Pentagon Develops F-35’s 4th Generation Software

AF-7 Flight 185F-35 Joint Strike Fighter officials are in the early phases of mapping out a fourth software drop designed to ensure the fifth generation fighter can counter threats and weapons expected to emerge in the mid 2020’s and beyond, Air Force officials said.

“Block 4 will be that next block of software that we do. We will gather up all the requirements of what we need as a nation to counter the emerging threats that we can see even past what we can already do,” said Col. Carl Schaefer, the Air Force’s top Joint Strike Fighter integration official.

The fourth increment will build upon existing increments now in development, Schaefer added.

Many of the JSF’s combat capabilities are woven into developmental software increments or “drops,” each designed to advance the platforms technical abilities. There are more than 8 million individual lines of code in the JSF system.

Defense analysts and investigators said these lines of code poses the most significant risk to the timely development of the F-35. Delays in the software development will stall aircraft deliveries, the Government Accountability Office found.

Schaefer said many military officials with the JSF program disagree with the GAO’s March report.

“Challenges in development and testing of mission systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in software delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered and the need to fix problems and re-test multiple software versions,” the report states.

Schaefer said F-35 software development is largely on track.

Block 2B builds upon the enhanced simulated weapons, data link capabilities and early fused sensor integration of the earlier Block 2A software drop. Block 2B will enable the JSF to provide basic close air support and fire an AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), JDADM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) or GBU-12 (laser-guided aerial bomb), JSF program officials said.

The next increments, Blocks 3i will increase the combat capability even further and Block 3F will bring a vastly increased ability to suppress enemy air defenses.

The Marine Corps is planning to declare initial operational capability for its short-take-off-and-landing F-35B JSF by 2015 and the Air Force plans IOC with software block 3i in 2016, Schaefer said. Full operational capability will come with Block 3F, he added.

Block 3F will increase the weapons delivery capacity of the JSF as well, giving it the ability to drop a Small Diameter Bomb, 500-pound JDAM and AIM 9X short-range air-to-air missile, Schaefer added.

The AIM 9X is an Air Force and Navy heat-seeking infrared missile and the Small Diameter Bomb, or SBD, is a precision-guided, air-dropped Air Force bomb engineered with a next-generation seeker.  The SDB seeker uses what’s called a tri-mode seeker which can utilize millimeter wave radar, infrared guidance and semi-active laser technology, Raytheon officials said.

Block 4 will be broken down into two separate increments, Block 4A is slated to be ready by 2021 and Block 4B is planned for 2023. The first portion of Block 4 software funding, roughly $12 million, arrived in the 2014 budget, Air Force officials said.

“Block 4 will include some unique partner weapons including British weapons, Turkish weapons and some of the other European country weapons that they want to get on their own plane,” said Thomas Lawhead, operations lead for JSF integration office.

Lawhead added that Block IV will also increase the weapons envelope for the U.S. variant of the fighter jet.  A big part of the developmental calculus for Block 4 is to work on the kinds of enemy air defense systems and weaponry the aircraft may face from the 2020’s through the 2040’s and beyond.

“Coming up with requirements always starts with the threat. How are we going to meet national security objectives in the future?  Based on those objectives we look at the threat and then we decide how we are going to counter the threat,” Schaefer said.

The rationale for the Block 4 software increment is to keep pace with technological change and prepare technology for threats likely to emerge 20 years into the future, Schaefer and Lawhead explained.

“If you look back to 2001 when the JSF threat started, the threats were mostly European centric – Russian made SA-10s or SA-20s. Now the future threats are looking at more Chinese-made and Asian made threats. Those threats that are further out are the ones that are being focused on for Block 4,” Lawhead said.

About the Author

Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the managing editor of Scout Warrior.
  • Dfens

    The Pentagon isn’t “developing” any software. They are paying defense contractors to do that for them, and paying those contractors $1.10 to $1.15 for every $1.00 the contractors spend coming up with the Pentagon’s new software builds. I wish I could get someone to give me a $1.10 for every dollar I could spend. I’d spend myself rich, just like these defense contractors are doing.

  • blight_

    Quick, more lines of code!

    • Dfens

      Here’s another 100,000 lines of code. They don’t do anything, but I had to pay the stupidest engineers I could find $30,000,000 to write them so give me my $30,000,000 to cover my costs and another $3,000,000 to put in my pocket. And oh by the way, if you want that code to work it will cost you another $10,000,000 plus that $1,000,000 for me. Where else could you find someone stupid enough to write a contract like that outside of the US federal government?

  • The plane isn’t even in service yet and we have had 4 computer upgrades proof that this plane is a loser and time for better planes i.e. Silent eagle and return or the F-22.

    • William_C1

      It doesn’t work that way, these are planned software implementations, not overhauling the basic avionics.

      • Big-Dean

        wrong William, open your eyes
        this is “planned” by Lockhead to make the most money by stringing out this program to 20 years

        so now they are cranking out empty airframes that can’t do the mission and perhaps by the year 2037 we might have a real working aircract but then we’ll be bankrupt

        • Josh

          What he said is correct though; Block 4 does not require any changes to any hardware; it’s a software update. If you still refuse to believe that, provide a source that states otherwise.

    • tiger

      If you folks had your way, we would Keep Making F 4 Phantom II’s forever.

    • ev3r3tt

      If we had our way, a qualified software companies would be making and testing software that works with the aircraft and completely functional in a 2 year window. This current aircraft software is running on 8 years and not completely functional with the first 6 years dysfunctional.

      • Big-Dean

        it we had our way we would’ve fired Lockhead years ago for corruption and incompetence

        • Dfens

          Fire them? We pay them extra for incompetence. A lot extra.

      • Actually, it is more like re-writing all the codes we learned from the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-117, and F-22 so it meets the F-35s airframe with additional code added to develop things like sensor fusion, the EO/DAS, the HMD, and other completely new technologies. The code we have on our other fighters didn’t happen over night, it took over 35 years for the software on these fighters to get them where we are today. If the Air Force asked Lockheed Martin to develop the F-16 in 1978, with the capabilities we have today, then we would have had a non-operational fighter waiting for software for 35 years. Now, 88% of the F-35 Block 3F code is already written and flying. I submit that testing the code is what is slowing the process down. Testing code actually requires flying hours in highly instrumented aircraft under very specific safety measures, and a huge amount of data collection and review. Now, please tell me how do you speed this up?

        • ev3r3tt

          This question is the trick. How to speed up all the old programming written in Fortran, Pascal, Assembly mostly running on 808xx processor. There is a lot of code that has been created, but holding on to legacy code complicates development. I know that the clock is uncontrolled in new systems, but using instances is actually a blessing in disguise. Working with newer technologies and making it work in a closed system. The code needs to move with existing technologies. This is only one way, and there are many ways. Hitting the full functionality on the first build should be the goal.

          • You are missing the point. The code is mostly written (88%). The problem is testing all the software functions in the sky. The CATBird can only do so much. Every function has to be tested by the planes in the air while pulling Gs. This cost time and money as flying is rather expensive. But it has to be done.

    • Mystick

      I was thinking the same thing.

    • guest

      This is the; ‘obamacare’ of jets……..

      • Dfens

        I love it when people “get it”. Guest has perfectly summarized the JSF program.

      • No, Obamacare was simply a web site to sign people up with an insurance policy that already exists. This is taking software development over the past 35 years in other jets, adding capabilities, and applying it to a completely new jet. Obamacare has nowhere near 8 million lines of code, and I never heard of anyone falling out of the sky if Obamacare website crashed. It would be like millions of people dying trying to sign up for healthcare. Dfens and guest – What Operational Flight Software have you ever written? And since you obviously are so good at it, try and sell your products to the DoD. Then you could be laughing all the way to the bank. Otherwise, your words are hot air.

    • Lance, the plane was designed for software upgrades. All our current fighters are getting software upgrades. The F-35 it actually the first plane designed to accept the upgrades as part of its development. As all our other planes were designed in the 70s and 80s, they weren’t designed for such detailed upgrades. So, like our current fighters, the F-35 will be upgraded continually until they are no longer flying. Unless you think having fighters designs remaining stagant is a good idea?

  • JKay

    Ya hear that? We’re talkin’ code

    • meow

      of course we’re talking.

      do you expect us to be writing it instead? that’s the job for the Indians, the Chinese, and the Russians.

  • tee

    They can’t even get Block 2 to work correctly, at the rate they are going the Block 4 will be “Done & Useable” by 2030 if they keep at their current pace.

  • nick987654

    According to this document:

    block 3F will have the sdb1, not the sdb2 with the tri mode seeker. the sdb2 will come with block 4.

  • Hunter76

    What is the likelihood the bulk of the code leaves in a microdrive?

  • ev3r3tt

    I really don’t like these block developments (aka: spiral development). Very costly and very lengthy. I really don’t think the military gets anything worth while out of it until the plane has aged half it’s life. This is a really big expense that should be removed in a sequester.

    • nick987654

      You can’t go operational with the full capabilities or it would take forever. A new release every 2 years is quite good, and it’s certainly possible to accelerate the introduction of a particular weapon in case of emergency. A software upgrade is no big deal.

    • Well, you never get anything unless you accept something. As to the extra expense, each drop is being modified, not completely re-written. The expense is mainly found in flight testing the code, not writing it. Jet fuel, spare parts, bombs and missiles are not free last time I checked.

      • ev3r3tt

        yeah. I know.

  • The soft wear if it work as promised will be out standing. But why are we putting it into such an inferior air frame? Why not put in into an update F-15SE, add super cruise and thrust vectoring to the F-15SE and start on the next generation fighter.

    • Josh

      Because you can’t do that and reasonably expect it to cost less than an F-35A.

      Remember too that you also need to update the avionics systems, the electronic warfare suites and also the targeting systems which will cost you quite a few $.

      Not to mention too that maintaining an F-15E right now already costs more than maintaining an F-35. Add thrust vectoring and various other complex systems and you’re looking at something almost as costly to maintain as an F-22.

    • ev3r3tt

      Actually cost of upgrading avionics has showed less costly than new aircrafts. This is probably due to known performance characteristics of the aircraft and not have to deal with aircraft development teams that don’t want to work together. In an upgrade, the primary contractor knows what to change and usually working with existing code to clean up.

    • Old airframe, old computers systems… And F-15 does not have room for 8 million lines of code in its computer system, could not run it on its older systems, and systems just as expensive would have to be developed to try to make is a poor example of an F-35. Technology marchs forward, not backwards.

  • nick987654

    I don’t really get the rationale of fielding the 9x bl 1 at block 3F. The F-35 has all the sensors to use the block 2 at max range with its datalink so why bother with the block1?

    And the SDBII is very important to strike a lot of moving targets in stealth mode ( 8 internal ) . The 9X block 1 integration is far less important than the SDBII.

    Also does anybody know if the the JSOW at block 3F includes the 3 variants?

    • Josh

      I believe JSOW won’t be available for the F-35B (internally) due to the shortening of the weapons bay, but the other 2 variants should be capable.

      Besides that though, When you say Block 1, are you talking about the SDB 1 or the JSF Block 1 code? If the latter, then I think you have concepts mixed up…

      If you mean the former though, it’s because the JSF needs to integrate weapon datalink capabilities and with the tri-mode seeker of the SDB II; there’s more code to write and (especially) test for the various forms of targeting, whereas the SDB 1 only uses GPS, which is pretty much identical to develop for as the JDAM, which is the JSF and Coalition’s main munition.

    • Because the AIM-9X Block one has already been produced in numbers. Stupid not to be able to use them. The AIM 9X will be wingtip mounted and doesn’t interfer with the SDB II. Also, as we have not produced a single production SDB II, it is pretty hard to write code for it and test it properly. Putting the horse before the cart doesn’t work well.

  • oblatt22

    The F-35 is a tour de force of how not to manage a software project.

    Every 8 months they slice the salami thinner putting off features to a later phase as they deal with the existing disaster. Sure the stage 4 plans are for a palace – but you cant build a palace in a garbage dump by piling the garbage higher.

    The whole purpose of concurrent development is to have the software ready and finished when the aircraft is built. Instead we have 100 aircraft built that cant do anything – cant drop a bomb or fire a missile.

    • Dfens

      And what these articles don’t tell you is that each of these software builds requires full DO-178B certification before they are released to fly. That means the thinner they slice that salami, the more times they have to do all of the testing that comes along with that total waste of time and taxpayer’s money that is DO-178B. So rest assured, the defense contractors have it in their best interest to have as many of these software releases as possible because it takes far longer to test the code than it does to write and debug the code. Probably about 100 times longer. Given the fact that the F-35 software is being written under a contract that guarantees the contractor $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend, you can see the obvious benefit to Lockheed to certify this code over and over and over again. It’s nothing but free money.

      • Dfens

        You might think that the DO-178B standard improves the reliability of software. That’s what the government tells you. Funny thing, though, they’ve never tested to see if that’s really true. They don’t mind spending billions of your tax dollars on all the crap work that standard requires, but they can’t spend a few dollars to find out if any of that work is value added? I guess you don’t ask the question when you don’t want to hear the answer.

        • ev3r3tt

          Got that right. It was boring as hell to do test software. It also was ancient. I came up with ways to produce the required execution code quicker and that was so frowned upon. I did finish my part 9 months ahead of schedule and well… looked for another job because that part as budgeted for a year. That was a waste and they know it.

        • ShamWowed

          Dfens , You are describing a common practice:
          Now if you put your hate and disgust back in the bottle you might see that at times some things occur which you do not understand. However, your lack of comprehension does not mean they are without merit.

          • oblatt22

            LOL test driven development isnt DO-178B certification. Though maybe the 1000s of script kiddies Lockheed hired probably dont know that either. LOL

            We are toying with the idea of using the F-35 program as an interview question. We ask the candidate what he thinks about it, and if he says its exciting or great no need for any more questions – he is a moron.

            The correlation between supporters of the F-35 and no nothing blowhards is very strong.

          • William_C1

            You have me curious about this company that supposedly employs you. I’m guessing it doesn’t exist.

          • ShamWowed

            You are another self-righteous internet warrior and just because you find disgust in any given defense project does not make it a complete failure. I have difficulty with certain aspects of the F-35. I particularly think the VSTOL is a waste combat capability. However, I would rather my Marines have F-35’s overhead than Harriers. Would you rather have your son in an F-35 or a Harrier? Here is a clue, we called Harriers lawn darts.

      • ShamWowed

        Sounds like test-driven development which is a common practice and saves money over time by identifying bugs early.
        You are one butt-hurt individual.

  • hibeam

    Is the Pentagon still crowd sourcing their software development? Or did they fix that?

  • Barry

    U.S.A. — that once shining city on a hill. It was a nice idea while it lasted. With our divided government, run by fools with the emotional intelligence of 6-year olds, and our completely dysfunctional military industrial complex, we are indeed our own worst enemy.

  • Blake

    Not that development for the future is bad, but I think they should put more focus on getting their current software finished.

  • Louie

    This just kills me this POS hasn’t even gone into service the thing is barely off the ground after how many years???? and it’s getting a 4th upgrade WTF this thing is a bottomless pit for Def dollars. It better have a damn coffe cup holder and a cigarett lighter when its done.

    • grant

      I guarantee you there will be no coffee cup holder nor cigarette lighter; but how about a condom / vaseline / cocaine dispenser? How about a Playboy App for Block 69 upgrade?

    • TXCOMT

      Comin’ up on 20 years of R&D and almost 10 years of production.

  • Lightning

    It’s too bad the moderation policy can’t delete comments that contain no factual content and whose authors are completely uninformed regarding the F-35 Program. Of course it that were the case, none of the preceding comments would still exist. This aircraft will stand as the best Weapons System ever developed in the history of military hardware, and will serve to protect the US and our allies for decades to come. This won’t come for free. Get on board or move to another country where they don’t invest in national defence.

  • Israel

    I don’t know much about defense but I am a project manager by trade. If I’m not mistaken project management is a science created by the U.S military. However, when I read threads such as this I often can’t believe it. The scope of this project has long since been compromised. Therefore, failed project.

    • Dfens

      As long as Lockheed is pulling money out of this program at the current rate it is not a failure. In fact, they are milking this cash cow for as long as possible this side of actually having to start a production line.

    • Snowden Rocks

      As you said it yourself, it’s a product of management SCIENCE of US military.

  • grant

    Why not start on Block 11 right away? Or do they always play catch-up to obsolete-on-arrival systems?

  • PolicyWonk

    Personally, I’ll be delighted when they figure out how to improve the less-than-4th generation performance for the 5th generation aircraft that has a 6th generation price tag.

    • Big-Dean

      by the time this so-called 5th air ‘frame” is ready for combat the Chinese and Russians will be fielding 7th gen ‘aircraft’ in large numbers

      • lois

        That’s not a problem really, because China already owns America. Their percentage ownership will only increase over time. It’s been a foregone conclusion that there is no chance in hell that the US will ever be able to pay back the mountains of debts owed to China.

  • DShirley1

    My, my, sounds very similar to the startup of the ACA website… we know why the gov’t gets screwed on major projects….company contractors half bake the effort to keep the money rolling in…..Hmmmm, how PATRIOTIC is that!

    • Dfens

      First of all, it’s not the government that gets screwed on these projects. It’s not the government’s money they’re spending. It’s our money. Secondly, the US government pays these contractors more to drag these programs out and jack up the prices, and the contractors give them exactly what they seem to want. If I didn’t want someone to hit me with a stick, I sure as hell wouldn’t offer people money to do just that.

      • lois

        There is nothing really unexpected here because the Military Industrial Complex (which include LM and its subcontractors) IS the US government.

        The MIC has been the US government since WWII.

        • Dfens

          You’ve got that right. Our military sold out to the highest bidder, and now they can’t figure out why the US taxpayer doesn’t want to give them more money.

  • Big-Dean

    I’m so glad we’re doing all of this “software” work for the Chinese, they will be sure to love us even more….

  • oblatt22

    Just last week one of our offices couldn’t get some 5c nuts from a US supplier because “export controls are too complicated” they then literally went and got them from a local hardware store – but hey if the F-35 wants to buy RF chokes for the AESA radar from China that is obviously OK.

  • I love it when the Pentagon talks that way…

  • tee

    The Price of the “Junk Strike Fighter” just went up another 7.8 Billion according to Aviation Week.

    F-35 Cost Up $7.8B, Bogdan Fires on Pratt.

    • blight_

      Not sure if F-136 would have helped. We would be pushing two programs along in parallel and then downselect.

      • Dfens

        No, there wasn’t supposed to be a down select. There were supposed to be two engine options for buyers to choose from.

        • blight_

          I stand corrected.

          That said, having two competing products creates the illusion of competition driving costs down…look at the LCS program.

          • Dfens

            Honestly, this seemed to be one of the best features of the JSF program, which, no doubt, is why it was cancelled. It’s not really like the LCS program in that either engine could fit in any of the aircraft, so then it is a matter of picking the best performing engine for the best price. You know, real, honest to God capitalism. Plus, the minute the GE engine got cancelled, the cost of the PW engine went through the roof.

  • Wharthogcrewchief

    scrap the whole f-35 program, build a bunch more f-15e’s , block 60 f-16’s , fa-18’s and upgrade the wharthogs, all battle proven, overwhelm the enemy with volume.

    • ShamWowed

      So, no stealth capability?
      Are you going to tell your kids they should feel safe flying in 1970’s era technology?

    • Moving back in time is not an answer. While I love the Virginia Class SSNs, they really are not as good as and no cheaper than the Seawold class. Whatever we added to the Virginia’s could have been incorporated in the Seawolf. Yet, we lost many years, and lots of R&D money scrapping the Seawold and remaking it into the Virginia’s. You are proposing something akin to even worse by scrapping the Seawolf for more LA class subs???

  • Chief

    The F-35 effort has gone through a LOT of pain that could have been avoided by both the Government and the vendor. It is what it is. Need to move forward. None of the issues – most are software related – are major issues. They are painful to overcome, but not #unovercomeable.