It deserved its own thread:
Anonymous said...
Pro-JSF forces will claim progress, but fail to understand what is before their eyes. Anti-JSF forces will look at elapsed time since program win and bring the guns to bear on the slow pace of achievement.
BF-3 is a dedicated "flight sciences" jet just like BF-1/2/4, with no capability for "mission systems" testing - which only resides in BF-5, and they have yet to get that jet's systems working correctly since delivery from Ft Worth.
This test was conducted to merely check the actual vs predicted separation clearance of the GBU-32 from the bay at a conservative speed/altitude. This is a normal flight test stepping stone which will require a decent amount of postflight analysis (1 week nominally, but pressure is surely "on" to do better) prior to proceeding to the next test point.
As with every integration of JDAM on any platform, the first tests involve the "flight sciences" aspects and often occur in parallel: flutter, loads, environmental, and separation testing. These do not require any smart integration with the weapon. Much has gone on in the background to get to this point. Yet what has not gone on with the BF's has been any integration of the GBU-32 into the avionics system, other than declaring a quantity and weapon weight.
The drop seen here was not in any way an "integrated test". The weapon bay has multiple cameras, as does the aft end of the fake EOTS housing under the radome...and the AIM-9X shape possesses two cameras. All of these fixed apertures are cued during release, with the digital images stored in the test instrumentation system of the jet. These are used postflight to determine miss distances, by using the accurately placed black/white targets on the jet and weapon as references. These are digitally combined in a computer program and an accurate X/Y/Z accounting of the weapon is generated (in relation to the jet), thus the miss distance can be calculated. If it falls within a given percentage of the preflight prediction, engineers will give the test a pass and the release envelope is opened a little further.
The weapon seen here was not guided, nor did it communicate with the jet in any way. It was merely a "shape" that was measured/ballasted/weighed/targeted so that it mimicked a real GBU-32. The weapon bay doors were driven open via pilot command minutes before release, not via some automated all-up round command (commit to weapon release) that will be required of a mission systems jet (and operational jets, obviously). The weapon was literally released via a manual command from the pilot, with the pickle button actually hot-wired to the release mechanism in the bay. Very simple, and all that is required for a separation test.
Do not get the idea that a JDAM was powered up, GPS keys and almanac downloaded, passed a mass data transfer, aligned, and given target coordinates. Sadly, the program is not to that state even yet. Weapons have been removed from IOC for the variants so they can just get the GBU-32 or -31, GBU-12 PWII, and AIM-120. Even those will be very limited as the program will not be able to clear them to complete envelopes. Very sad as lots of competent people at LM and DoD have proven themselves on previous programs, yet get absolutely overrun when trying to change the immense inertia of a program run by very few with ANY aerospace background. This is not isolated to LM...Boeing and NG have their share of PowerPoint managers in positions of program power. DoD test leaders are lacking in experience but not in speedbump-like opinions. And test pilot careers are more important at this point than louldly waving the warning flag at impending OT failures. Progress to flight hours and test points (regardless of success) runs the show.
Of course the LM business development machine and the Navy's Army's Air Force (USMC) will spin this simple separation flight into a "we have dropped JDAM from the F-35 and support the warfighter" story that lawmakers and laymen will soak up.
No comments:
Post a Comment