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

Naval News has an article about the Mako missile (There's no wikipedia article yet):

Lockheed Martin’s New Mako Hypersonic Missile Breaks Cover​

Naval News learns about Lockheed Martin's newest hypersonic.​

Aaron-Matthew Lariosa 10 Apr 2024

Lockheed Martin and CoAspire unveiled the new Mako Multi-Mission Hypersonic Missile at Sea Air Space 2024 this week.
Click to expand...
“For the US Navy, this is a multi-mission, highly capable system, highly survivable, affordable, so you’re going to hold many targets at risk with one weapons system that’s ready now,” Rick Loy, Senior Program Manager at the company’s Missile and Fire Control division told Naval News.
Click to expand...
Mako, the name derived from the fastest shark in the sea, is being pitched to the U.S. Navy by Lockheed Martin for its speed, affordability, and targeting versatility to hold many targets at risk.
Click to expand...
 
Jeb said:
I've never bought into the idea that just because an A-10 driver transitions to an F-16 or Strike Eagle or F-35, that suddenly the pilot forgets how to work with JTAC and drop bombs and doesn't care about troops on the ground anymore.
Click to expand...
Its not the Current Pilots that be forgetting how to do it.

But their replacements that will take their place withing 10 years that all the ground pounders who pay attention are worry bout.

Cause we all know every pilot who gets to sit in a combat craft did so cause they want to FIGHT other Fighters. Not many who has a choice go for the mudslinger or attack role. Everyone wants the sexy dogfighting role. Note using Dogfight in the catch all way of Aerial COMBAT with other fighters.

So where alot of people math out that if you have X hours to do either CAS or Dogfighting. And you join up to do dogfighting...

How likely are they to do more than the bare minimum on case and max out dogfighting?

Especially wth the Air Force infamously heavy Fighter Culture needing to be factor in that. And the last 20 years of A10s hit, the Fs miss, and the Bombers DELETE being seen just adding to it.

So the question be, How long will the former A10 squadron keep its Cas Culture when switch to F35s?

I personally give it bout 10 years, 15 tops after the switch going from the last such switch of F111s to F15Es.
 
HyFonic said:
An F-35I landing at Nevatim Airbase after yesterday's attacks. It's carrying an interesting pod or pylon under its wing, anyone know what it is?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1779370819660984692
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1779370819660984692
Click to expand...
That's just the pylon. Could be the SUU-96, or the air-to-ground pylon. It's not a pod, though, for sure.
Sorry for the cross forum linking.
marvineng.com

F-35 Air-to-Ground Pylon

Marvin Engineering Co. is a qualified manufacturing source of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) external Air-to-Ground Pylon.
marvineng.com marvineng.com
 
Last edited:
So it's possible that F-35I's have already flown combat missions over Iran?
 
TomS said:
There is no indication that Israel has conducted air operations inside Iran.
Click to expand...

Not at the moment however I don't think we'll have to wait long before we see Israel retaliate and the F-35Is will be front and centre in such an attack.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
It seems to me like the USN tried to get a poor-man's A-12 out of the JSF by going with the larger wings and cramming as much extra fuel in it as they could. People will say they had to adapt it to CATOBAR use, which is true of course, but I wonder how much of the larger wing and other flight surfaces was strictly necessary for that.
Click to expand...

I believe the larger control surfaces on the C are purely to lower the stall speed, though I also think the extra fuel over the A version is located in the larger wing tanks. C is still heavier with more drag, so I do not think it gets much of a range advantage over A.
 
Forest Green said:
You wouldn't have thought there'd be enough difference between the different B61s to necessitate separate qualification.
Click to expand...

Mod 12 uses a guidance mode unavailable on other versions, and that probably involves unique PAL codes to enable. It also probably has minor separation differences since the tail assembly is different and all up weight is higher. I could easily see that necessitating a cert.
 
totoro said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1767260171447754859
View: https://twitter.com/DLT649/status/1767260171447754859?s=20


assuming that guy's info is correct and that indeed only 68 F-35 are being procured for FY2025, (total DoD)
why is the number so much lower than 2022 figure? Has the whole logjam with the tech refresh not been resolved? Can it really run longer into fiscal 2025?
Click to expand...

There are still software delays with Tech Refresh 3. I don’t think any F-35s have been delivered for half a year because of that, and they are running out of places to store them. Ironically during this hold up it finally was approved for full rate. But I believe the buys are going down as a result of the TR3 holdup.
 
Not re-engining the F-35 kind-of makes sense. The aircraft is unsuitable for the threat environment in Asia (that was obvious a decade ago) and now Europe and the Middle East. The reported ranges, even with the engine upgrade, are simply too short to operate without heavy tanker support - and those tankers won't be survivable during the high-intensity period of a conflict. Putting significantly more money into a dead-end airframe is a waste of money.

The A-10 versus F-35 debate is really very simple: A-10 costs something like half to a quarter the cost of the F-35 to operate. It probably has better combat availability too. For the combat environments where the A-10 works (which is common for the US military to fight in) the A-10 is just cheaper and does just as well, if not better. The USAF is already making numerous decisions based on money (see F-35 engine debate), so getting more airplanes for less has some appeal.
 
Yes, let's bring back WWI Spads! (and the great depression etc...)

190313-F-IO108-011.JPG


Airbus can certainly still open a line aside of their A320s.
 
DrRansom said:
Not re-engining the F-35 kind-of makes sense. The aircraft is unsuitable for the threat environment in Asia (that was obvious a decade ago) and now Europe and the Middle East. The reported ranges, even with the engine upgrade, are simply too short to operate without heavy tanker support - and those tankers won't be survivable during the high-intensity period of a conflict. Putting significantly more money into a dead-end airframe is a waste of money.
Click to expand...
Is the solution possibly having widespread use of MQ-25 style smaller, LO tanker drones just like how it's envisaged in the Pacific scenario? It might not be enough for the Pacific but it`d certainly be enough for everywhere else in my book.
 
TomcatViP said:
Yes, let's bring back WWI Spads! (and the great depression etc...)

190313-F-IO108-011.JPG


Airbus can certainly still open a line aside of their A320s.
Click to expand...
Yes! And it's easier on everyone's wallet anyway. Those pesky warmongorers won't see what's coming for them, our revenge is due! They'll have to make do with somehow integrating biplanes into the 21st century warfare! Ahahahah!
 
Josh_TN said:
There are still software delays with Tech Refresh 3. I don’t think any F-35s have been delivered for half a year because of that, and they are running out of places to store them.
Click to expand...
Where exactly are they storing them? Is there a hangar at Fort Worth that is gradually filling up? I've not seen any photos of rows and rows of F-35 parked up there. I can understand why, if they are in a hangar, there will be no photos as the bad publicity would not be worth it.
 
snne said:
Is the solution possibly having widespread use of MQ-25 style smaller, LO tanker drones just like how it's envisaged in the Pacific scenario? It might not be enough for the Pacific but it`d certainly be enough for everywhere else in my book.
Click to expand...

F-35 range is perfectly adequate for any war that does not involve the PRC.
 
Josh_TN said:
F-35 range is perfectly adequate for any war that does not involve the PRC.
Click to expand...
And the PRC is debatable as well.

As is the F35s range is more then any other f-series thats not tge 15E even if they have tanks. Both the Falcons and Hornets need up to 3 tanks mission load depending to reach the F35s clean range. By doing so limiting their stores to basically the same as the F35.

Basically if the F35 has an issue with a mission range the F16/18/22 are a flat no go. Those all will need more tankers then we currently have.

Which leaves the F15s that have conformed tanks and the Bombers.
 
FighterJock said:
And that is the last thing that Lockheed wants right now, timmymagic.
Click to expand...
Thats the thing. Are they getting delivered to units to 'get them off the lot' but not being formally/contractually handed over until TR-3 is resolved. Plant 4 is enormous, but I can't imagine that they have a lot of spare space to park 10's of F-35, and they can't shuffle them over to the far side as there isn't the storage there and its operational US military anyway.

Where are all these F-35? Given the production numbers it should be increasing by another aircraft circa every 2 days...

EDIT: Turns out someone has asked the question...apparently there were c60 in January undelivered. There could be a further 40 on top of that by now....100 F-35 parked up....quite incredible really. If as the article added by @TomcatViP is correct that September is likely as a date for delivery of a truncated TR-3 capability there could be another 70 F-35 parked up by then....

170 brand new F-35 in total parked up....sweet jesus, that would be quite a sight....Boeing and the 737-Max move out of the way...we have a new competitor...

www.forbes.com

The Dealer Lot Is Full - Where Is Lockheed Martin Storing F-35s?

With F-35 deliveries to the U.S. military halted since last July and F-35 production continuing apace, stealth fighters are stacking up on a ramp somewhere.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
Why is it taking so long for the F-35 to get the TR-3 software update? The wait will hurt Lockheed financially speaking the longer this goes on and they cannot transfer those F-35s in the storage hangers.
 
FighterJock said:
Why is it taking so long for the F-35 to get the TR-3 software update? The wait will hurt Lockheed financially speaking the longer this goes on and they cannot transfer those F-35s in the storage hangers.
Click to expand...

From the article that @TomcatViP posted it appears that they have completely under estimated the time in hand or have been lying through their teeth. We've had talk of TR-3 being fully ready in a matter of months, but to then switch to a truncated TR-3 with Full Combat Capability being delivered to those aircraft by a software update a whole year later that late in the day points to either incompetence or someone not telling the truth until they could deny it no longer....

To be honest if I was a customer I'm not sure I'd accept the truncated TR-3 on LM's assurance that a software update a year later would make my aircraft actually usable....could anyone actualy believe they would deliver that update on time and to specification?

The only side that really benefits from TR-3 being accepted incomplete is LM....maybe they should start to feel some pain.

And from that article it appears that Block IV has got even more issues with the JPO trying to salvage what they can, whilst delaying capabiities into the 2030's...

For me the question is for how long does LM get away with it? Over promising and under delivering with real impact on the customers has to have a downside for them sooner rather than later...
 
it appears that they have completely under estimated the time in hand or have been lying through their teeth.

(Little Latina girl in taco commercial goes here)

... maybe a little harsh. I think Schmidt is trying to get things under control and seems more honest than his predecessors. But delivery of combat-coded Block 4s has slipped more than two years since Jan 2023, including the 12-16 months from delivery of "truncated" Block 4 to the combat-ready version, and it seems as if the entire Block 4 project is being ripped down to the bare essentials.

Gory details, particularly from about 2:11:00 onwards in the video:

TAL Hearing: Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request of the Department of Defense for Fixed-Wing Tactical and Training Aircraft Programs

Purpose: To receive testimony on the budget request of the Department of Defense for fixed-wing tactical and training aircraft programs. Witnesses: The Honorable Andrew P. Hunter Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Department of the Air Force The...
armedservices.house.gov armedservices.house.gov

Counting The Legs – Valkyrie Strategic Solutions LLC

valkstrat.com valkstrat.com
 
I can only assume LM has scooped up huge numbers of coders in recent years, yet I'm still left asking what the hell the problem is? For all of the things Lockheed gets right, they seem particularly bad when it comes to the software side of things. The F-22 also had its own long list of problems there, and difficulties with integration of updated hardware, but the whole point of the tech refreshes and such was based on that experience. So where is the weak link in the chain here?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I can only assume LM has scooped up huge numbers of coders in recent years, yet I'm still left asking what the hell the problem is? For all of the things Lockheed gets right, they seem particularly bad when it comes to the software side of things. The F-22 also had its own long list of problems there, and difficulties with integration of updated hardware, but the whole point of the tech refreshes and such was based on that experience. So where is the weak link in the chain here?
Click to expand...
If I had to name one link, it's that doing A2A with stealth is really difficult and requires real-time machine fusion of your radar with passive sensors and offboard data. In the 80s (F-22 architecture) that was considered supercomputer power and you could only fit one such computer on the airplane, so it did everything, including FCS and VMS. In 1994 there was no other way to do it so F-35 is the same.

Trouble is, it's not only complex (in the sense of lots of things interacting with each other and with the outside environment) but because it gets into FCS/VMS it's flight-critical. So whenever you change anything you have to do regression testing to make sure haven't gooned up something important that worked before. Like when you plugged a scanner into your computer and the printer stopped working.

With more computer power in less space, you could do it differently, with more processing at the sensor, and Saab were the first to borrow the idea of partitioning the mission functions from FCS, which was part of Gripen NG from the outset (2007). That's how it's done on the B-21 (and, I believe, Rafale F4). But with F-22 and F-35, the upgrades are slow and painful.
 
LowObservable said:
With more computer power in less space, you could do it differently, with more processing at the sensor, and Saab were the first to borrow the idea of partitioning the mission functions from FCS, which was part of Gripen NG from the outset (2007).
Click to expand...
Do you mean to say that a more strongly partitioned, more federated system with a fast and deterministic data transfer (databus) system might be more stable and more tolerant to subsystem changes? Heathen! Blasphemer! Say the VMEBus salesman!

I thought that some learned from the lesson of FIRAMS cowering in a corner of the F/A-18A YUK-14 memory space. (i.e. "we can't fix FIRAMS because that *might* boodle up the MC Exec software!)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom