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

Jeb said:
Mine was that it's a hotdogging pilot running out of skill. Tried a short-field takeoff run without the needed experience and then stalled during the turn to port. The jet auto-ejected the pilot when it computed that he couldn't recover.
Click to expand...
That's entirely possible, and probably more likely than a mechanical failure.

I just hate to accuse a pilot of screwing up if I don't know them.



snne said:
felt like sharing this

https://twitter.com/x/status/1800208442587783595
View: https://x.com/AdamNLandau/status/1800208442587783595
Click to expand...
Wow, those stabilators were really working!
 
GTX said:
More reporting:

https://www.armyrecognition.com/new...onsidering-additional-purchase-of-8-f-35-jets
Click to expand...

In conjunction with the recent German pledge to order a further 20 Typhoon (albeit whilst mentioning more may be ordered in further budget cycles) from an expected demand for c50 jets (although based on the shaky reasoning they were looking to replace Tornado 1 to 1) any futher German order for F-35A could jeopardise those remaining 'potential' Typhoon order's.

Given the German's were allegedly purchasing the 35 F-35A primarily for the nuclear mission (and the numbers stack up for that, although they're obviously purchasing conventional weapons to arm specifically F-35A as well) it would be interesting to see what other uses they see for F-35A....is this ensuring they have enough for 40 years of service on the nuclear mission? Be interesting to see what the French thoughts on it are as well....
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
That's entirely possible, and probably more likely than a mechanical failure.

I just hate to accuse a pilot of screwing up if I don't know them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand. But all the evidence points to a "hey y'all, watch this!" departure promise and if you've ever been to a car show, you know how those can end up. Occam's Razor.
 
timmymagic said:
Given the German's were allegedly purchasing the 35 F-35A primarily for the nuclear mission (and the numbers stack up for that, although they're obviously purchasing conventional weapons to arm specifically F-35A as well) it would be interesting to see what other uses they see for F-35A....is this ensuring they have enough for 40 years of service on the nuclear mission? Be interesting to see what the French thoughts on it are as well....
Click to expand...

Basically what it says in the article. 8-10 more aircraft allows TaktLwG 33 at Büchel air base to be a fully equipped wing with 35 jets while still having around 8 jets stationed in the US for training purposes.
While nuclear sharing was the main reason for selecting the F-35, TaktLwG 33 is also sort of the conventional heavy strike specialist unit in the GAF with its Taurus and GBU-24 weapons. So I'd expect them to keep this "bomber" role but with different weapons, JASSM-ER and GBU-31 specifically.

The real interesting question is if the Germans will re-equip the other Tornado wing with F-35 or not. With the 20 new EFs on order, looks like a decision pro EF has been made.
 
eagle said:
Basically what it says in the article. 8-10 more aircraft allows TaktLwG 33 at Büchel air base to be a fully equipped wing with 35 jets while still having around 8 jets stationed in the US for training purposes.
While nuclear sharing was the main reason for selecting the F-35, TaktLwG 33 is also sort of the conventional heavy strike specialist unit in the GAF with its Taurus and GBU-24 weapons. So I'd expect them to keep this "bomber" role but with different weapons, JASSM-ER and GBU-31 specifically.

The real interesting question is if the Germans will re-equip the other Tornado wing with F-35 or not. With the 20 new EFs on order, looks like a decision pro EF has been made.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that if they wanted JASSM-ER they'd have ordered them already as they've done so for AIM-9X, SDBII
 
Scott Kenny said:
Has an intense bass rumble that you feel in the chest. 4x F16s don't produce the same rumble that a single F35 does.
Click to expand...

It rattles like sheet lightning at whatever altitude it’s at. I’ve never hear an engine that loud or with that frequency change.
 
Josh_TN said:
It rattles like sheet lightning at whatever altitude it’s at. I’ve never hear an engine that loud or with that frequency change.
Click to expand...
Having been around heaps of combat aircraft over my career including fighters and strike aircraft and the F-35 I have to disagree.
 
GTX said:
Having been around heaps of combat aircraft over my career including fighters and strike aircraft and the F-35 I have to disagree.
Click to expand...
I want to say something like a J79 has a similar bass rumble but not as intense.

I'd really like to compare the sound/feeling of an F35 to a B1, I'll need to keep my eyes open for the next Mountain Home AFB open house with flights happening.
 
TomS said:
And the F-35 JPO has finally gotten around to a statement, confirming that this was actually a USAF pilot flying the aircraft for the DCMA.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-pilot-f-35b-crash-kirtland/
They haven't yet confirmed that this was a TR-3 test aircraft, but it seems likely.
Click to expand...

My understanding was it was an existing non-delivered production aircraft that had been retrofitted into one of the partially instrumented test aircraft for weapons integration testing rather than a TR3 aircraft.
 
timmymagic said:
In conjunction with the recent German pledge to order a further 20 Typhoon (albeit whilst mentioning more may be ordered in further budget cycles) from an expected demand for c50 jets (although based on the shaky reasoning they were looking to replace Tornado 1 to 1) any futher German order for F-35A could jeopardise those remaining 'potential' Typhoon order's.

Given the German's were allegedly purchasing the 35 F-35A primarily for the nuclear mission (and the numbers stack up for that, although they're obviously purchasing conventional weapons to arm specifically F-35A as well) it would be interesting to see what other uses they see for F-35A....is this ensuring they have enough for 40 years of service on the nuclear mission? Be interesting to see what the French thoughts on it are as well....
Click to expand...

I cant believe they've only just realised that 8 of their F-35 would be stuck in the US for pilot training and not available in Europe in the case of an urgent operational requirement so they actually have to order more F-35 to maintain their existing European nuclear capable fleet size. From a financial perspective it would certainly eat into the funds available for further Typhoon purchases even if it doesn't actually provide any additional capability over that originally envisaged (i.e. they are getting less bang for their buck from F-35).
 
WatcherZero said:
I cant believe they've only just realised that 8 of their F-35 would be stuck in the US for pilot training and not available in Europe in the case of an urgent operational requirement so they actually have to order more F-35 to maintain their existing European nuclear capable fleet size. From a financial perspective it would certainly eat into the funds available for further Typhoon purchases even if it doesn't actually provide any additional capability over that originally envisaged (i.e. they are getting less bang for their buck from F-35).
Click to expand...
I fear it´s the opposite, more F-35 constitutes an increase of available funds for Typhoon operations as they require less support aircraft for themselves, including less CSAR, less ECM support, less remote sensors... all that are very expensive.
 
TomcatViP said:
I fear it´s the opposite, more F-35 constitutes an increase of available funds for Typhoon operations as they require less support aircraft for themselves, including less CSAR, less ECM support, less remote sensors... all that are very expensive.
Click to expand...

They are buying Electronic warfare Typhoons specifically to provide that support to their F-35's. And I believe F-35 has higher operating costs. SAAB did this 2023 standardised comparison.

1718579470986.png

1718579664456.png

https://ekonomickydenik.cz/wp-conte...gh-life-costs-study-may-2023-final-report.pdf
 
WatcherZero said:
They are buying Electronic warfare Typhoons specifically to provide that support to their F-35's. And I believe F-35 has higher operating costs. SAAB did this 2023 standardised comparison.

View attachment 732115

View attachment 732116

https://ekonomickydenik.cz/wp-conte...gh-life-costs-study-may-2023-final-report.pdf
Click to expand...
Very obviously a SAAB advert. Also, what F-35 costs are taken, F-35A, or F-35B/C, or averaged? Carrier aircraft are usually more expensive IIRC.
 
WatcherZero said:
They are buying Electronic warfare Typhoons specifically to provide that support to their F-35's. And I believe F-35 has higher operating costs. SAAB did this 2023 standardised comparison.

View attachment 732115

View attachment 732116

https://ekonomickydenik.cz/wp-conte...gh-life-costs-study-may-2023-final-report.pdf
Click to expand...
And of course Saab would be objective here...interesting how every time (I think - happy to be corrected) the Gripen has come up against the F-35 in a competition it has lost.
 
WatcherZero said:
And I believe F-35 has higher operating costs. SAAB did this 2023 standardised comparison.
Click to expand...
It's worth pointing out that SAAB don't actually have any of the data to drive this comparison for any platform other than Gripen C/D. There's also no explanation for how their modelling works: input some information in these categories, magic happens, then you get 6 different numbers out. Or validation of their method. It also assumes the same fleet size, and so artificially penalises every aircraft that isn't Gripen because the higher numbers means that some costs can be spread over a much larger user base.

The validation point is probably important as say for example their UPC for Gripen E appears to be ~15-25% out compared to actuals....

I'm not sure anyone would really dispute that F-35 is likely to have higher operating and support costs, given that it is bigger and more complex. But I don't think that Saab's analysis adds any better evidence than the above sentence.
 
red admiral said:
It's worth pointing out that SAAB don't actually have any of the data to drive this comparison for any platform other than Gripen C/D. There's also no explanation for how their modelling works: input some information in these categories, magic happens, then you get 6 different numbers out. Or validation of their method. It also assumes the same fleet size, and so artificially penalises every aircraft that isn't Gripen because the higher numbers means that some costs can be spread over a much larger user base.

The validation point is probably important as say for example their UPC for Gripen E appears to be ~15-25% out compared to actuals....

I'm not sure anyone would really dispute that F-35 is likely to have higher operating and support costs, given that it is bigger and more complex. But I don't think that Saab's analysis adds any better evidence than the above sentence.
Click to expand...

They say its all from governmental sources such as budgets, contract notifications, press releases and FOI requests. They standardise on a fleet size of 100 aircraft which is a fair comparison point and an above average fleet number, theres what only 20 airforces in the world with a larger single type fleet. Otherwise you have US with fleets of high hundreds of aircraft, China and Russia and a limited number of other countries with multiple fleets in the low hundreds and then most countries in the world operating fleets of only a couple of dozen fighters if that.
 
WatcherZero said:
They say its all from governmental sources such as budgets, contract notifications, press releases and FOI requests.
Click to expand...
That's only going to give them a small part of the facts...and they know that. It is still something that needs to be taken with two fistfuls of salt.
 
I love it! My first overseas deployment was late April-late October 1984 with VMA(AW)-242... we were flying A-6E TRAM Intruders at the time.

I was "I" level maintenance on the FLIR/laser turret & cockpit display.

During that deployment we changed the squadron mascot to match the lo-vis gray we were painting our aircraft in at MCAS Iwakuni & at NASA Cubi Point, P.I. ... but it was no longer a "Black Bat" (which was our official name at the time) so 3-4 years later it got changed back.

Then sometime in the 1990s PC sensibilities forced the squadron to drop the "Black" part of the name (I guess describing the color of something had become racist).

This was our new logo:
VMA(AW)-242 logo.gif

The "awkward landing" logo we so despised:

VMA(AW)-242 at El Toro 31 March 1983.jpg

And this is what replaced the grey bat (on a VMFA(AW)-242 F/A-18D in The Sandpit) - on the inside of the port vertical stabilizer:

F-18D-HORNET VMFA(AW)-242.jpg
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
What was the A-6E like to maintain?
Click to expand...
A PITA.

Mostly due to the age of many of the airframes (about 1/3-- 1/2 were converted A-6As from the Vietnam era).

I didn't work directly with the aircraft - the squadron pulled avionics units and sent them to my shop (and others for the other systems) to be worked on. I did, however, talk with the squadron guys a bit. Wiring failures were the worst - finding where the break/short was, accessing that point, then pulling the correct wire(s) out of a bundle of up to 30-40 wires so it could be repaired. Fortunately the upgrade to -E standard included complete replacement of the wiring, so it could have been worse.

Aboard ship we saw a lot more corrosion-caused failures and some shock-caused ones (from the catapult launchings and arrested landings).

Aboard ship my shop also repaired the older FLIR turret from the S-3A Vikings - those were not sealed as well as the A-6E FLIR turret, and about 3/4 of the problems on the S-3A FLIRSs were fixed by disconnecting and reconnecting cables (moist salt air had penetrated, causing light surface corrosion on pins & sockets which reduced or stopped current flow).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom