validation and certification of the new support and training infrastructure at Williamtown, and the ability to deploy F-35s and their support elements to forward bases at Darwin, Learmonth, Sherger and Curtin.

“There are some other major milestones when we establish some of the supporting infrastructure,” explained AVM Deeble. “The critical OBISC (the offboard information support capability) which is the programming and support capability will start to come in in the 2016 timeframe, and that will be the start of a lot of the critical infrastructure we’ll need to be able to support this. ”Williamtown’s 3SQN will be the first unit to convert to the F-35A, from 2018, with 2OCU following in 2020, 77SQN in 2022, and 75SQN in 2023. It is expected each unit will initially ‘bleed’ off some staff to the F-35 before relinquishing its classic Hornets about 12 months before declaring IOC with the new aircraft.

“It clearly starts with the training of the maintenance and the aircrew, it has to be a transition of the capability,” said AVM Deeble. “For us the initial changes will involve OT&E in the Australian context and that will help build the expertise and experience of the crews up. This will be a very critical period for Air Force as we will be transitioning out of the classic into the JSF, and there will be some parallel activity associated with Growler as well. We’re going to have to work very closely with Air Force as to what we can deliver and when we can deliver it. ” The last of the classic Hornets are due to be retired in 2022. As each squadron relinquishes its jets, those with the best remaining fatigue life index will be pooled and carefully managed to stretch the fleet out, while the worst of the fleet will be ‘parked’. But the RAAF will also need to carefully manage the drawdown in the event the aircraft are required for operations or need to be extended further in the event of further delays with the F-35.

PHASE 2C

A further Phase 2C of AIR 6000 for up to 28 more F-35s to replace the F/A-18F Super Hornets of 82WG is now not scheduled to be decided until the early to mid-2020s. These 28 aircraft include an allowance for additional maintenance and attrition reserves, and would take the total RAAF air combat force to 100 F-35s.

The 24 F/A-18Fs which entered service in 2010 were initially acquired as a bridging capabilityto span the decade between the retirement of the F-111C and the introduction of the F-35A. Up until then the plan had been to acquire 100 F-35s to replace the 71 F/A‑18A/B Hornets and 20+ F-111s with a single multirole type, one major outcome of which would be considerable support and sustainment savings.

But with the delays to the F-35 and the 2012 acquisition of 12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft which share much of the Super Hornet’s supply chain, the imperative to operate a single-type fast jet fleet has diminished. Indeed, it’s fair to say the Super Hornet is no longer considered a bridging capability, and will now see out a two decade or more life-of-type in RAAF service.

“The timing of a Phase 2C decision will be subject to government decision-making,” AVM Deeble said. “I think there are a number of key factors that will be considered by government – there are a significant number of other ADF capabilities that will also need to be considered at that time, and the pressure they’ll place on the defence budget will be a significant aspect of government consideration. You can see that SEA 1000 [future submarine], SEA 5000 [Anzac frigate replacement] LAND 400 [ASLAV replacement], and other Air Force elements includingAIR 7000 [Orion replacement] are all going to be placing significant pressures on the budget through that period. ” It is not certain that the Phase 2C solution will even be an F-35. Other options include an upgrade to the Super Hornet such as that offered by Boeing’s Advanced Super Hornet concept, or another capability such as an unmanned combat air system (UCAS) which may have matured sufficiently by then to be considered. “A key consideration for Air Force will be the withdrawal of the Super Hornet from service,” AVM Deeble added. “Around the 2023 timeframe is when I expect government will start to consider 2C, should it continue through the Defence White Paper analysis. With a projected IOC for 2C in the late 2020s or 2030 timeframe, you can see that dovetailing in to the planned withdrawal date of Super Hornet. ”

Enablers

One of the key challenges with the F-35 program in Australia is in integrating the aircraft with a host of key ‘enabler’ capabilities such as Wedgetail AEW&C, the Vigilare C2 system, the JORN over-the-horizon radar network, P-8 Poseidon, the Aegis combat system on the Hobart class new air warfare destroyers, special forces, and other capabilities.

“Now we’ve got the [Stage 2] decision, we can clearly have those discussions more forcibly,” AVM Deeble said. “I’ve had discussions with DSTO already at looking at the aerospace ‘battle lab’ capability to ensure we have the appropriate interoperability through all of those systems. As we’re looking at the growth path of AEW&C and other capabilities, we’ll need to make sure that the interoperability with F-35 is a key factor, and that we dovetail into that. We have concentrated very much in the past on the inherent

3SQN will be the first unit to convert to the F-35A, from 2018.

What’s in a name?

While the Australian F-35 project is in a period of transition, so too is the Australian project team which will be overseeing the delivery of the aircraft. Gone is the awkwardly long ‘New Air Combat Capability Integrated Project Team (NACC IPT)’, with the team now known as the ‘JSF Division’.

The ‘JSF’ label has its fair share of critics due to that being the name of the original multi-national project which long ago resulted in the F-35 Lightning II. But for whatever reason and despite the F-35 offering a far broader capability than just strike, the catchy JSF acronym has stuck within the halls of power and in the general media.

Regardless, the team’s name change within DMO is appropriate now that the F-35A has been confirmed as the new air combat capability. And as a consequence, the raison d’etre of the team is transitioning from that of capability selection, assessment and development, to the delivery of that capability.

Also new is project head, AVM Chris Deeble. His predecessor AVM Kym Osley was probably the ideal man for the job when he assumed the role in late 2010. Tasked with the ‘outward and upward’ management of the project, Osley came to the role from a successful term as Head of Australian Defence Staff (HADS) to Washington, and had previously had a tour as Air Attaché to the UK. Both of these jobs equipped Osley with the skills necessary to successfully navigate the political minefields surrounding the project, not only in Australia, but also in the US and among the various partner nations.

Osley also brought his vast operational experience to the project. An F-111 navigator by trade with an exchange tour flying USAF RF-4C Phantoms, he has commanded the RAAF’s 1SQN, 82WG and Air Combat Group during his career; was Director General Capability and Plans (DGCP) in Air Force Headquarters; and served as Director of the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC) in the Middle East during the peak of the Iraq and Afghan air campaigns. Osley’s unique blend of operational and diplomatic experience meant he was equally adept in explaining to heads of state or to excited teenagers who aspired to one day fly fast jets, the various complex elements of the project.

AVM Deeble also has an F-111 flying background, and when he took over management of the then troubled AIR 5077 Wedgetail AEW&C project in 2006, Australian Aviation observed at the time that he had already forged a reputation as a ‘Mister fix-it’ from his time on the F-111 Avionics Upgrade Program of the late ’90s. Wedgetail was already late and getting much later due to numerous technical issues with the aircraft and its revolutionary radar, and Boeing was bleeding hundreds of millions of dollars on the fixed-price contract. Deeble’s project management efforts, along with those of his Boeing counterpart Maureen Doherty – who has since been appointed President of Boeing Australia – in no small part turned Wedgetail around at a time when both sides probably had every reason to walk away from it.

Deeble’s success on Wedgetail led to him applying his project management skills to the Collins submarine project in 2011 leading some to jokingly refer to him variously as ‘Air Vice-Admiral’ or ‘Unter Vice-Marshal’. The Collins fleet was at the time experiencing very low availability and high sustainment costs and, while continuing to work on Wedgetail, Deeble helped to inform and then apply many of the findings of the 2012 Coles Report into the Collins program. This has since resulted in much improved availability of the boats and a clearer support path moving forward, and has also helped inform the SEA 1000 future submarine program.

Deeble’s credentials suggest he is the right leader to deliver the F-35A capability to the RAAF. His experience on Wedgetail and Collins, both hugely complex projects, will better inform him on the many remaining risks in the F-35 project, and how to best manage them.

capability in the F-35 in its own right, but now we have to understand what it truly means for the rest of the systems. ” The need to integrate the F-35 as a system of systems was ably explained at the Williams Foundation’s ‘Air Combat Operations – 2025 and Beyond’ seminar in March, where speakers repeatedly cautioned against trying to field the F-35 as a stand-alone 5th generation capability.

Defence Department analyst Peter Hunter articulated this in his presentation to the seminar when he said: “Our success will depend as much on how innovative we are in integrating and operating our 5th gen platforms and their enabling systems as on the technology itself. It doesn’t take a classified brief for us all to think about how we may need to adapt our [concept of operations] to maintain the capability edge we enjoy today intothe future. ” US Marine Corps pilot LtCol David ‘Chip’ Berke related his experience flying 4th generation F/A-18 and F-16 fighters, and his exchange tours with a USAF F-22 unit and as commander of the USAF’s F-35 operational test squadron at Nellis AFB. He described the 5th generation F-22 and F-35 as “ecosystems” which have been provided by Lockheed Martin and the Air Force, but which offer little innovation without their operators. He said the best thing you can do with the ecosystem is to integrate it, “because the more people who can get inside that ecosystem, the more intelligent the communications become, the better everyone is. What makes the airplane special is not just that it can fly fast or that it is invisible, but that it makes everyone else in the ecosystem more capable. ”Hunter added: “Battlespace awareness suggests a need to build a wide range of joint capabilities, [but] the achievement of battlespace awareness and information superiority is no straightforward undertaking. It depends heavily on substantial capabilities in information management and processing. ” Col Mike Orr, currently CO of the USMC’s V-22 OT&E unit (VMX‑22) and an experienced F/A-18 pilot, echoed LtCol Berke’s and Hunter’s views when he said it is: “…not just about bringing 5th gen to the rest of the force, it’s about raising the level of everybody up to that level. One plus one doesn’t just equal two; one plus one plus one plus one equals a whole lot – it’s truly revolutionary!”

Challenges

One of the major challenges for the RAAF when the F-35 enters service will be its ability to support and sustain a 5th generation capability.

Enormous advances in situational awareness, information management, and low observable technology come in the box with an F-35, and the RAAF and its industry support partners will need to evolve to be able to sustain these capabilities. “While a 5th gen capability comes with stealth-type characteristics, we need to understand how to sustain that,” said AVM Deeble. “The information that is required to be able to program up the self-defence sensors requires data on a scale we’ve never thought about before. Being able to gather that data and do the verification and validation once you program the systems is a real change. ” Another challenge AVM Deeble foresees is the need for the culture of the RAAF to adapt to accommodate a 5th generation capability. That culture extends from the pilots and how they operate the aircraft, to the maintainers and how they fix it, to the admin and other personnel who are exposed to the aircraft’s capabilities, to the operators of other enabling capabilities.

“In the context of our Air Force, the ability to maintain the stealthy characteristics of the aircraft, to not be transmitting, to be able to take offboard feeds, that’s going to be a different part of the equation,” he added. “We need to look at AEW&C and how that will communicate effectively without compromising the stealth characteristics. But there’s a lot more to think about – everything from the maintenance, through to the programming of the aircraft, to the communicating and integratingand the interoperability – that’s a lot more than we’ve ever done before. Many of these things we’re going to have to value, we’ve got to get people across that and change the culture so that they value those things that are inherent in it. ” Not to be underestimated also are the security challenges the F-35 will bring to the ADF, with wholesale changes in the way people are vetted and to what level, and information is classified, likely to be needed. “An important challenge is the security culture that goes with operating a high end capability,” AVM Deeble explained. “We need to be thinking about that now and working with our fighter community and the rest of air defence community to change that security culture, because we are going to be exposed to many different things and we’ll need to be able to protect that information. It goes to the heart of your people, the vetting process, the facilities, the defence information environment, and how you protect those. ”At the Williams Foundation seminar, Col Mike Orr described it as “information assurance”. Said Col Orr: “Advanced sensors come with some caveats on how or where we got the information, so we have to create the right security environment. ” If the F-35 is going to share high fidelity situational awareness, Col Orr said there will need to be a greater emphasis on making sure all the people who need access to that information have the right security clearances to share it. “You need to spend money on secure facilities, and in vetting and clearing people so they can have ‘intelligent conversations’ about some of these advanced capabilities. ” On the aircraft itself, AVM Deeble seems less concerned about the program’s delays caused by the various development, design and funding issues, and more about the planned medium to long-term upgrade path.

“I see the aircraft elements arecoming along pretty well,” he said. “I’m not too concerned with the software progression, that looks like it’s on track at this time and we have enough buffer from when we need the software builds 3I, 3F and 4A to be able to cater for that.

“The things that concern me with the aircraft most is the [plan for] retrofitting of the various systems, addressing obsolescence, diminishing manufacturing supplies, making sure that our aircraft stay up-to-date, that will all be really critical,” he added. “And with the various LRIPs, keeping a common configuration through there will have some challenges we’ll have to confront. ” Another challenge for the JSF project team will be to establish a sovereign maintenance and sustainment capability for the F-35 in Australia.

What makes the airplane special is … it makes everyone else more capable. LTCOL ‘CHIP’ BERKE

“I think there are real risksfor us in setting up the sustainment and support systems and the various tools that go into that,” AVM Deeble said. “And inherent in that is the ability to reprogram the aircraft to the extent we have to. That means having the global support framework and having our industry postured here in Australia to be able to support a sovereign capability. I think the timeline for that is very short and quite aggressive, and we’re going to work very carefully through those issues. ” A major component of that support system is a mature and workable Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS, pronounced ‘Alice’). ALIS was developed by

Lockheed Martin to be a critical tool in supporting, maintaining and programing the F-35, and will essentially be common to all F-35 operators. But ALIS development has lagged, particularly in software development and security management. In his recent visit to Australia, JSF Program Executive Officer LtGen Christopher Bogdan described previous efforts to develop ALIS as like taking “one step forward and two steps back. ” But he added cautiously that a recent software upgrade to the system appears to have made much needed improvements that he hoped could be built upon.

“Part of the equation is havingsome of the support systems like ALIS at the appropriate level of maturity,” AVM Deeble explained. “ALIS concerns me so our approach is to understand what we need and when we need it, and to look at the work-arounds should there be any shortfalls in that capability. We have to look at what we require of ALIS, and work out what must be in place when our aircraft hit the tarmac in 2018. I’m convinced that given the US involvement, they’ll want those things to mature, but what we have to be able to do is adapt ALIS to our information and operating environments and to the industry base in a way that makes sense. ” In closing we asked AVM Deeble

We’ve never operated anything like this. AVM DEEBLE

Project JP 3023 Phase 1 – maritime strike for the F-35

The Defence Capability Plan (DCP) which was last published in 2012 defines JP 3023 Phase 1 as a ‘Maritime Strike Weapon for New Air Combat Capability. ’ This weapon is expected to become operational on the RAAF’s F-35A as part of the aircraft’s Block 4A software and technical refresh upgrade prior to full operational capability (FOC) in 2023, although the RAAF is also expected to declare FOC with the Raytheon AGM-154 C-1 JSOW glide weapon for anti-surface warfare (ASuW) target sets as well.

The DCP summary says the F-35A: “…requires a weapon, or weapons, suitable for strike against well-defended maritime targets in a complex littoral environment. The weapon or weapons acquired by JP 3023 will need to be highly survivable and capable of attacking moving targets with minimal external control. Such weapons are likely to have long range, be fully network-enabled, be low-observable, have their own sensors, be interoperable with Australia’s allies, and are also likely to have a high level of utility against well-defended fixed and mobile targets on the land. ” Weapons likely to be considered include the air-launched Joint Strike Missile (JSM) version of Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile, the Lockheed Martin Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) which is a development of the AGM-158 JASSM currently in service on the RAAF’s classic Hornet fleet, and an as-yet unfunded developmental jet-powered variant of the JSOW glide weapon which is in service with the RAAF Super Hornet fleet and planned for the F-35A. The JSM and proposed JSOW-ER are both designed to fit inside the F-35’s weapons bays, whereas the larger but longer-ranging LRASM would need to be carried externally. All three have low observable shaping and other characteristics.

But maritime JSF partner and FMS nations such as Norway, Australia and Japan will need to take a lead in integrating a naval anti-ship missile onto what is essentially an air force F-35A version of the JSF, something the largest operator of the A model in the USAF has no plans to do. Despite the similarities between the F-35A and the USN’s F-35C, particularly in their weapons bays and flight management systems, a bespoke integration and flight trial program is likely to be required. It is anticipated Norway will fund the JSM’s integration with the Block 4A software load.

Apart from the familiar Mk-80 series JDAM and LGB variants, later phases of JP 3023 are expected to look at acquiring other advanced air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons such as the MBDA Brimstone anti-armour missile, the SDB II or Spear miniature precision glide bombs, and the Meteor beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missile.

to predict what will be harder – his involvement in the Wedgetail AEW&C program, or the F-35. “Wedgetail had its challenges, but for me it was going through the technical aspects,” he said. “I don’t think the technical aspect of the F-35 is an issue, I think that is something for the US. For me it’s the sustainment, and it does have a lot of dimension of Wedgetail in sustainment. We’ve never operated anything like this. Establishing the capability will have a lot of similarity with AEW&C, but the scale is clearly very different, and the global sustainment scale aspect of it is very different, so there will be a lot of challenges in there.

“But it’s a great privilege for me to be on the project – there’s a great team here that’s done some great work to get the project to this stage,” he said. “What I hope to bring to bear is my project management experience on previous programs – I’ll probably be here to the end of my career, and to top it off with JSF is not a bad career. I think it’s a great program and I think it’ll be great for Australia, and there’s no doubt in my mind it’s the right capability for Australia. What we’ve got to do is make sure we can deliver that now. ”

F-35 program update

In a presentation to the Williams Foundation’s ‘Air Combat operations – 2025 and Beyond’ seminar in March, JSF Program Executive Officer, LtGen Christopher Bogdan explained that, while the F-35 program was now moving in the right direction after two big delays which he called “significant emotional events”, he still saw many risks ahead.

The delays he referred to were the aircraft’s significant 2004 redesign which was prompted by a weight blowout mainly in the F-35B STOVL model but to a lesser extent in the F-35A and C models, and the 2010 ‘Nunn-McCurdy’ program budget breach which prompted a ‘re-baselined’ two-year delay and required a funding injection for the program.

Indeed, LtGen Bogdan highlighted program cost as a continuing issue, and said affordability was his number one priority – not just the aircraft acquisition cost, but the ongoing operation and support (O&S) costs of the aircraft. “It doesn’t matter how good the F-35 will be – and it will be marvellous in the end game,” he said, “But if people can’t afford it, it won’t be much good to us. ” He also highlighted the point that many of the F-35’s enabler capabilities such as AEW&C, command and control elements, and other capabilities would likely not be ready to maximise the F-35’s capabilities when it enters service. “Relative to some of the basic systems that will interact and operate with the F-35, we’re starting to get a clearer picture of what has to happen,” but added, “we’ve got a lot of work still to do. ” He identified the intelligence community as an example. “This airplane sucks up a lot of information to precisely operate,” he said, adding that he doesn’t think “we’ve quite got a handle on that yet. ” He said there was the potential to “outstrip” the intelligence community’s ability to gather sufficient information to “make the airplane what it can be. ” Flight testing and the achievement of test points continues to accelerate, with Lockheed Martin reporting the F-35 fleet – which now numbers nearly 100 aircraft – reached a combined 16,000 hours during April, with ‘operational’ F-35s flying 812 hours, and the system development and design (SDD) fleet recording 153 flights totalling 282 hours in April.

It should be noted that in this context, the term ‘operational’ denotes those aircraft assigned to the various USAF and USMC training squadrons at Eglin and Luke AFBs and MCAS Yuma, and the operational test squadron at Nellis AFB.

Flight science testing of the all-important Block 2B software load which the USMC will need for IOC in 2015 is nearly complete, and Block 3I testing with the new ‘Tech Refresh 2’ (TR2) hardware will commence in the northern summer. The USAF remains committed to a 2018 IOC using Block 3I, while the US Navy is aiming for a 2019 IOC with Block 3F software. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a March report to Congress that all three US service IOCs remained at risk due to predicted schedule slips of up to 13 months in fielding Block 2B, and subsequent schedule slips to the follow-on software loads.

Meanwhile, program partner Turkey became the latest partner nation to commit to buying the F-35 in May when its government approved an initial order for two aircraft. A government statement said Turkey would order two aircraft in a Block 3F configuration in LRIP 10, and added that Turkey remains committed to its plan of buying 100 F-35s.

Italy, however, is reportedly wavering on its F-35 requirement, with recent political statements from within the fragile coalition government indicating that their country could order as few as 45 F-35s out of an original requirement of a mixed fleet of more than 100 F-35As and F-35Bs.