FY14 DOD PROGRAMS F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Executive Summary Test Planning, Activity, and Assessment 40 - Further adjustments to the baseline number of test points needed for Block 2B ?eet release were made in June 2014, resulting in additional reduction of points planned for the year. Although the program added points for new testing requirements Manual Ground Collision Avoidance System), they also eliminated points that were assessed as no longer required. These adjustments resulted in the net reduction of 135 points. - The program continued to experience an average test point growth rate throughout CY14 higher than planned (91 percent growth experienced through the end of November, 45 percent planned), but lower than experienced in CY13 (124 percent). - The program realized a higher test point productivity rate per aircraft in CY14 than in CY13 (averaging 40 points per aircraft per month through the end of November, compared to 35). - The program delayed plans to transition aircraft out of the Block 2B con?guration to the Block 3i con?guration, allowing more mission systems test aircraft to be available to contribute to Block 2B testing. At the time of this report, only AF-3 had been modi?ed to the Block 3i con?guration, among the six mission systems test aircraft assigned to the Edwards AFB test center, California, where the majority of the mission systems testing is accomplished. BF-5, a mission systems test aircraft assigned to the Patuxent River test center, Maryland, was modi?ed into the Block 3i con?guration in September and completed limited Block 3i testing prior to entering climatic testing later in the month. Based on test point accomplishment rates experienced since October 2013, the program will complete Block 2B development in February 2015. - This estimate assumes no ?irther growth in Block 2B testing (this is possible only if the current version entering test is the ?nal Block 2B version) and productivity at the current rate. It ?irther assumes all current Block 2B mission systems aircraft staying in the Block 2B con?guration through the end of January 2015 (the program?s estimated completion date for Block 2B development), then one F-35B and one F-35C mission systems test aircraft converting to Block 3i while the other three stay in the Block 2B con?guration until developmental testing is complete. Also, the operating restrictions stemming from the engine failure must be relieved for the test aircraft such that all blocked test points are made available. - Completion of Block 2B development by the end of January will, therefore, require a signi?cant increase in test point productivity and/ or elimination of additional test points. In April, the program accepted a recommendation that the Block 2B Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE), which was being planned for CY15, should not be conducted and that instead, resources should be focused on conducting limited assessments of Block 2B capability and re-allocated F-35 JSF to assist in the completion of development and testing of Block 3i and Block 3F capabilities. This recommendation was based on review of Block 2B progress and assessment of the program?s ability to start the Block 2B OUE as planned without creating a signi?cant impact to Block 3F development. The Program O?ice, SF Operational Test Team, and Service representatives then began working to ?re-scope? use of operational test aircraft and operational test activities in lieu of the OUE?detailed planning is still under development. The scope of the operational test activities will be limited until the ?ight restrictions induced by the engine failure are removed from the operational test aircraft. Availability of the operational test aircraft will continue to be affected in CY15 and CY16 by the depot time required for modi?cations. F-35A Engine Failure 0 As a result of the engine failure that occurred in an F-35A in late June, the program imposed aircraft operating limitations (AOL) on all variants of F-35 aircraft at the ?ight test centers and operational/training bases. These AOLs were: Maximum speed of 1.6 Mach (0.9 Mach for production aircraft at operational/training bases), Maximum g-load of 3.2 for test aircraft and 3.0 for production aircraft, Maneuvers limited to half-stick roll rate and 18 degrees angle of attack No rudder input, unless required for safe ?ight (production aircraft restriction only) Note: In some circumstances during ?ight test (but not in operational/training aircraft), exceedances were permitted and testing continued, controlled by the ?ight test team monitoring the aircraft, on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis individual aircraft are cleared for speci?c test points). 0 Due to the AOL, numerous test points needed for the Block 2B ?eet release and Marine Corps IOC were blocked and cannot be attempted until the restrictions are lifted. These test points include: - Loads and buffet, Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) envelope expansion, and propulsion testing for F-35B ?ight sciences - Loads and buffet for F-35A ?ight sciences testing - Manual ground collision avoidance system testing (for both aircraft). The manual ground collision avoidance system is a warning system that alerts the pilot that the state of aircraft attitude and altitude may be entering an unsafe condition (Service IOC requirement). There was also a requirement to inspect the engine with borescope equipment after no more than three ?ight hours; this creates additional down time and places stringent scheduling requirements, which negatively affects aircraft availability. - Restrictions for test aircraft were gradually reduced between June and November, allowing access to more test points. The program developed a procedure to FY14 DOD PROGRAMS Suitability Mission Data Load Development and Testing Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) Weapons Integration FY14 DOD PROGRAMS Actual versus Planned Test Metrics through November 2014 TEST FLIGHTS All Testing Flight Sciences All Variants F-35B Only F-35A Only F-35C Only Mission Systems 2014 Actual 2014 Planned 262 Difference from Planned Cumulative Actual Cumulative Planned Difference from Planned TEST POINTS All Testing All Variants #BTFMJOF "DDPNQMJTIFE Flight Sciences1 F-35B Only F-35A Only Mission Systems F-35C Only 2B 3F 2B 3F 2B 3F Block 2B2 Block 3i Block 3F Other #BTFMJOF 1MBOOFE Difference from Planned "EEFE 1PJOUT 5FTU 1PJOU (SPXUI 3BUF 5PUBM 1PJOUT "DDPNQMJTIFE JO $VNVMBUJWF 4%% "DUVBM $VNVMBUJWF 4%% 1MBOOFE / " Difference from Planned Estimated Test Points Remaining 'MJHIU 4DJFODFT 5FTU 1PJOUT BSF TIPXO TFQBSBUFMZ GPS #MPDL # BOE #MPDL ' 'MJHIU FOWFMPQFT EJòFS JO BJSTQFFE NBYJNVN BMMPXBCMF H BOE XFBQPOT DBSSJBHF EFQFOEJOH PO WBSJBOU *ODMVEFT #MPDL #MPDL BOE #MPDL " RVBOUJUJFT GPS $VNVMBUJWF "DUVBM BOE $VNVMBUJWF 1MBOOFE 5PUBM 1PJOUT "DDPNQMJTIFE #BTFMJOF "DDPNQMJTIFE "EEFE 1PJOUT 4%% o 4ZTUFN %FTJHO BOE %FWFMPQNFOU System 0 The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (J SF) program is a tri-Service, multi-national, single seat, single-engine family of strike aircraft consisting of three variants: - F-3 5A Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) - F-35B Short Take-Off/Vertical-Landing (STOVL) - F-35 Aircraft Carrier Variant (CV) It is designed to survive in an advanced threat (year 2015 and beyond) environment using numerous advanced capabilities. It is also designed to have improved lethality in this environment compared to legacy multi-role aircraft. Using an Active Electronically Scanned Array radar and other sensors, the F-35 is intended to employ precision-guided bombs such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Joint Standoff Weapon, AIM- 120C radar-guided Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, and AIM-9 infrared-guided short-range air-to-air missile. - The program provides mission capability in three increments: - Block 1 (initial training, two increments were ?elded: Blocks 1A and 1B) - Block 2 (advanced training in Block 2A and limited combat in Block 2B - Block 3 (limited combat in Block 3i and ?ill combat in Block 3F) 0 The F-35 is under development by a partnership of countries: the United States, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway. Mission 0 A force equipped with F-35 units should permit the Combatant Commander to attack targets day or night, in all weather, and in highly-defended areas of joint operations. - F-35 will be used to attack ?xed and mobile land targets, enemy surface units at-sea, and air threats, including advanced cruise missiles. Major Contractor Lockheed Martin, Aeronautics Division Fort Worth, Texas Test Strategy, Planning, and Resourcing - In March, recommended to the that the Block 2B Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE), which was being planned to occur in mid-2015 in accordance with the approved Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), should not be conducted. Instead, resources should be focused on conducting limited assessments of Block 2B capability and re-allocated to assure the completion of development and testing of Block 3i and Block 3F capabilities. This recommendation was based on review of Block 2B progress and assessment of the program?s ability to start the Block 2B OUE as planned without creating a signi?cant impact to Block 3F development. - The factors that led to the recommendation include: poor operational suitability, an inability to prepare pilots with adequate training and approved tactics on the planned schedule, and the deferral to Block 3 of operationally-relevant de?ciencies that would affect performance. It was clear in March that aircraft availability for operational testing would be driven by the long timelines required to modify and retro?t the early production operational test aircraft to the Block 2B con?guration, which would not be complete until mid-2016. assessed that delaying the Block 2B OUE until late 2016, as opposed to cancelling it, would have a negative impact on the program?s ability to complete development of the ?ill Block 3F combat capability in a timely manner. - In April, in coordination with the Service Acquisition Executives and the SF Program Executive Of?cer, the agreed with the recommendation and approved revising the operational test period that was allocated for the Block 2B OUE in the TEMP into a re-scoped effort of assessing the limited Block 2B set of capabilities. The SF Operational Test Team, SF Program Of?ce, and the Services? operational test agencies began re-planning the Block 2B operational test period and activities. - By the middle of Octoberoperational test aircraft assigned to the Edwards AFB, California, operational test squadron had been converted to the Block 2B con?guration and loaded with a version of Block 2B software equivalent to the one being ?own on the developmental test aircraft. The sixth F-3 5A operational test aircraft began an extended modi?cation period at the depot in September and is scheduled to be returned to Edwards AFB in February 2015 in the Block 2B con?guration. These operational test aircraft, although not in a ?ill Block 2B operationally-representative con?guration as would have been necessary to start the OUE, will be used to accomplish both developmental and operational testing events. They will be loaded with the latest version of Block 2B software as it becomes available and is determined airworthy for operational test purposes. - Program schedule pressures that caused to recommend not completing the Block 2B OUE as planned increased throughout CY14. For example, Block 2B ?ight testing, which was scheduled to be complete in October 2014, is now projected by the Program Office to complete in January 2015. Aircraft depot modi?cation plans are another example. The program developed plans to upgrade ?elded production aircraft from Lots 3 through 5, which includes operational test aircraft planned F-35 JSF 43 for use in the OUE, to the ?ill Block 2B con?guration. These plans show that all of the operational test aircraft which were planned for the Block 2B OUE will not be in the ?ill Block 2B con?guration until September 2016, 21 months later than would have been needed to conduct the OUE. - conditionally approved Revision 4 of the TEMP in March 2013, under the provision that the program revise the master schedule so that there was no overlap of spin-up training for and the certi?cation period needed for the Services? airworthiness authorities to approve a ?ight clearance with the software to be used for Speci?cally, this would require the program to adjust the start of the spin-up training from February to July 2017, coinciding with an Operational Test Readiness Review. This adjustment also moved the start of to January 2018, vice August 2017, and hence pushed the completion of into FY19. In spite of the conditional approval, the program continues to show schedules that plan for the start of spin-up training in February 2017 and the start of in August 2017. In addition to the justi?cations for adjusting the schedule that outlined in the March 2013 TEMP conditional approval memo, the program has encountered more challenges to meeting the planned schedule to start in August 2017 and completing System Design and Development (SDD) in 2018. These challenges include: - Block 3i ?ight testing began in late May 2014, ?ve months later than the program?s baseline plan. - Block 3F ?ight testing was scheduled to start in November 2014 according to the program?s baseline plan; current program estimates show the testing starting no earlier than late February 2015, three months late. - Modi?cation plans for the aircraft will likely not have aircraft ready to begin the start of spin-up training in February 2017 as planned by the errant schedule submitted in the TEMP. To become Block 3F capable, the operational test aircraft require extensive modi?cations, including new processors, in addition to those needed for Block 2B capability. Block 3F modi?cation plans are taking into consideration some modi?cations that already have engineering solutions and approved designs. Other modi?cations although known to be required are still in the formal change approval process leading to parts and modi?cation kits being developed and procured ?om suppliers. Some of these latter modi?cations are currently not scheduled to be available until May 2017 for the F-3 5A and February 2018 for the F-35C, which is later than needed to support spin-up training for - There is carryover of incomplete work ?om Block 2B development into Block 3. In coordination with the Services, the program completed a review in June of 1,151 open de?ciency reports identi?ed during Block 2B development and earlier. Of these, 572 were rated as relevant to and affecting Block 2B capability; 579 were carried over for consideration for corrections in Block 3. 44 F-35 JSF - The program removed test points that were originally planned to be ?own to support Block 2B ?eet release (approximately 1,000 mission systems test points); some of these points may carry over and need to be ?own during Block 3F development. - In order to account for these realities and reduce the overlap of spin-up training for with ?nal development activities (such as the activities that provide the certi?cations for use of the ?nal con?guration), the program master schedule should be adjusted to re?ect these realities and depict the start of spin-up training for no earlier than the Operational Test Readiness Review in November 2017, and the start of for Block 3F to occur six months later, in May 2018 and completing in May 2019. If it becomes apparent that spin-up training entry criteria providing properly con?gured production-representative aircraft in su?icient numbers) cannot be met on this timeline, then the schedule will have to be adjusted again. 0 This report reviews the program by analyzing the progress of testing and the capability delivered as a ?1nction of test results. The program plans a speci?c set of test points (discrete measurements of performance under speci?c test conditions) for accomplishment in a given calendar year. In this report, test points planned for a given calendar year are referred to as baseline test points. In addition to baseline test points, the program accomplishes test points added for discovery, regression of new software, and veri?cation of ?xes to de?ciencies identi?ed in ?ight test; these additional points are referred to as ?growth? points in this report. Cumulative SDD test point data refer to the total progress towards completing development at the end of SDD. F-35A Engine Failure 0 An F-35A aircraft assigned to the training center at Eglin AFB, Florida experienced an engine failure on take-off on June 23, 2014. The aircraft was a Lot 4 production aircraft, delivered to Eglin AFB in June 2013, and had ?own approximately 160 hours prior to the incident. As a result of the engine failure, the Program O?ice and the Services initiated a series of actions that affected ?ight operations for both the ?elded production aircraft and the test aircraft. - The Program O?ice instituted an operational pause to ?ight testing at the test centers on June 25, and the contractor suspended acceptance ?ight operations at the production plant. - A ?eet-wide stop order was issued by the Program Of?ce on July 4, which of?cially suspended ?ight operations and ground engine runs. This order also initiated requirements to visually inspect the affected engine components using special equipment called a borescope. - On July 8, the program began lifting restrictions by permitting engine runs up to 30 percent power for engines that had completed the borescope inspections. FY14 DOD PROGRAMS F-35A Flight Sciences Flight Test Activity with AF-1, AF-2, and AF-4 Test Aircraft F-35A Flight Sciences Assessment FY14 DOD PROGRAMS F-35B Flight Sciences Flight Test Activity with BF-1, BF-2, BF-3, BF-4, and BF-5 Test Aircraft F-35B Flight Sciences Assessment of the points planned for the year. These points were reviewed by the contractor and the Program O?ice, and designated as no longer required for Block 2B ?eet release and Marine Corps IOC. This reduction brought the total 2014 plan to 1,151 points, 1,127 of which were planned to be completed by the end of November. Crosswind landing testing in the conventional landing mode (not vertical landing) was not completed; but suf?cient testing was accomplished to clear landings up to 20 knots of crosswind, short of the ORD requirement of 25 knots of crosswind. BF-4 was modi?ed with the redesigned fuel tank inerting system late in CY13. Testing to assess ground inerting performance and validate results from the fuel system simulator a ?ill mock-up surrogate of the F-35B fuel system was completed in December 2013. Further testing of the tank inerting system did not occur until September 2014, as other test requirements wet runway testing) needed to be conducted with BF-4, and known de?ciencies needed to be addressed with corrections to software. Flight testing of the tank inerting system is ongoing. Regression testing to verify correction of de?ciencies in the redesign discovered from ground testing (on the aircraft and in the simulator) was conducted in early October and will continue in December after updated software is released to the test aircraft for ?ight testing. Discoveries in F-35B ?ight sciences testing included: - Early fuel dump testing in 2011 discovered that fuel does not completely eject overboard, but collects in the area between the ?aperons and the aircraft structure and runs inboard toward the Integrated Power Package exhaust outlet, creating a potential ?re hazard. Testing of a redesigned dump nozzle, improved seals for the ?aperons, and heat-shrinkable tubing added to wiring harnesses for protection in the event of fuel wetting have all contributed to a new fuel dumping procedure. - Inerting performance in certain fuel tanks during ground testing of the redesigned ullage inerting system did not meet the performance demonstrated during fuel system simulator testing. To address this discrepancy, an additional OBIGGS distribution line was installed on aircraft BF-4. The discovery affects all variants; retro?t kits have been developed for the F-35A and F-35 variants. - The redesigned ullage inerting system has the potential to generate pressure spikes when pressure in the aerial refueling manifold is released into the fuel tanks. A blanking plate was installed on BF-4 to isolate the aerial refueling manifold from the OBIGGS as a temporary measure to allow it to ferry to Edwards AFB to conduct testing on wet runways. A software modi?cation of the valve control logic was tested in late September, allowing removal of the blanking plate. - The aircraft does not maintain residual inerting after ?ight for the required interval of 12 hours, which is a lightning protection requirement. Residual inerting is a result of the inert air produced by the OBIGGS remaining in the ullage area of the fuel tanks after a ?ight. The program is investigating a correction to this problem. If the residual inerting cannot be improved, aircraft maintainers will be required to purge fuel tanks with external nitrogen more frequently or alternative lightning protection strategies lightning-protected shelters, will have to be adopted. - In heavy buffet conditions, which occur between 20 and 26 degrees angle of attack, faults occurred in the inertial measurement units (IMUs) in the aircraft that degraded the ?ight control system (two of three ?ight control channels become disabled), requiring a ?ight abort. This condition blocked 28 test points needed for the Block 2B ?eet release. The program made adjustments to the ?ight control software, which were tested in late October and the test points were unblocked, enabling some testing in the heavy buffet conditions to continue. However, nine additional test points needed for the Block 2B ?eet release remained blocked at the end of November because of high dynamic loads on the rudder at lower altitudes, in the same angle of attack range, and require additional analyses and mitigation to complete. Weight management of the F-35B aircraft is critical to meeting the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) in the ORD, including the vertical lift bring-back requirement. This KPP requires the F-35B to be able to ?y an operationally representative pro?le and recover to the ship with the necessary fuel and balance of unexpended weapons (two 1,000-pound bombs and two AIM-120 missiles) to safely conduct a vertical landing. These estimates are based on measured weights of components and subassemblies, calculated weights from approved design drawings released for build, and estimated weights of remaining components. These estimates are used to predict the weight of the ?rst Lot 7 F-35B aircraft (BF-44), planned for delivery in August 2015, which will be the basis for evaluating contract speci?cation compliance for aircraft weight. - Weight reports for the F-35B as of October show that the program added 18 pounds to the estimated weight in CY14 and a net addition of 82 pounds over the last 38 months (August 2011 to October 2014). The current estimate of 32,412 pounds is 337 pounds (1 percent) below the objective vertical lift bring-back not-to-exceed weight of 32,749 pounds. - Managing weight growth for the F-35B will continue to be a challenge in light of the small weight margin available and the possibility for continued discovery through the remaining SDD phase, which extends two years past the delivery of the ?rst Lot 7 aircraft, planned for August 2015. The program will need to ensure actual weights meet predictions. Known modi?cations and retro?ts for production aircraft in Lots 2 through 6 will add weight to those aircraft, varying from 210 pounds for the Lot 3 aircraft to 17 pounds for the Lot 6 aircraft. In F-35 JSF 47 FY14 DOD PROGRAMS F-35B DOOR AND PROPULSION PROBLEMS Category Design Fix and Test Status Production Cut-In /FX EFTJHOFE EPPST BSF CFJOH JOTUBMMFE PO -PX 3BUF *OJUJBM 1SPEVDUJPO -3*1 BJSDSBGU BT QBSU PG UIF PO HPJOH NPEJöDBUJPO QMBO DPNQMFUFE UISPVHI UIF FOE PG 4FQUFNCFS 'BUJHVF UFTUJOH PG UIF EPPST TUBSUFE JO /PWFNCFS̓ BOE DPNQMFUFE UIF QMBOOFE MJGFUJNFT PG UFTUJOH BU UIF FOE PG 4FQUFNCFS *OTQFDUJPOT XFSF POHPJOH BT PG UIF FOE PG /PWFNCFS XJUI OP EJTDPWFSJFT 'JY BQQFBST UP SFTPMWF QSPCMFN #' -3*1 -PU %SJWF 4IBGU -JGU GBO ESJWF TIBGU JT VOEFSHPJOH B TFDPOE SFEFTJHO 0SJHJOBM EFTJHO XBT JOBEFRVBUF due to shaft stretch requirements to accommodate thermal growth, tolerances, BOE NBOFVWFS EFøFDUJPOT 'JSTU SFEFTJHO GBJMFE RVBMJöDBUJPO UFTUJOH New design completed qualification testing and appears UP SFEVDF UIF QSPCMFN 'VMM FOWFMPQF SFRVJSFNFOUT are currently being met on production aircraft with an interim design solution using spacers to lengthen the FBSMZ QSPEVDUJPO ESJWF TIBGU /FX EFTJHO JT EFQFOEFOU PO updated propulsion software load planned to be available CZ -PU #' -3*1 -PU Clutch -JGU GBO DMVUDI IBT FYQFSJFODFE IJHIFS than expected drag heating during DPOWFOUJPOBM VQ BOE BXBZ øJHIU EVSJOH FBSMZ UFTUJOH New clutch plate design, with more heat-tolerant material, JT DPNQMFUF $MVUDI QMBUFT BSF CFJOH UIJOOFE PO -PU BOE̓ BJSDSBGU BU UIF FYQFOTF PG SFEVDFE MJGF FOHBHFNFOUT UP UIF DMVUDI UP QSFWFOU ESBH IFBUJOH 4PMVUJPOT BQQFBS UP CF FòFDUJWF WFSZ GFX IPU DMVUDIFT BSF FYQFSJFODFE JO øFFU XJEF PQFSBUJPOT OPX 5BJM 5#% .JE -3*1 -PU Propulsion 3PMM 1PTU /P[[MF "DUVBUPS 3PMM QPTU OP[[MF CBZ UFNQFSBUVSFT FYDFFE current actuator capability; insulation is needed to prevent possible actuator GBJMVSF EVSJOH WFSUJDBM MJGU PQFSBUJPOT *OTVMBUJPO CFUXFFO UIF SPMM QPTU OP[[MF CBZ BOE UIF BDUVBUPST JT CFJOH JOTUBMMFE JO QSF -PU BJSDSBGU UP BMMPX VOSFTUSJDUFE operations, however the actuators must be replaced at ̓IPVS JOUFSWBMT /FX BDUVBUPST XJMM CF JOTUBMMFE JO -PU 6 aircraft and beyond, removing the requirements for the JOTVMBUJPO BOE FYUFOEJOH UIF TFSWJDF MJGF UP IPVST #' -3*1 -PU Propulsion Vanes between stages of the lift fan FYQFSJFODF FYDFTTJWF WJCSBUJPO øVUUFS -JGU 'BO EVSJOH NPEF øJHIU XIFO UFNQFSBUVSF *OUFS 4UBHF 7BOFT JT CFMPX o' PS BCPWF oF degrees and *47 TQFFE JT HSFBUFS UIBO LOPUT DBMJCSBUFE BJSTQFFE "JSDSBGU BSF SFTUSJDUFE GSPN NPEF øJHIU PVUTJEF UIF UFNQFSBUVSF BOE TQFFE SFTUSJDUJPOT OPUFE " VOJU MFWFM 5JNF $PNQMJBOU 5FDIOJDBM %JSFDUJWF JT CFJOH BDDPNQMJTIFE GPS öFMEFE MJGU GBOT UP SFQMBDF UIF *47T XJUI B OFX *47 NBEF PG more durable material tolerant over a greater temperature SBOHF XJUI QSPEVDUJPO DVU JO PO OFX -JGU 'BOT New vanes retrograded in fielded aircraft, incorporated in new production lift fans Structure Propulsion Propulsion Component Problem *OBEFRVBUF MJGF PO EPPS MPDLT FYDFTTJWF "VYJMJBSZ "JS *OMFU XFBS BOE GBUJHVF EVF UP UIF CVòFU %PPS ""*% FOWJSPONFOU JOBEFRVBUF TFBM EFTJHO F-35C Flight Sciences Flight Test Activity with CF-1, CF-2, CF-3, and CF-5 Test Aircraft F-35C Flight Sciences Assessment FY14 DOD PROGRAMS Mission Systems Flight Test Activity with AF-3, AF-6, AF-7, BF-4, BF-5, BF-17, BF-18, CF-3, and CF-8 Flight Test Aircraft and Software Development Progress 50 plans to begin ?ight testing in early CY15. Aircraft from production Lots 2 through 5 will need to be modi?ed, including the installation of TR2 processors, to have Block 3F capabilities. Mission systems testing focused on: - Completing ?ight testing of Block 2B capabilities - Start of ?ight testing of Block 3i software, which began in May - Start of Generation helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) testing - Multi-ship data link performance (via the multi-platform advanced data link (MADL) system and Link 16) - Radar performance - Troubleshooting navigation solution problems, which caused a pause in weapon testing in August - Manual Ground Collision Avoidance System testing, which was added by the program in CY14 as a Block 2B capability to be delivered with ?eet release - Flight testing six increments of Block 2B software and two increments of Block 3i software (note: the program plans to release another version of 3i software to ?ight test prior to the end of CY14) - Block 3F software ?rst version began testing on the Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (?rst ?ight was on July 31) The six mission systems ?ight test aircraft assigned to the Edwards AFB test center ?ew an average rate of 7.0 ?ights per aircraft per month in CY14 through November, exceeding the planned rate of 5.4 by 30 percent, and ?ew 121 percent of the planned ?ights (472 sorties accomplished compared to 390 planned). The program prioritized ?ight test activity to attempt to complete Block 2B ?ight testing by the end of October 2014, per the approved baseline schedule. However, as of the end of November, 87 percent of the total Block 2B mission systems baseline test points were accomplished (3,654 of 4,183 total points accomplished, 529 points remaining). The test team accomplished 74 percent of the planned 2014 baseline mission systems test points from test plans for Blocks November (1,303 baseline test points accomplished, 1,766 planned). The team also accomplished an additional 1,072 growth test points. These points were needed for regression testing of new revisions of Block 2B software, identifying and characterizing de?ciencies in mission systems performance, veri?cation of corrections of de?ciencies, and other testing the program found necessary to add to the baseline test plans. Although the program plans for some growth points during development, the rate of growth experienced for CY14 through the end of November for Block 2B testing (91 percent) was higher than the planned rate of 45 percent used by the program for CY14. The growth rate for the limited amount of Block 3i testing was 29 percent. Five F-3 5A operational test aircraft (all of which include ?ight test instrumentation and recording equipment identical to SDD mission systems test aircraft) were modi?ed and loaded with a developmental test version of Block 2B F-35 JSF software one aircraft in July, two in August, one in September, and one in October. As a result of the decision to not conduct the Block 2B OUE, the program is able to use these aircraft to support the effort to complete Block 2B developmental testing. Depending on the availability of these aircraft after the Block 3F modi?cations plan is ?nalized, they will be available to support re-scoped Block 2B operational test activity. Mission Systems Assessment Block 2B - Although test ?ight sortie goals were exceeded, and over 75 percent of planned baseline test points were accomplished as of the end of November, delivery of Block 2B capability, and thus the ability to complete development by October, was hampered by several factors: - The need to develop, release, and test unplanned versions of Block 2B software to improve stability and ?x de?ciencies. - Discoveries continued to occur in later versions of software. - Restrictions to ?ight test aircraft apart from those imposed due to the June engine failure reduced the accessible test points. For example, ?ight operations with AF-6 and AF-7 mission systems test aircraft were suspended temporarily on June 20 when the program issued a stop order on F-3 5A production aircraft until inspections were completed on the nacelle vent inlet tube. A crack in the tube was discovered on a production F-3 5 A aircraft at Eglin AFB following an incident where ground crews observed fuel leaking from the tube during hot pit ground re?1eling operations on June 11 (AF-6 and AF-7 are Lot 1 production aircraft assigned to the Edwards AFB test center). Following the inspections, the program released an interim aircraft operating limitation restricting F-3 5A production aircraft to 3 g?s and no air re?ieling. This affects all ?elded production aircraft as well, which carry these restrictions concurrent with the restrictions related to engine failure, until they are modi?ed. These restrictions remained in place on AF-6 and AF-7 until the test center replaced the tubes. - To date, performance of 2BS5 software, which began ?ight testing in June, has shown improvement in startup and in?ight stability compared to earlier versions. However, fusion of information from own-ship sensors, as well as ?1sion of information from off-board sensors is still de?cient. The Distributed Aperture System continues to exhibit high false-alarm rates and false target tracks, and poor stability performance, even in later versions of software. - In June, the Program Of?ce and the Services completed a review of nearly 1,500 de?ciency reports accumulated since the beginning of testing to adjudicate the status of all capability de?ciencies associated with Block 2B ?eet release/Marine Corps 10C. The review showed that 1,151 reports were not yet ?illy resolved, 151 of which were assessed as ?mission critical? with no acceptable workaround for Block 2B ?eet release. The remaining development and ?ight test of Block 2B will determine the ?nal status of these 151 mission critical de?ciencies, whether they are corrected or will add to the incomplete development work deferred to Block 3F with the less critical ?aws. Growth in mission systems test points (regression for new software versions, testing ?xes) for CY14 through the end of November was at 91 percent; that is, for every Block 2B ?baseline? test point accomplished in 0.91 ?growth? points have been accomplished. Growth in test points for Block 2B has slowed later in CY14 as the program has deferred ?xes of de?ciencies to Block 3i or Block 3F, averaging 61 percent for the period August through November. This average rate of growth, although higher than the planning rate for the year, is less than that observed in CY13 (124 percent) at the time of reporting for the FY13 Annual Report. The program is eliminating test points that are designed to characterize performance in a greater envelope than a speci?c contract speci?cation condition), reducing the number of test points needed to verify the ?nal Block 2B capability for ?eet release, and deferring ?xes for de?ciencies to Block 3. The program has also added points for the capability required by the Services to be included in Block 2B capabilities. Formal adjustments to the 2014 test plans through the end of October resulted in a net reduction of 135 Block 2B baseline test points. In November, the program considered making ?irther adjustments to the plan in order to complete testing necessary to support Block 2B ?eet release by the end of January 2015. After reviewing the remaining 529 baseline test points, the program deemed 139 as potentially no longer required and another 147 as optional, designating only 243 of the 529 remaining points as essential for completing testing to support Block 2B ?eet release. Formal adjustments of the test plans were pending as of the completion of this report. These reductions in the 2014 plan are in addition to the removal of approximately 840 test points that occurred when the program consolidated test plans for software increments prior to Block 2B with the plan for 2014, all of which were planned to be ?own prior to the 2014 plan. The program planned to complete Block 2B mission systems ?ight test in October, which did not occur. The completion date of Block 2B mission systems testing will depend, in part, on realizing ?irther reductions to baseline test points and elimination of any remaining restrictions imposed on the ?eet of test aircraft due to the engine failure. As of the end of November, 529 of 4,183 Block 2B baseline test points remained. Assuming the program would continue test point productivity equal to that realized in the preceding 12 months, the program will be able to complete the remaining 529 Block 2B test points by the end of February 2015. This estimate is based on the following assumptions: - Modi?cations to upgrade any additional mission systems test aircraft from the Block 2B to Block 3i or Block 3F con?guration (besides AF-3) occurs after January 2015, which is the program?s current estimate for completing Block 2B development. Starting in February, two of the seven remaining mission systems test aircraft upgrade to the Block 3i con?guration, while the remaining mission systems test aircraft stay in the 2B con?guration to complete testing. This schedule allows other mission systems test aircraft to be modi?ed to support testing of the Block 3i and Block 3F mission systems software, the Generation HMDS, and OBIGGS on the F-35C variant. - The operating restrictions stemming from the engine failure do not restrict access to the remaining test points. These restrictions are lifted on each test aircraft after a ?pre-trenched? stator is installed in the engine. Through the end of November, the engines in 6 of the 18 test aircraft had been modi?ed with these stators and the program plans to have the entire test ?eet modi?ed by the end ofFebruary 2015. - No additional growth is experienced in the remainder of Block 2B ?ight testing, and de?ciencies not currently addressed by ?xes included in the ?nal test release of Block 2B software (version 2BS5.2) will be deferred to Block 3 or not addressed. Block 3i - Block 3i was not planned to incorporate any new capability or ?xes from the Block 2B development/?eet release. The ?rst increment of Block 3i capability, designated 3iR1, is the initial release to Lot 6 aircraft and will include only Block 2A capability (inherently less capable than the ?nal Block 2B ?eet release). Subsequent increments of Block 3i software will have additional capability. However, the prospects for Block 3i progress are dependent on completion of Block 2B development and ?ight test, which determines: - When test aircraft are converted to Block 3i; two of seven mission systems aircraft one at the Edwards test center and one at the Patuxent River, Maryland, test center have been modi?ed so far (?ight testing can only occur on test aircraft upgraded with TR2 hardware). - How much incomplete development work will be inherited by Block 3i due to de?ciencies deferred from Block 2B. Though it eventually began in 2014, Block 3i ?ight test progress began late, and has progressed much slower than expected. As of the end of November 2014, the program had completed only 25 percent of the baseline Block 3i F-35 JSF 51 52 test points, accomplishing 177 of 700 test points, which represented 64 percent of the plan for the year. - The program temporarily modi?ed two mission systems aircraft CF-8 in October 2013 and AF-3 in November 2013 with a portion of the TR2 hardware to attempt loading the ?rst build of Block 3i software. The attempt on CF-8 failed, but the software was successfully loaded on AF-3, allowing the test center to complete ground software regression testing. AF-3 was returned to the Block 2B con?guration to support testing until May 2014, when it underwent the ?ill TR2 modi?cation in preparation for Block 3i ?ight testing. - In May, the ?rst increment of ?ight test software (3iR1) was delivered to ?ight test approximately ?ve months later than planned (December 2013 to May 2014). This version of the software is needed for delivery of Lot 6, TR2 equipped aircraft. The Edwards test center conducted ?ight testing of the Block 3i software on AF-3. The Patuxent River test center conducted one test ?ight of Block 3i software on BF-5, which is currently deployed to the climatic chamber for testing. No testing of Block 3i software has yet been accomplished on an F-35 test aircraft. As of the end of November, all remaining Block 3i test points were blocked, as the test centers were awaiting the next iteration of Block 3i software to proceed with ?ight testing. - The test centers identi?ed de?ciencies in the 3iR1 software, ?ve of which needed to be corrected before the software could be used in the Lot 6 production aircraft. These de?ciencies were corrected and tested in the lab with an updated version of software. This ?nal version of 3iR1 software was not ?ight tested at test centers, but tested by the contractor at the production facility, and is used to deliver Lot 6 aircraft. - The second iteration of Block 3i software, 3iR4, included capability to test the new Generation HMDS. The Edwards test center ?ew four test missions with 3iR4 on AF-3 in September, accomplishing regression test points and some initial test points ?om the Generation HMDS test plan. This was the ?rst testing of the new HMDS on F-35 test aircraft. The test team discovered de?ciencies, particularly in the stability of the new display management computer for the helmet, and suspended ?irther testing until software that ?xes the de?ciencies in the helmet system can be provided to the major contractor and included in an updated load of mission systems software. - The third increment of Block 3i software, version 3iR5, will be used to provide production software for Lot 7 aircraft, the ?rst lot to be delivered with the Generation HMDS. The program plans for the production software to have the equivalent capabilities as Block 2B and plans to deliver 3iR5 software to ?ight test in January 2015. However, even if this occurs, since Block 2B development and ?ight testing were not completed as planned in October, the completion F-35 JSF of Block 3i testing will be delayed if the equivalent capabilities from Block 2B development are to be realized in Block 3i. The program plans to convert four of the ?ve Block 2B mission systems test aircraft at the Edwards test center to the Block 3i con?guration in February 2015. Assuming this transition takes place, Block 3i ?ight testing could conclude by July 2015, two months later than the planned completion of May 2015. This assumes nominal growth of 66 percent is experienced during the rest of Block 3i development and ?ight testing, the program completes testing of the remaining baseline test points without reductions, and the program uses four of the six mission systems test aircraft at the Edwards test center for dedicated Block 3i testing. Of the two remaining mission systems test aircraft, one other test aircraft could be available for ?irther Block 2B testing and one could be used to start Block 3F testing. Additional time will be needed to address corrections if additional de?ciencies are identi?ed in the Generation HMDS and will add risk to the schedule. 0 Block 3F - In order to manage and complete Block 3F development and ?ight testing as planned in late 2017, the program needs to complete Block 2B development and ?ight test as soon as possible and transition to Block 3. The program currently acknowledges four to six months ?pressure? on the end of Block 3F development and test. The program needs to complete Block 2B development soon to focus resources (staf?ng, labs, ?ight test aircraft) on the development and testing of Block 3F, designated as ??ill war?ghting capability.? - The test centers and contractor began detailed test planning for Block 3F ?ight test. The draft test plan has nearly 6,000 test points. Plans completed after the 2012 re-baselining of the program showed the start of Block 3F ?ight testing in May 2014; however, current program plans are to start Block 3F ?ight test in March 2015 10 months later than the 2012 baseline. Mission Data Load Development and Testing 0 The F-35 relies on mission data loads which are a compilation of the mission data ?les needed for operation of the sensors and other mission systems components working in conjunction with the system software data load to drive sensor search parameters and to identify and correlate sensor detections of threat radar signals. An initial set of ?les was produced by the contractor for developmental testing during SDD, but the operational mission data loads one for each potential major area of operation will be produced by a US. government lab, the US. Reprogramming Lab (USRL). These mission data loads will be used for operational testing and ?elded aircraft, including the Marine Corps IOC aircraft. 0 In accordance with the approved mission data optimization operational test plan, mission data loads undergo a three-phased lab development and test regimen, followed by ?ight test. The current plans are to certify the ?rst two mission data loads, which are needed to support Marine Corps IOC, in November 2015 after ?ight testing occurs on operational test aircraft between March and October 2015. These plans provide the mission data load later than needed for the Marine Corps? objective IOC date of July 2015. However, truncating the mission data load development and conducting open-air ?ight testing early on a limited open-air range for the purpose of releasing a mission data load in mid-2015 would create signi?cant operational risk to ?elded units, since the load will not have completed the planned lab testing and because the open-air range test infrastructure is capable of verifying only a small portion of the mission data. The program should complete lab testing of the mission data loads, as is planned in the mission data optimization operational test plan, prior to accomplishing the necessary ?ight testing to ensure the loads released to the ?eet are optimized for performance. If mission data loads are released to operational units prior to the completion of the lab and ?ight testing required in the operational test plan, the risk to operational units must be clearly documented. Several items are currently creating risk to the program?s ability to deliver certi?ed mission data loads. Mission data lab equipment was held by the major contractor at their Fort Worth facility for three years past the planned delivery to the USRL to support mission systems software development for production aircraft, reducing productivity at the USRL. The USRL did not receive su?icient documentation of the equipment and software tools that were delivered by the program; this has hampered their training and slowed development. Contract issues had prevented USRL from direct communications with the subcontractor that designed both the electronic warfare system on the aircraft and the mission data programming tools. These communications were needed to understand undocumented lab and mission data ?le generation tool ?1nctions. The Program Office has taken steps to improve these communications. Other challenges that may affect on-time delivery of mission data include instability in the contractor-delivered mission data ?le generation tool, which creates the ?nal mission data load, and slower than expected development of software analysis tools that optimize sensor performance. Mission data load development and testing is a critical path to combat capability for Block 2B and Block 3F. Accuracy of threat identi?cation and location depend on how well the mission data loads are optimized to perform in ambiguous operational environments. This is difficult work given a stable software capability in the platform, adequate lab equipment, and stable/well-understood mission data ?le generation tools none of which are yet available in the program. The current lab is essentially a copy of the mission systems integration lab used by the major contractor to integrate and test software. It is not adequate for development of mission data loads for use in operationally realistic conditions. As identi?ed by in early 2012, the program must plan and execute a signi?cant upgrade to the lab in order for it to generate an operationally realistic signal environment for mission data load optimization. Though ?1nding has been made available, plans for this upgrade, and integration with the Block 2B, Block 3i, and Block 3F mission data loads have not been ?nalized. Weapons Integration 0 Progress in weapons integration, in particular the completion of planned weapon delivery accuracy (WDA) events, has been very limited in 2014 compared to that planned by the program. Multiple de?ciencies in mission systems, aircraft grounding, and subsequent ?ight restrictions caused by the June engine failure all contributed to the limited progress. Each WDA event requires scenario dry-runs in preparation for the ?nal end-to-end event to ensure the intended mission system ?1nctionality, as well as engineering and data analysis requirements (to support the test centers and weapon vendors) are available to complete the missile shot or bomb drop. Per the approved TEMP, these preparatory events, as well as the end-to-end events, are to be accomplished with ?ill mission systems functionality, including operationally realistic ?re control and sensor performance. Mission systems developmental testing of system components required neither operation nor ?ill ?1nctionality of that were not a part of the component under test. The individual mission system component tests were designed by the developmental teams to verify compliance with contract speci?cation requirements rather than to test the ?ill mission systems performance of the aircraft and complete the kill chain for air-to-air and air-to-ground mission success. WDA events, however, were speci?cally designed to gather both the necessary weapons integration and ?re-control characterization and performance using all the mission systems required to engage and kill targets. Planning and scheduling of the WDA events assumed that all associated mission systems ?1nctionality would be mature by the WDA preparatory event dates. However, due to the limitations in progress in Block 2B mission systems, this has not occurred. - De?ciencies in the Block 2B mission systems software affecting the WDA events were identi?ed in ?1sion, radar, passive sensors, identi?cation friend-or-foe, electro-optical targeting system, and the aircraft navigation model. De?ciencies in the datalink systems also delayed completion of some events. Overall, these de?ciencies have both delayed the WDA event schedule and compromised the requirement to execute the missions with ?illy ?mctional and integrated mission systems. - The program had planned to complete all Block 2B WDA events by October 2014. This did not occur. Through the end of November, 10 of 15 live ?re events had been completed, while the program planned to have all 15 completed by the end of October. In November, the F-35 JSF 53 FY14 DOD PROGRAMS WEAPONS DELIVERY ACCURACY (WDA) PROGRESS Weapon "*. WDA Number Preparatory Events End-to-End Event Planned Completed/ Scheduled1 Weeks Delayed Planned Completed/ Scheduled Weeks Delayed 4FQ Sep 13 2 0DU Oct 13 2 4FQ Sep 13 0DU Nov 13 (#6 4FQ Oct 13 0DU Oct 13 (#6 4FQ Nov 13 6 /PW Dec 13 0DU Dec 13 %FD Feb 14 0DU Aug 13 %FD Nov 14 %FD Deferred to Block 3F -- +BO Deferred to Block 3F -- %FD Sep 14 +BO Nov 14 'FC Nov 14 .BS Jan 15 .BZ Dec 14 +VO Dec 14 26 "VH May 14 "*. May 14 (#6 %FD Jun 14 Oct 14 'FC .BS .BZ +VO +VM Jan 14 4FQ Mar 14 4FQ Deferred to Block 3F -- 0DU Deferred to Block 3F -- "*. Static Structural and Durability Testing of all variants using full scale Aug 14 Sep 14 Jun 14 May 14 Sep 14 Mar 14 Apr 14 4PNF 8%" FWFOUT SFRVJSF NPSF UIBO POF QSFQBSBUPSZ FWFOU cold working process, and the use of laser shock peening (LSP) to enhance fatigue life in sections of the bulkhead where tensile stresses are known to be concentrated. The objective of treating areas with L8P is to create compressive pre-stress states near surfaces where tensile stresses are expected to be high and hence reduce crack initiation. However, L8P has not been used on the type of aluminum alloy (AL-7085) used in manufacturing the F8496 bulkheads in the F-35B, and the ability to affect the structural life is not well understood. The program should require the contractor to conduct rigorous ?nite-element analyses to assess the bene?t of L8P application. The main objectives are to assess the LSP effect in reducing tensile stress concentrations in critical areas and to assure limited increase of tensile stresses in the other areas. To date, the effect on AL-7085 fatigue properties due to L8P application are yet to be characterized, therefore a ?nite-element analysis using the existing AL-7085 fatigue property data is likely to over-estimate the effect of L8P in improving fatigue resistance, which should also be taken into account. - For aircraft in Lot 9 and beyond, the program is redesigning the ?ve carry-through bulkheads in the F-35B (F8450, F8472, F8496, F8518, and F8556). The redesign will include L8P on two bulkheads, cold working of fastener holes on four, and increasing thickness in portions of all ?ve bulkheads. The overall effect on aircraft weight increase is not yet known. - Because of the extensive repair required to the F8496 bulkhead, the certi?cation path to ?ill life will likely require additional follow-on testing. F-35 durability test article began second lifetime testing on April 2, and completed 2,312 EFH into the second lifetime in August (10,312 EFH total), followed by inspections. Testing resumed October 28, 2014. - Discoveries after the ?rst lifetime of testing caused redesigns in the F8518 fairing support frame and F8402 upper inboard frame. Repairs and redesigns were completed at 8,869 EFH and 8,722 EFH, respectively. - Discoveries from the second lifetime of testing include cracking of outboard wing spar #5 and cracking on both the left and right hand sides of the F8575 center arch ?ame. Repairs to both were completed at 10,000 EFH prior to restart of testing. Modeling and Simulation Veri?cation Simulation (VSim) The Veri?cation 8imulation (V8im) is a man-in-the-loop, mission software-in-the-loop simulation developed to meet the requirements for Block 3F as well as to provide a venue for contract compliance veri?cation for the Program Of?ce. At the beginning of CY14, the program planned to accredit the V8im for use in Block 2B contract compliance veri?cation by the end of the year. However, lack of progress on the Veri?cation and Validation process, and to a lesser extent the V8im development process, caused the program to charter an independent review of V8im. This review eventually led to cancellation of the contract veri?cation portion of Block 2B V8im planned usage. For similar reasons, after the Block 2B OUE re-scoping effort began, the 8F Operational Test Team determined that V8im would likely not support planned Block 2B operational testing in 2015 and reduced the requirements for the simulation?s intended uses to support only tactics development and other activities that directly contribute to the ?elding of Block 2B capabilities. About one-third of the validation evidence for Block 2B V8im was reviewed by the developmental and operational test stakeholders before the contractual use of V8im for Block 2B was cancelled. This review con?rmed that additional time was needed before V8im could potentially meet expectations. Collaborative replanning of Block 2B activities is not complete, but reviews to support operational testing needs are now planned for early 2015, with accreditation of V8im for tactics development and other uses expected in October 2015. Exercising the process for Block 2B V8im is critical to reducing risk for its use in Block 3F Rigorous validation will identify gaps in V8im performance, including threat modeling, in time to create the appropriate ?xes for Block 3F. Creation of test and procedures as well as reports and accreditation documentation will provide a signi?cantly better understanding of V8im status by the end of 20 15. Rigorous validation depends on good source data, and the contractor and Program O?ice improved efforts to ensure V8im needs are met in the Block 3F ?ight test plan. Those plans are not ?nalized, but will certainly result in de?cits as the enterprise-wide need for ?ight tests exceeds available resources. Success in validating Block 3F V8im will depend on bridging this gap with acceptable data sources. The contractor has increased resources on V8im teams, and the quality of the products is increasing. However, the rate of completing validation points (a comparison of V8im model performance to aircraft hardware performance under similar test conditions using data from ?ight test, avionics test bed, or labs), has been much slower than planned. This makes completing the validation reports, which analyze the points with respect to intended use, at risk to support even the reduced accreditation requirements for Block 2B. Additional resources may be required to complete the signi?cant task of validating the complex federation of models in V8im in time for Block 3F Although the V8im validation process has improved, has continued to highlight shortfalls in the test resources needed to gather key elements of data required for validation of the V8im for in particular for electronic warfare performance in the presence of advanced threats. These shortfalls are a ?1nction of limitations in the F-35 JSF 55 FY14 DOD PROGRAMS Training System Live Fire Test and Evaluation F-35B Full-Scale Structural System Vulnerability Assessment FY14 DOD PROGRAMS F135 Engine Electrical System Polyalphaolefin (PAO) Shut-Off Valve Fuel Tank Ullage Inerting System Vulnerability to Unconventional Threats FY14 DOD PROGRAMS Operational Suitability Gun Ammunition Lethality and Vulnerability F-35 Fleet Availability FY14 DOD PROGRAMS F-35 AVAILABILITY FOR 12-MONTH PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 20141 Operational Site Average Maximum Minimum Aircraft Assigned 5PUBM 'MFFU 2 &HMJO ' " &HMJO ' # &HMJO ' $ :VNB ' # &EXBSET ' " /FMMJT ' " -VLF ' " #FBVGPSU ' # %BUB EP OPU JODMVEF 4%% BJSDSBGU 5PUBM JODMVEFT 05 ' # BU &EXBSET UIBU JT OPU CSPLFO PVU JO UBCMF -VLF ' " EBUB CFHBO JO "QSJM #FBVGPSU ' # EBUB CFHBO JO +VMZ FY14 DOD PROGRAMS F-35 FLEET PLANNED VS. ACHIEVED FLIGHT HOURS AS OF OCTOBER 30, 2014 Variant Original Bed-Down Plan Cumulative Flight Hours Estimated Planned Achieved Percent Planned “Modelled Achievable” Cumulative Flight Hours Estimated Planned Achieved Percent Planned ' " ' # ' $ 5PUBM F-35 Fleet Reliability FY14 DOD PROGRAMS F-35 RELIABILITY: MFHBCF (HOURS) ORD Threshold Values as of August 31, 2014 Interim Goal Observed to Meet ORD MFHBCF Threshold (3 Mos. Rolling Window) MFHBCF Observed Value as Percent of Goal Cumulative Flight Hours (3 Mos. Rolling Window) Flight Hours MFHBCF Cumulative Flight Hours ' " ' # ' $ Variant Values as of August 2013 Observed MFHBCF F-35 RELIABILITY: MFHBR (HOURS) ORD Threshold Values as of August 31, 2014 Interim Goal Observed to Meet ORD MFHBR Threshold (3 Mos. Rolling Window) MFHBR Values as of August 2013 Observed Value as Percent of Goal Cumulative Flight Hours (3 Mos. Rolling Window) Observed MFHBR Flight Hours MFHBR Cumulative Flight Hours ' " ' # ' $ Variant F-35 RELIABILITY: MFHBME (HOURS) ORD Threshold Values as of August 31, 2014 Interim Goal Observed to Meet ORD MFHBME Threshold (3 Mos. Rolling Window) MFHBME Values as of August 2013 Observed Value as Percent of Goal Cumulative Flight Hours (3 Mos. Rolling Window) Observed MFHBME Flight Hours MFHBME Cumulative Flight Hours ' " ' # ' $ Variant F-35 RELIABILITY: MFHBF_DC (HOURS) JCS Requirement Values as of August 31, 2014 Values as of August 2013 Flight Hours MFHBF_ DC Cumulative Flight Hours Interim Goal to Meet JCS Requirement MFHBF_DC Observed MFHBF_DC (3 Mos. Rolling Window) Observed Value as Percent of Goal Cumulative Flight Hours (3 Mos. Rolling Window) ' " ' # ' $ Variant Observed MFHBF_DC FY14 DOD PROGRAMS Metric MFHBR MFHBME Variant October 2013 Value Current Growth Rate from Duane Postulate Projected Value at 75,000 FH ORD Threshold Projected Value as % ORD Threshold Growth Rate Needed to Meet ORD F-35A 3.30 0.129 4.19 6.5 65% 0.232 F-35B 1.87 0.210 4.05 6.0 68% 0.305 F-35A 0.82 0.162 1.45 2.0 73% 0.241 F-35B 0.64 0.347 1.74 1.5 116% 0.312 Aircraft MFHBME Growth Rate F-15 0.14 F-16 0.14 F-22 (at 35,000 flight hours) 0.22 B-1 0.13 “Early” B-2 (at 5,000 flight hours) 0.24 “Late” B-2 0.13 C-17 (at 15,000 flight hours) 0.35 FY14 DOD PROGRAMS Maintainability F-35 MAINTAINABILITY: MCMTCF (HOURS) Variant ORD Threshold Values as of August 31, 2014 (3 Mos. Rolling Window) Observed Value as Percent of Threshold (3 Mos. Rolling Window) Values as of August 2013 F-35A 4.0 15.6 390% 12.1 F-35B 4.5 15.2 338% 15.5 F-35C 4.0 11.2 280% 9.6 F-35 MAINTAINABILITY: MTTR (HOURS) Variant HIGH DRIVER COMPONENTS AFFECTING LOW AVAILABILITY AND RELIABILITY Common to All Variants F-35A F-35B F-35C t "WJPOJDT 1SPDFTTPST t .BJO -BOEJOH (FBS 5JSFT t 5IFSNBM .BOBHFNFOU 4ZTUFN t &KFDUJPO 4FBU "TTFNCMZ t 1BOPSBNJD $PDLQJU %JTQMBZ Electronics Unit t -PX 0CTFSWBCMF $VSF 1BSBNFUFST t )FMNFU %JTQMBZ 6OJU t 4FBU 4VSWJWBM ,JU t *HOJUFS 4QBSL 5VSCJOF &OHJOF t 0O #PBSE 0YZHFO (FOFSBUJOH System Additional High Drivers by Variant t Exhaust Nozzle Assembly t Exhaust Nozzle ConvergingDiverging Link t Upper Lift Fan Door Actuator1 t 270 Volt DC Battery t Data Transfer Cartridge t Solenoid Operated Fuel Valve 1. Unique to the F-35B ORD Threshold Values as of August 31, 2014 (3 Mos. Rolling Window) Observed Value as Percent of Threshold (3 Mos. Rolling Window) Values as of August 2013 F-35A 2.5 8.6 344% 9.2 F-35B 3.0 7.5 250% 8.9 F-35C 2.5 6.6 264% 7.7 new materials that can cure in 12 hours vice 48 for example, but some of these materials may require ?eezer storage, making re-supply and shelf life veri?cation in the ?eld or at an austere operating location more dif?cult. - The immaturity of the system overall, including training system immaturity, lack of maintainer experience on such a new aircraft, and incompletely written and veri?ed, or poorly written, TD may all also contribute to protracted maintenance times. - Additionally, design factors of the aircraft itself make affecting certain repairs difficult and time-consuming. Field maintainers have reported poor cable routing behind panels that interferes with required maintenance, and awkward placement of some components, which makes removing and replacing them slow, and increases the chances they will induce a failure in a nearby component working with tools in con?ned spaces. - Scoring also affects higher than expected MTTR values. Discrepancies for which maintainers have to attempt multiple solutions before ?nding a true ?x are being re-scored as a single event, while in the past they were documented as multiple repair attempts, each with its own MTTR. The individual for these attempted repairs are now rolled up into the single, re-scored event. Improved diagnostics and training can reduce MTTR by pointing maintainers to the true root cause of discrepancies more quickly. Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) 64 The program develops and ?elds ALIS in increments similar to the mission systems capability in the air vehicle. Overall, ALIS is behind schedule, has several capabilities delayed or deferred to later builds, and has been ?elded with de?ciencies. The program does not have a dedicated end-to-end developmental testing venue for ALIS and has relied on feedback from the ?eld locations for identifying de?ciencies. Though some of the early de?ciencies have been addressed, ALIS continues to be cumbersome to use and inef?cient, and requires the use of workarounds for de?ciencies awaiting correction. The program has tested ALIS software versions at the Edwards ?ight test center, including a formal Logistics Test and Evaluation of ALIS software versions 1.0.3 and 2.0.0. These formal test periods had limitations, however, as the ALIS that supports the developmental test aircraft is different than the production ALIS hardware at ?elded units. As a result, the program has begun limited testing of software updates at ?elded operational sites and will expand this testing in CY15. The program should ensure adequate testing of ALIS software upgrades on operationally-representative hardware is complete prior to ?elding to operational units. - In the last year, the Program Of?ce adjusted the schedule and incremental development plans for ALIS hardware and software capability releases three times. These adjustments were necessary to align ALIS capabilities with F-35 JSF Service requirements to support planned IOC declaration dates. - In December 2013, the program re-planned the schedule and capability release of ALIS 2.0.0, the next version to be ?elded, moving the initial release from November 2014 to January 2015. - In February 2014, the program adjusted the schedule and release plans for the follow-on version of ALIS, version 2.0.1. The schedule for ?elding was adjusted by three months (from March 2015 to June 2015) and the life limited parts management (LLPM) module was deferred to later increments of ALIS. Because of delays in development, the LLPM capability was split into two increments (initial and ?nal); the initial increment will be ?elded with ALIS 2.0.2 and aligned to support Air Force IOC plans, and the ?nal increment of LLPM will be ?elded in ALIS 2.0.3. - In November 2014, the program adjusted the schedule and release plans again, moving the ?nal increment of the LLPM to ALIS 3.0.0 and accelerating the integration of an upgraded processor from ALIS 3.0.0 to ALIS 2.0.2, eliminating the need for ALIS release 2.0.3. The content previously planned for ALIS 3.0.0 will be renamed 3.0.1. The program?s planned release dates are July 2017 for ALIS 3.0.0 and July 2018 for ALIS 3.0.1. - A Windows server update has moved forward to an earlier ALIS release, from ALIS 3.0.0 to 2.0.1, which the program plans to ?eld in June 2015. During CY14, the program accomplished the following with ALIS software development and ?elding: - The program completed the migration of operational units from older versions to ALIS 1.0.3 (the current ?elded version) in January 2014 as planned, followed by an updated version in February 2014 (version 1.0.3A3.3.1), which included limited ?xes for de?ciencies identi?ed during testing in late CY12 and early CY13. ALIS 1.0.3A.3.3.1 has reduced screen refresh and load times compared to 1.0.3, and reduced the number of nuisance/ false health reporting codes; however, time-consuming workarounds are required to determine and update the readiness of aircraft to ?y missions. The following are examples of workarounds. - Additional steps required to process aircraft health information to be compatible with the Exceedance Management System, which is not integrated into ALIS. - Manual entry of information into ALIS to track consumables such as oil usage. - Frequent submission of formal ARs to Lockheed Martin for assistance, because troubleshooting ?1nctionality is incomplete. - Manual correlation of health reporting codes between ALIS domains. - In future versions of ALIS, the program plans to address the above workarounds and include three key requirements identi?ed by the Services as needed for IOC: - Integration with a new deployable ALIS standard operating unit (SOU) hardware (SOU V2, described below) - Support of detached, sub-squadron operations at deployment locations away ?om the main operating base - Distributed maintenance operations allowing supervisors to verify completion of maintenance operations from various locations at the main or deployed operating base dynamic routing). The next major increment of ALIS software, version 2.0.0, began testing with the mission systems developmental test aircraft at Edwards AFB in September 2014. The program plans to ?eld version 2.0.0 starting in January 2015. The ALIS 2.0.0 upgrade includes integrated exceedance management, Windows 7, recording of structural health data for use in the future development of prognostic health capabilities, and continued optimization efforts with improvements to data structures and database tuning. - Testing of the screen refresh times for ALIS 2.0.0 in a laboratory environment has shown improvement compared to those observed with ALIS 1.0.3A3.3. 1. For example, in a simulated environment supporting 28 aircraft, squadron health management debrief time decreased ?om 101 seconds to less than 5 seconds after implementation of several cycles of improvements. Actual ?elded performance is unknown. - Preliminary results from the of ALIS 2.0.0 show that multiple de?ciencies from past evaluations remain unresolved, and the system demonstrated de?ciencies in new capabilities. Although results have not been ?nalized with a de?ciency review board, the initial report indicates: A critical de?ciency noted in the of ALIS 1.0.3 for the failure of the manual control override to work correctly, which results in the incorrect reporting of the air vehicle status as not mission capable in the squadron health management ?1nction of ALIS, has not been corrected in ALIS 2.0.0. ALIS 2.0.0 demonstrated 4 additional critical de?ciencies and 53 serious de?ciencies. Exceedance management has been integrated into ALIS 2.0.0 but exhibited processing delays. The test site was unable to complete testing of all ALIS 2.0.0 ?1nctionality because the site lacks a squadron operating unit and instead relied on data transfers between Edwards AFB and Fort Worth, Texas. The test team recommended that the remaining tests be conducted at an operating location with representative hardware. - ALIS 2.0.0 will provide the basis for incremental builds (versions 2.0.1 and 2.0.2), which are intended to be ?elded in support of Marine Corps IOC and the Air Force IOC declarations, respectively. - The program plans to deliver ALIS 2.0.1 to the ?ight test center in February 2015, conduct a formal in preparation for ?elding in July 2015, which is the current objective date for Marine Corps IOC. ALIS 2.0.1 software will align with a new hardware release (SOU version 2) that will improve deployability and will include fault isolation improvements and a Windows server update. - To support the Marine Corps preparation for IOC, the program plans to release ALIS 2.0.1 in May 2015 to Yuma MCAS, Arizona, simultaneous with the planned delivery of the deployable ALIS hardware system for limited validation and veri?cation testing of the software prior to release to the rest of the ?elded units. Though the current ALIS release schedule leaves no margin for delay to meeting the Marine Corps IOC objective date in July, ?elding ALIS 2.0.1 before formal testing and ?x veri?cation is complete may result in the continued need for workarounds to support ?eld operations. - The program has scheduled ALIS 2.0.2 ?elding, which is required to meet Air Force IOC requirements, for December 2015. It will provide a sub-squadron reporting capability that allows air vehicle status reporting of deployed assets back to the parent SOU, and adds dynamic routing, which allows delivery of messages and data via alternate network paths. ALIS 2.0.2 will also reduce the need for propulsion contractor support by integrating the ?rst portion of a required LLPM capability. - ALIS 3.0.0 will complete the majority of the ALIS development effort. The schedule, which is pending approval, shows a ?elding date of July 2017. This version of ALIS will include a complete LLPM capability and eliminate the need for propulsion contractor support. 0 The following sections describe progress in the development and ?elding of ALIS hardware and alignment with ALIS software capabilities described earlier: - The program continued to ?eld ALIS hardware components at new locations during CY14 as the global sustainment bed-down and F-35 basing continued to be activated. The table on the following page shows ALIS components, location, and sustainment ?1nction for new components ?elded in CY14. - In order to reduce post-?ight data download times, the program added and ?elded a new piece of hardware, the Portable Maintenance Device (PMD) reader, to operational units beginning in July 2014. The PMD reader is designed to accelerate the download of unclassi?ed maintenance data ?om the aircraft without the need for a secure facility. The PMD reader permits maintenance personnel to download maintenance data only, vice waiting for ?ill portable memory device download from the aircraft to be processed in a secure facility via the Ground Data Security F-35 JSF 65 FY14 DOD PROGRAMS ALIS HARDWARE FIELDED IN FY14 Component Location Function $FOUSBM 1PJOU PG &OUSZ &HMJO "'# 0OF QFS DPVOUSZ UP QSPWJEF JO DPVOUSZ and software and data distribution, enable interoperability with government systems BU OBUJPOBM MFWFM BOE FOBCMF "-*4 EBUB DPOOFDUJWJUZ CFUXFFO CBTFT 4UBOEBSE 0QFSBUJOH 6OJU 406 #FBVGPSU "DBEFNJD 5SBJOJOH 'BDJMJUZ *UBMJBO '"$0 *UBMJBO 1JMPU 5SBJOJOH $FOUFS "VTUSBMJBO 1JMPU 5SBJOJOH $FOUFS -VLF "'# 1JMPU 5SBJOJOH $FOUFS /FMMJT "'# UI 'JHIUFS 8JOH /FUIFSMBOET 406 BU &EXBSET "'# 4VQQPSUT TRVBESPO MFWFM ' PQFSBUJPOT including maintenance, supply chain NBOBHFNFOU øJHIU PQFSBUJPOT USBJOJOH BOE NJTTJPO QMBOOJOH #BTF ,JU /FMMJT "'# &EXBSET "'# $FOUSBMJ[FT CBTF TVQQMZ GPS CBTFT PQFSBUJOH XJUI TFWFSBM TRVBESPOT -)% 4IJQ ,JU 644 Wasp 4JNJMBS UP B TRVBESPO LJU CVU QFSNBOFOUMZ JOTUBMMFE TIJQCPBSE %FQMPZNFOU ,JU -VLF "'# 1JMPU 5SBJOJOH $FOUFS 4IPSU PG B GVMM TRVBESPO LJU CVU DPOUBJOT TVóDJFOU IBSEXBSF UP TVQQPSU GPVS BJSDSBGU 8JMM CFDPNF B TRVBESPO LJU VQPO EFMJWFSZ PG SFNBJOJOH IBSEXBSF %FQPU ,JU )JMM "'# .$"4 $IFSSZ 1PJOU 4JNJMBS UP B CBTF LJU CVU HFBSFE UP TVQQPSU EFQPU PQFSBUJPOT FY14 DOD PROGRAMS METRICS OF DIAGNOSTIC CAPABILITY Diagnostic Measure Threshold Requirement Demonstrated Performance (May 2013) Demonstrated Performance (May 2014) 'BVMU %FUFDUJPO $PWFSBHF QFSDFOU NJTTJPO DSJUJDBM GBJMVSFT EFUFDUBCMF CZ 1). 'BVMU %FUFDUJPO 3BUF QFSDFOU DPSSFDU EFUFDUJPOT GPS EFUFDUBCMF GBJMVSFT 'BVMU *TPMBUJPO 3BUF QFSDFOUBHF &MFDUSPOJD 'BVMU UP 0OF -3$ 'BVMU *TPMBUJPO 3BUF QFSDFOUBHF /PO &MFDUSPOJD 'BVMU UP 0OF -3$ 70 'BVMU *TPMBUJPO 3BUF QFSDFOUBHF /PO &MFDUSPOJD 'BVMU UP PS 'FXFS -3$ .FBO 'MJHIU )PVST #FUXFFO 'BMTF "MBSN .FBO 'MJHIU )PVST #FUXFFO 'MJHIU 4BGFUZ $SJUJDBM 'BMTF "MBSN Joint Technical Data (JTD) FY14 DOD PROGRAMS F-35 JOINT TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION STATUS Air Vehicle, Pilot Flight Equipment (PFE), and Support Equipment (SE) (as of October 2014) Module Type Modules Identified Modules Developed Percent Identified Modules Developed Modules Verified Percent Identified Modules Verified ' " 6OJU MFWFM ' # 6OJU MFWFM ' $ 6OJU MFWFM 6OJU MFWFM Common2 BMM WBSJBOUT 1'& Common 4& Common 505"- *ODMVEFT öFME BOE EFQPU MFWFM +5% GPS 0QFSBUJPOT BOE .BJOUFOBODF PO BOE Pò FRVJQNFOU +5% BOE TUSVDUVSFE öFME SFQBJST *ODMVEFT BJSDSBGU +5% GPS HFOFSBM SFQBJST TFBMBOUT CPOEJOH TUSVDUVSFE öFME SFQBJST BOE OPO EFTUSVDUJWF JOWFTUJHBUJPO F-35 JOINT TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION STATUS Propulsion (as of October 2014) Air-Ship Integration and Ship Suitability Testing F-35B Wasp Propulsion Module Type Modules Identified Modules Developed Percent Identified Modules Developed Modules Verified Percent Identified Modules Verified &OHJOF BOE -JGU 'BO F-35 JOINT TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION STATUS Supportable Low Observable (SLO) (as of October 2014) Wasp 4-0 Wasp to operate Module Type Modules Identified Modules Developed Percent Identified Modules Developed ' " ' # ' $ Common 2 Modules Verified Percent Identified Modules Verified / " / " ships. ACE represents the mix of ?xed- and rotary-wing aircraft assigned to the ship to conduct ?ight operations in support of Marine Corps combat objectives. These ?heavy? ACEs could include up to 20 F-35Bs, or 12 or 16 F-35Bs plus depending on the speci?c L-class vessel. Through these exercises, they identi?ed issues, many which will apply to standard-sized ACE operations as well. These issues include: - The currently-planned service maintenance concept, where few components will be repaired underway but must be sent for repair back to a depot facility or to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) may not be achievable for initial ?elding. The program is conducting a Level Of Repair Analysis (LORA) to assess the feasibility of repairing components at the Intermediate level, including onboard CVN and L-class ships. - More than six F-35Bs in the ACE will require a more robust engine repair and resupply process than for the standard, six F-35B ACE. The Services are still investigating the best method for 135 engine re-supply at sea. Work continues on the heavy underway replenishment station and a re-designed engine storage container that can survive a drop of 18 inches while protecting the engine and weighing low enough to be transferred across the wire between the supply ship and the L-class or CVN ship. Adequate storage is needed for the engines, spare parts, and lift fans, as well as workspace for engine module maintenance within the small engine shops on L-class vessels. - Moving an engine container, including placing an engine in or taking one out of the container, requires a 20,000 pound-class forklift and cannot be concurrent with ?ight ops since this item is required to be on the ?ight deck for crash and salvage purposes while ?ying. Engines can be moved around on a transportation trailer once removed ?om the container to enable engine maintenance in the hangar bay during ?ight operations. - Adequate Special Access Program Facilities (SAPF) are required for ?ight planning and debrie?ng aboard the ship. Current modi?cation plans for L-class vessels are expected to meet the requirements for a six F-3 5B ACE, but would be inadequate for an operation with more aircraft. - Unlike many legacy aircraft, the F-35B needs external air conditioning when on battery power or an external power source. Cold ?1eling operations, when the engine is not turned on, will thus need an air conditioning cart. For many more in the ACE, the logistics footprint will have to increase signi?cantly to include more air conditioning units as many aircraft are re?1eled cold to achieve ef?cient operations. F-35C The program began testing the redesigned arresting hook system on aircraft CF-3 at Patuxent River Naval Air Station in February 2014. This test aircraft is modi?ed with unique instrumentation to monitor loads on the arresting hook system and the nose landing gear for catapult launches and arrested landings. The structural survey testing was a pre-requisite for initial carrier sea trials. - Testing encountered signi?cant delays, as numerous de?ciencies were discovered, some requiring new engineering designs. Testing was planned to be completed in July, to support deployment to a CVN for the ?rst set of sea trials. The following problems caused delays: - In February, a hydraulic leak in the nose landing gear steering motor, caused by over-pressurization, required a redesigned valve and halted testing for 10 weeks. - Excessive galling of the arresting hook pitch pivot pin, which required a redesigned pin made of titanium and additional inspections after each landing. - Damage to the nose landing gear shock strut, which required down time for repair - The structural testing was partially completed in two phases, all on CF-3. - Phase one completed September 10, 2014, and consisted of 24 test points needed to clear a monitored envelope for carrier landings. Completion of phase one was necessary for CF-3 to conduct landings on a CVN in November. - Phase two consists of 20 additional test points to clear an unmonitored envelope for carrier landings. Completion of phase two testing would allow non-loads instrumented test aircraft to conduct landings on a CVN. Phase two work was ceased on September 25, with 17 of 20 phase two test points completed, but the program waived the remaining three test points to allow CF-5 to participate in Carrier-based ship suitability testing is divided into three phases. - The ?rst phase, consisted of initial sea trials to examine the compatibility of F-3 5C with a CVN class ship and to assess initial carrier take-off and landing envelopes with steady deck conditions. was conducted November 3 15, 2014; it was initially scheduled to begin in July. - Testers accomplished 100 percent of the threshold test points and 88 percent of the objective points during deployment, completing 33 test ?ights (39.2 ?ight hours) and 124 arrested landings, of 124 attempts, including one night ?ight with two catapult launches and two arrested landings. The results of the test were still in analysis at the time of this report. - No other aircraft deployed to the carrier, except transient aircraft needed for logistical support. All landings were ?own without the aid of the Joint Precision Approach Landing System, which is planned for integration on the F-35C in Block 3F. No ALIS equipment was installed on the carrier. The test team created a network connection ?om the ship to the major contractor in Fort Worth to process necessary maintenance actions. F-35 JSF 69 FY14 DOD PROGRAMS Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln George Bush Nimitz Progress in Plans for Modification of LRIP Aircraft and Marine Corps IOC, planned by the program to occur in mid-2015. This created challenges in obtaining long-lead items and dock availability at aircraft depots, and maintaining adequate aircraft availability to maintain pilot currency while eventually modifying all operational test aircraft into a production-representative Block 2B con?guration. However, the decision to not conduct the Block 2B OUE allowed the program to focus on Marine Corps IOC aircraft requirements, while attempting to create a more e?icient modi?cation plan for operational test aircraft to achieve the Block 3F con?guration. - The Program Office has prioritized Block 2B associated modi?cation for Marine Corps F-35B IOC aircraft over operational test aircraft. Because manufacturers could not meet the schedule demand for modi?cation kits, not all of the operational test aircraft will be in the Block 2B con?guration by early 2015 when the planned start of spin-up training for the OUE would have occurred, as was noted in the FY13 Annual Report. - Modi?cation planning has also included early plans to ensure operational test aircraft scheduled for will be representative of the Block 3F con?guration. However, these plans show that the program is likely to face the same scheduling and parts shortage problems encountered in planning for Block 2B modi?cations of the operational test aircraft. Upgrading aircraft to a Block 2B capability requires the following major modi?cations: mission systems modi?cations; structural life limited parts (SLLP), referred to as Group 1 modi?cations; F-35B Mode 4 operations modi?cations, which include a modi?cation to the three Bearing Swivel Module (3BSM) to allow F-35B aircraft to conduct unrestricted Mode 4 operations; and upgrades to ALIS and the training systems to ?illy support Block 2B-capable aircraft. - The program maintains a modi?cation and retro?t database that tracks modi?cations required by each aircraft, production break in of modi?cations, limitations to the aircraft in performance envelope and service life, requirements for additional inspections until modi?cations are completed, and operational test requirements and concerns. - The program uses this database to develop and update a complex ?ow plan of aircraft and engines through depot-level modi?cations, modi?cations completed by deployed depot ?eld teams, and those completed by unit-level maintainers. - The current depot ?ow plan shows that none of the operational test aircraft would become ?illy Block 2B-capable by January 2015, and only 7 of 14 will complete the necessary modi?cations by July 2015, which was the planned start date of the Block 2B OUE. Block 2B modi?cations would ?nally be complete on all operational test aircraft in September 2016. Program Of?ce modi?cation planning for Block 3F has begun and shows some of the same scheduling pressures as have been observed for Block however, these would have been much worse if the OUE were conducted. The depot ?ow plan includes a seven-month placeholder to complete all modi?cations to bring each operational test aircraft to a Block 3F con?guration, though the span of time required to complete these modi?cations, including the next increment of structural modi?cations (SLLP Group 2), is unknown. Additions to modi?cation packages are possible as the potential for discoveries in ?ight test still exists. Although the program has prioritized for modi?cation the aircraft planned to be used for the Air Force plans for at least 12 F-35A aircraft to be available for IOC declaration in 2016. These Air Force IOC aircraft will be in the Block 3i con?guration from production Lot 6 or later, and may require a post-production OBIGGS modi?cation, which could compete for resources with the aircraft scheduled for Management of the SLLP Group 2 modi?cations will need to be handled as the program and Services prepare for If the program does not schedule SLLP Group 2 modi?cations to operational test aircraft until after is completed, 495 ?ight hours must remain before reaching that life limit so aircraft can ?illy participate in per the approved TEMP. Recommendations 0 Status of Previous Recommendations. The program and Services have been addressing the redesign and testing of the OBIGGS system, but performance assessment has not yet been completed. The Program Of?ce addressed the vulnerability of the electrical power system to ballistic threats. The remaining recommendations concerning the reinstatement of the PAC shut-off valve, reinstatement of the dry-bay ?re extinguisher system, design and reinstatement of ?ieldraulic shut-off system, improvement of the Integrated Caution and Warning system to provide the pilot with necessary vulnerability information, and a higher resolution estimate of time remaining for controlled ?ight after a ballistic damage event are all outstanding. FY14 Recommendations. The program should: 1. Update program schedules to re?ect the start of spin-up training for to occur no earlier than the operational test readiness review planned for November 2017, and the associated start of six months later, in May 2018. 2. The program should complete lab testing of the mission data loads, as is planned in the mission data optimization operational test plan, prior to accomplishing the necessary ?ight testing to ensure the loads released to the ?eet are optimized for performance. If mission data loads are released to operational units prior to the completion of the lab and ?ight testing required in the operational test plan, the risk to operational units must be clearly documented. 3. The program should complete the remaining three Block 2B weapon delivery accuracy (WDA) ?ight test events using the currently planned scenarios and ensuring ?ill mission F-35 JSF 71 72 systems functionality is enabled in an operationally realistic manner. . The program should require the contractor to conduct rigorous ?nite-element analyses to assess the bene?t of LSP application for the F-35B durability test article and for the F-35B F8496 bulkhead redesign. The program should provide adequate resourcing to support the extensive validation and veri?cation requirements for the Block 3 VSim in time for including the data needed ?om ?ight test or other test venues. F-35 JSF 6. To accelerate veri?cation of TD modules, the program should provide dedicated time on ?elded aircraft for F-35B TD veri?cation teams. . Extend the ?ill-up system-level decontamination test to demonstrate the decontamination system effectiveness in a range of operationally realistic environments. . The program should ensure adequate testing of ALIS software upgrades on operationally-representative hardware is complete prior to ?elding to operational units.