Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

Airplane said:
bobbymike said:
VTOLicious said:
Not necessarily in reference to the above posted link, but after reading the article I posted below I doubt Next Big Future to be a reliable news source ::)

Marine megadrone will have all the weapons, sensors of an F-35 and do everything a manned F-35 can do except displace the F-35 budget

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/marine-megadrone-will-have-all-weapons.html
Click to expand...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35c-needs-new-outer-wings-carry-aim-9x
Click to expand...

Speaking of the 9x, the boys over on F-16.net are singing the praises of the F-35 in Red Flag and the virtues of SA and HOBS missiles, but the F-35 doesn't carry the 9x internally and when carried externally, LO is gone. So the F-35 is a one trick pony with the 4x 120s.

Sorry if I violated the "news" rules with this.
Click to expand...

AIM-120 has been HOBS capable for some time now.
 
marauder2048 said:
Airplane said:
bobbymike said:
VTOLicious said:
Not necessarily in reference to the above posted link, but after reading the article I posted below I doubt Next Big Future to be a reliable news source ::)

Marine megadrone will have all the weapons, sensors of an F-35 and do everything a manned F-35 can do except displace the F-35 budget

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/marine-megadrone-will-have-all-weapons.html
Click to expand...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35c-needs-new-outer-wings-carry-aim-9x
Click to expand...

Speaking of the 9x, the boys over on F-16.net are singing the praises of the F-35 in Red Flag and the virtues of SA and HOBS missiles, but the F-35 doesn't carry the 9x internally and when carried externally, LO is gone. So the F-35 is a one trick pony with the 4x 120s.

Sorry if I violated the "news" rules with this.
Click to expand...

AIM-120 has been HOBS capable for some time now.
Click to expand...

I just said it's a one trick pony. It's got the 120s and nothing else, which relies on radio energy for guidance.
 
Airplane said:
I just said it's a one trick pony. It's got the 120s and nothing else, which relies on radio energy for guidance.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow; all modern AAMs rely on RF datalinks.
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-f-35-and-future-us-airpower?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170223_AW-05_88&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=8797&utm_medium=email&elq2=44c0d5854c054c428124ab242e231329
 
Airplane said:
marauder2048 said:
Airplane said:
bobbymike said:
VTOLicious said:
Not necessarily in reference to the above posted link, but after reading the article I posted below I doubt Next Big Future to be a reliable news source ::)

Marine megadrone will have all the weapons, sensors of an F-35 and do everything a manned F-35 can do except displace the F-35 budget


http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/marine-megadrone-will-have-all-weapons.html
Click to expand...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35c-needs-new-outer-wings-carry-aim-9x
Click to expand...

Speaking of the 9x, the boys over on F-16.net are singing the praises of the F-35 in Red Flag and the virtues of SA and HOBS missiles, but the F-35 doesn't carry the 9x internally and when carried externally, LO is gone. So the F-35 is a one trick pony with the 4x 120s.

Sorry if I violated the "news" rules with this.
Click to expand...

AIM-120 has been HOBS capable for some time now.
Click to expand...

I just said it's a one trick pony. It's got the 120s and nothing else, which relies on radio energy for guidance.
Click to expand...

It is not going to be out of reach to develop an ejection launch IIR (Like a MICA-IR) equipped Air to Air Missile for the F-35 as part of the expanded carriage that will be introduced in late block 4 or early block 5. There is actually a good case to be made for exactly this but then again there are indications that the USAF wants a multi-spectral seeker on its next AAM. You could even look to create an IIR and RF version of something like the CUDA and pack a heck of a lot in there.
 
Backstory: In September last year, it was reported that 57 jets in production and 15 flying aircraft had been built using insulation, which was meant to thermally insulate PAO avionics coolant lines in the wings from the fuel, but due to a supplier error, was fuel soluble and crumbling inside the fuel tanks.

They removed the insulation in the wing tanks in the 15 flying aircraft before the end of 2016 (the insulation isn't required until Block 4.2 or later, when upgraded avionics are expected to generate more heat), but Lockheed was still working on the other 57 jets (being built in Texas, Italy and Japan, at varying states of completion) and due to the problem, failed to meet the expected delivery rate for 2016. The insulation supplier was retained and Lockheed paid for the work required to remove / replace the insulation.

In the latest F-35 General Manager weekly update, it's been announced that the last of those 57 in-production aircraft have been fixed:

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/17457/f35_weekly_update_2_23_17.pdf
 
Didn't know where to put this

A U.S. Air Force A-10C Thunderbolt II and a F-35 Lightning II fly in formation with a P-47 Thunderbolt and a P-38 Lightning during the 2017 Heritage Flight Training and Certification Course at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., Feb. 11, 2017. The annual aerial demonstration training event has been held at D-M since 2001. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Ashley N. Steffen)
 

Attachments

  • p-47-p-38-a-10-f-35.jpg
    p-47-p-38-a-10-f-35.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 178
Dragon029 said:
Backstory: In September last year, it was reported that 57 jets in production and 15 flying aircraft had been built using insulation, which was meant to thermally insulate PAO avionics coolant lines in the wings from the fuel, but due to a supplier error, was fuel soluble and crumbling inside the fuel tanks.

They removed the insulation in the wing tanks in the 15 flying aircraft before the end of 2016 (the insulation isn't required until Block 4.2 or later, when upgraded avionics are expected to generate more heat), but Lockheed was still working on the other 57 jets (being built in Texas, Italy and Japan, at varying states of completion) and due to the problem, failed to meet the expected delivery rate for 2016. The insulation supplier was retained and Lockheed paid for the work required to remove / replace the insulation.

In the latest F-35 General Manager weekly update, it's been announced that the last of those 57 in-production aircraft have been fixed:

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/17457/f35_weekly_update_2_23_17.pdf

The report mentioned, plus the linked video, are no more than an advertisement. Like ALL advertisers, this product it THE BEST. Not seen any independent clarification or confirmation.
Click to expand...
 
Foo Fighter said:
The report mentioned, plus the linked video, are no more than an advertisement. Like ALL advertisers, this product it THE BEST. Not seen any independent clarification or confirmation.
Click to expand...
Independent clarification / confirmation of what? The PAO fix? Or the Red Flag stuff elsewhere in that PDF? If you mean the latter, then who would you consider to be independent? The USMC have been reporting even greater success than the USAF, with both those services testifying the jet's performance to the House Armed Services Committee. If you wanted to bring on board an independent analyst for PR reasons, they'd have to be working for an organisation or branch of the government that allows them access to highly classified data, at which point I doubt you would trust their independence.
 
Dragon029 said:
Foo Fighter said:
The report mentioned, plus the linked video, are no more than an advertisement. Like ALL advertisers, this product it THE BEST. Not seen any independent clarification or confirmation.
Click to expand...
Independent clarification / confirmation of what? The PAO fix? Or the Red Flag stuff elsewhere in that PDF? If you mean the latter, then who would you consider to be independent? The USMC have been reporting even greater success than the USAF, with both those services testifying the jet's performance to the House Armed Services Committee. If you wanted to bring on board an independent analyst for PR reasons, they'd have to be working for an organisation or branch of the government that allows them access to highly classified data, at which point I doubt you would trust their independence.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of room for the program to mature. That's all out there for everyone to see. I see nothing wrong with the USAF and the Corp (and the manufacturer for that matter) making the case that the product is worth the effort.

No doubt that no sane folks want to go through this type of technology leap again. US has to get in the mindset of how to field platforms faster. It's a systemic change.
 
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/israel-may-have-already-used-new-f35s.html
 
Given that no Israeli pilot had flown a real F-35 (instead they chose only to fly simulators for some reason) prior to their arrival in Israel in December 2016, I think it's a stretch that they would flown a combat mission just a month later. Israel's official IOC date for their first F-35Is is December this year.

In other news:

First firing of an ASRAAM from an F-35:
http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/f-35-successfully-conducts-first-firings-of-mbdas-asraam/

Ogden ALC becomes the first maintenance depot to do work on all 3 variants of F-35:
http://www.eglin.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1114144/ogden-alc-completes-f-35-milestone
 
https://news.usni.org/2017/03/22/lockheed-martin-f-35nifc-ca-live-fire-test-in-2018-lrasm-flight-tests-this-year
 
Let’s Do More Shots

—John A. Tirpak3/28/2017

​​The F-35 program office is looking at adding capacity for another AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missile in each of the jet’s two weapons bays, increasing internal—and thus stealthy—missile loadout by 50 percent, program director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said March 22. Speaking with reporters after his speech at a McAleese/Credit Suisse conference in Washington, D.C., Bogdan said, “There is potential … to add a third missile on each side.” The upgrade would likely be part of the Block IV program of F-35 enhancements, but “that’s something I know the services and all the partners” are interested in. Bogdan said this would not require some special version of AMRAAM, but “the same AMRAAM missiles that we carry today, just an extra one; probably on the weapons bay door.” The F-35 can carry two AMRAAMs in each bay now, or a mix of AMRAAMs and Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally. “There’s a lot of engineering work to go with that,” Bogdan cautioned, and he did not speculate on when such a change could be made.
 
Or rather the F-22's Link-16 problem with the F-35. F-35 can share data with the F-22 using L-16, the F-22 cannot transmit. That will change with the Link-16 transmit capability on the F-22A which they will be working on next. For LPI/LPD communications there would need to be other options of either using a gateway or something designed around their existing hardware/software.
 
Has there been any comeback on the criticism in this report?

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf
 
Flyaway said:
Has there been any comeback on the criticism in this report?

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf
Click to expand...

You mean aside from F-35 users, Red Flag results, etc.?
 
Flyaway said:
Has there been any comeback on the criticism in this report?

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf
Click to expand...

There were no surprises in the draft report reviewed by the JPO; all of the issues mentioned are well-known to the JPO, the U.S. Services, International Partnersand our Industry team. While not highlighted by the DOT&E report, among the 17 issues cited in the report, the F-35 Program fully concurs with 10 of them, partially concurs with 4, and defers to the USN and USMC regarding the other 3. The F-35 Program has a dedicated effort underway to resolve or otherwise mitigate them, as shown in the table below.

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20170216/105552/HHRG-115-AS25-Wstate-BogdanC-20170216.pdf
Click to expand...
 
bring_it_on said:
Flyaway said:
Has there been any comeback on the criticism in this report?

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf
Click to expand...

There were no surprises in the draft report reviewed by the JPO; all of the issues mentioned are well-known to the JPO, the U.S. Services, International Partnersand our Industry team. While not highlighted by the DOT&E report, among the 17 issues cited in the report, the F-35 Program fully concurs with 10 of them, partially concurs with 4, and defers to the USN and USMC regarding the other 3. The F-35 Program has a dedicated effort underway to resolve or otherwise mitigate them, as shown in the table below.

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20170216/105552/HHRG-115-AS25-Wstate-BogdanC-20170216.pdf
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Just I've seen the anti-F-35 brigade using it as their latest weapon of choice so was wondering in there had been a rebuttal as such.
 
Caution should be exercised with DOT&E's prognostications and anaysis. Their highly pessimistic predictions for F-35 WDA event completion rates turned out to be completely wrong (see below).

And in the rare cases where the underlying raw data is released (e.g. IDA's "Tackling Complex Problems: Analysis of the AN/TPQ-53 Counterfire Radar")
it doesn't seem to support the interpretations and assessments provided by DOT&E.
 

Attachments

  • f35-wda-2017-1.png
    f35-wda-2017-1.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 152
  • f35-wda-2017-3.png
    f35-wda-2017-3.png
    347.2 KB · Views: 130
  • f35-wda-2017-4.png
    f35-wda-2017-4.png
    407 KB · Views: 121
  • f35-wda-2017-5.png
    f35-wda-2017-5.png
    322.5 KB · Views: 115
  • f35-wda-2017-6.png
    f35-wda-2017-6.png
    282.8 KB · Views: 110
  • f35-wda-2017-7.png
    f35-wda-2017-7.png
    758.6 KB · Views: 26
Hatchet and Hammer mini-weapons for the F-35

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8967/miniature-smart-bombs-could-help-give-the-f-35-firepower-it-desperately-needs
 
The 34th Fighter Squadron 'Rude Rams' have deployed six F-35As to RAF Lakenheath. The deployment's been planned for months and they'll be there for several weeks to train with European partners while also (as the USAF's combat-ready F-35A squadron) being there as a deterrent / part of Europe Reassurance Initiative.

http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1153211/f-35-deploys-to-europe-for-the-first-time
https://www.dvidshub.net/feature/usafef35a
 
Video lists program status of various international partners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE3FcEWlj4M
 
Hood said:
Another article on the redeployment and the effort required to get six of them across the Atlantic (9 tankers, 9 refuellings)

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-leaves-behind-two-f-35as-during-lakenheath-depl-436349/
Click to expand...

Although the F-35's weren't using drop tanks --- an F-35 is nearly as big as an F-15 (comparing my models) and has almost the same amount of power but with a more efficient engine, an F-15 without any drop tanks needs the same amount of refuels. On top of that, the F-35's flew from Hill AFB Salt Lake City to Lakenheath direct, they had to fly almost the whole width of the USA first before they even started crossing the Atlantic
 
Couple of news items:

The GAO released their latest F-35 program report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684207.pdf

They state they believe that the program won't finish testing until May 2018 and that such a delay would cost $1.7 billion. The GAO also recommends that the Block 4 Follow On Modernisation program shouldn't release an RFP until testing is completed.

The Pentagon disagrees with 2/3 recommendations; the first is that the additional cost and time needed to complete development should be reassessed; the DoD says they've done that comprehensively and stand by their October 2017 / $532m estimate. The second is that the Block 4 FOM RFP should be delayed; the DoD says this would cause undue delays, lead to a capability gap and infer that it might or would increase costs. The third recommendation is that they should finalise the details of DOD and contractor investments associated with an EOQ purchase in FY2018, and submit a report to Congress with the FY 2018 budget request; the DoD agrees, but only partly, as they've already finalised the details and are submitting the report soon.

The second bit of news is that following their arrival in the UK, 2 of the 8 deployed USAF F-35As have deployed further, landing (wearing luneberg lenses) in Estonia / ~200km from Russia's border today: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/us-f-35-jets-land-in-estonia-for-exercises-in-putins-backyard/article/2621178
 
http://www.investors.com/news/lockheed-martin-trims-earnings-guidance-after-missing-q1-sales-view/

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/hey-gao-fighter-gap-means-we-should-buy-f-35-faster/
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/04/27/f-35039s_brains_getting_smarter_292525.html
 
https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-just-got-1-7-billion-more-expensive/
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-lawmakers-reach-2017-budget-deal
The bill funds 74 F-35 fighter jets at $8.2 billion
Click to expand...
I looked at the budget documents(see global military spending thread for link), and (if I'm reading it correctly) that's 5 more A's, 2 more B's and 4 more C's than the original request. EMD funding stayed the same, but something called F-35 squadrons "follow-on modernisation" was cut by 75M $ because it was "ahead of need". What could that be?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom