Integration of Meteor missile on F-35B slips to 2027

Another Oh FFS moment!

According to Lockheed Martin (LM), the Block 4 update is still progressing as planned. Which it clearly isn’t, as it has slipped again. The DoD and USAF in particular are getting more peeved with LMs lack of progress, especially as the not yet in service F15X has already been cleared for most of the weapons that the F35’s Block 4 upgrade was getting.

The US general audit office (GAO) are blaming a lot of the delays due to Turkey being booted out of the program. They were manufacturing lots of the smaller components. That now had to be renegotiated with new manufacturers and suppliers. The GAO have said this is costing an additional $1.4 billion.

But that still doesn’t explain why a software upgrade is taking so long. The F35 uses a common data-bus that uses the Mil-Std-1394B. This is a high bandwidth 400Mbs data-bus and has been used before on other aircraft and by NASA. So its not something that’s brand new. Furthermore, it is traditional for aircraft to have at least three separate data-buses, a flight control, a weapons and a multipurpose that links everything from radar to wheel speed sensors. The data on a weapons data-bus should not be able to interfere with the flight control data-bus etc.

From what I can gather on the F35, it uses fibre optics for the data-bus and may use a copper back up. The protocol should enable easier integration of systems, as well as adding new systems to the data-bus.

Therefore, adding something like Meteor should be relatively painless. The weapon’s computer gets updated with the missile’s launch parameters and specifications along with recognizable address codes. Therefore, when it is attached to a pylon the weapon’s computer instantly recognises what it is and how and when it can be fired. This data is collected during the carriage and release trials. Which needs to be done for each hardpoint position the missile can be loaded to. Fight control data is collected, so that the flight control laws can be amended when a missile has been fired, which correct the aircraft’s attitude, weight and balance.

A lot of the work is initially carried out with bench test pieces, followed by ground based simulation, before the carriage trials are allowed to take place. The program should follow a steady progression to get to the point of actually firing the missile.

Normally when a aircraft gets a new weapon, for example Typhoon and Meteor. The biggest hold up is the amending of the flight control software. As you have to program it to recognise the fitment of a weapon in a certain location and how it then affects the flight characteristics, especially after its fired when the aircraft is balanced asymmetrically. BAe take great pains to avoid risk when introducing a new weapon system. It is not a quick process, but if urgently required, it can be achieved very quickly, if the MoD are willing to take the risk.

Fortunately/Unfortunately gone are the days when the MoD were willing to authorise modification programs and introduce new weapons through their own engineering authority. Since Hadden-Cave and the Nimrod debacle, The risk has been placed solely with the aircraft’s manufacturer. Which is why it costs so much and takes longer than expected, as the manufacturer tries to make the risk primarily to the safety of the aircraft as low as possible, but also to minimise any comeback on them.

Although we don’t know the full story of why the Block 4 upgrade has slid to the right again. It may be down to an issue with the flight control software, not reacting as it should with a certain configuration of weapons. But why this has delayed the whole program is worrying, as they could have released the update in patches incrementally along with a new weapon system!

Cheers fella, thanx for the detailed reply, much appreciated. Have to agree, it’s not looking great in the grand scheme of all things F35.
I always understood the main issue was software, clearly far more to it. 👍

Hadden-Cave has had a massive effect on lots of systems used in the UK Military. I have been involved ( in my previous life) with a week long meeting of day long conference calls on Risk Management on a project. Lots of “Whatiffery” for identifying risks, diving down rabbit holes of further whatiffery and then identifying ways how to mitigate the risk, accept it or just ignore it as the risk is infinitesimally small.

As long as the aircraft and the weapon work on the same data bus protocol there should not be an issue.
In the RN the early weapon combat system highway data bus on T23 had issues. Systems required interface cards to translate data into a readable/useable format that could be placed onto the highway and then be taken off it for use in the system. Nowadays its not so much of an issue as systems use the data formats as standard at source so no interface cards are required.

The cynic in me thinks it’s not in the US interest to get this done, after all it gives F35 purchasers a non US weapon option.

So is it time for the UK to demand to go the same way as the Isreal and another undisclosed buyer and have own branch of F35. Note I use the term branch and not version.

You mentioned the time update the flight control software to ensure weapon release is safe. But could an agile approach be taken here. Meteor is BVR weapon fired from a stealthy strike airframe its unlikely it would be fired in anything other than level flight, for me this would be the first item on the back log. You then work on the rest of the flight envelope but you have a working weapon quicker.

I’ll second that. Meteor and other stuff was offered to our friends but as usual its refused, so they can catch up and make their own. Very frustrating.
Last UK aircraft in frontline service was the B57. I bet they wish they’d had Lightnings in Vietnam to take on the Migs. Have you noticed they never dared use Starfighters they were such rubbish but which they palmed off on the Germans and others. Its all NIH thinking.

I thought that Israel was the only export customer with full access to the F-35 code, hence the problems. LM have a limited team and are clearly struggling with the now very complex code that they are working with, sucontracting parts of the work to the likes of BAE but that is dependent on LM meeting milestones. Plus customers like us are now committed so tough, bite the bullet. Hence our need to get back to much more ownership of the IP in an aircraft like we have with Typhoon and should have with Tempest.

Thanks Nigel. Very interesting. Agile software development is always a challenge, particularly on a programme with a very large number of SLOC. Seems to imply there is a significant level of defects in existing software releases and working to clear these and address new requirements in tandem is proving extremely difficult; hence the schedule slip. It’s always a sign of problems when the customer is demanding more metrics data to determine real software quality. Doesn’t sound good.

It doesn’t sound good at all sadly.