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

Avimimus said:
I'm honestly not sure. The complexity of avionics and engines is very high (almost all of the 'moving parts'). The ability to engineer an airframe and new aerodynamics is getting easier over time.

If the airframe is holding back a willingness to update avionics, weapons, or engine then offering an improved airframe could be a relatively easy and necessary step for opening up the possibility of further investments in the program.

The question is the cost/capability calculation regarding avionics, weapons, engines... what to add, what level of capability, and what alternatives.
Click to expand...
This is certainly true. It seems to me the path to a truly competent sixth generation air dominance fighter would be a new fuselage for the F-35. The Navy did this with the FA-18 family and got the very competent E/F/G (Although they didn't cure the range issues the way they should have).
How difficult would it be to create the fifth generation fighter we should have had with the F-35 if it hadn't had to be spread across three different versions for three different services?
Having said that I suspect the F-35, exactly as it is, is the fifth generation fighter that India wishes they had right now. F-35 Pilots, almost all of them, insist it's an amazing aircraft.
 
FighterJock said:
One solution would be is to lock the workers in a room until they can agree.
Click to expand...
I think those types of work practises passed away with the last century, at least in the US...

NMaude said:
Assuming the UK doesn't have any F-35As on hand no doubt having a squadron or two would be handy as they have a much greater payload capacity than the F-35B.
Click to expand...
Zero chance of an F-35A order from the UK and I'm not sure why people keep suggesting it.
 
NMaude said:
Assuming the UK doesn't have any F-35As on hand no doubt having a squadron or two would be handy as they have a much greater payload capacity than the F-35B.
Click to expand...

We'll be getting another 27 in Tranche 2...then that should be it. All monies go to Typhoon MLU, Unmanned, GCAP and F-35 upgrades post that point...and that accounts for the next 15 years..

Adding another type, which F-35A is, would vastly increase operating costs....if ordered now they wouldn't arrive and actually be operational until the early 2030's...and remember the vastly more capable GCAP arrives from 2035, which will consume funds, and crucially personnel...not just pilots and maintainers, but doctrine, training, tactics, project etc etc.
 
NMaude said:
Assuming the UK doesn't have any F-35As on hand no doubt having a squadron or two would be handy as they have a much greater payload capacity than the F-35B.
Click to expand...
I think the RN might see this as the thin end of the wedge for an eventual RAF divestment of Bs - leaving the RN high and dry.
 
starviking said:
I think the RN might see this as the thin end of the wedge for an eventual RAF divestment of Bs - leaving the RN high and dry.
Click to expand...

I think it would be the other way around....RAF are scared if they went down that route, or remove focus from the B, that the RN could make the logical case that F-35B, with its associated budget, should be assigned totally to them....particularly as the likely total buy of 74, opposed to the still touted (but utterly untrue) 138 means that Carrier Strike and a limited land based Expeditionary Capability inevitably becomes the main focus of the fleet....one of which is definitely the RN's area, and the other could reasonably be as well alongside the RM, ship based long ranged fires etc...and with the RAF's investment in heavyweight AAR in the form of Voyager, future unmanned capabilities and GCAP's emphasis on extreme range (allied with increased range air launched stand off munitions on the way) its a fairly reasonable position....as the RAF appears to be pivoting to a force that (sensibly) will launch from increasing distances from the enemy on main bases.
 
timmymagic said:
I think it would be the other way around....RAF are scared if they went down that route, or remove focus from the B, that the RN could make the logical case that F-35B, with its associated budget, should be assigned totally to them....particularly as the likely total buy of 74, opposed to the still touted (but utterly untrue) 138 means that Carrier Strike and a limited land based Expeditionary Capability inevitably becomes the main focus of the fleet....one of which is definitely the RN's area, and the other could reasonably be as well alongside the RM, ship based long ranged fires etc...and with the RAF's investment in heavyweight AAR in the form of Voyager, future unmanned capabilities and GCAP's emphasis on extreme range (allied with increased range air launched stand off munitions on the way) its a fairly reasonable position....as the RAF appears to be pivoting to a force that (sensibly) will launch from increasing distances from the enemy on main bases.
Click to expand...

138 is the UK Government's official committed number so not "touted" and not "utterly untrue".
 
Ron5 said:
138 is the UK Government's official committed number so not "touted" and not "utterly untrue".
Click to expand...

Please tell me you don't think its still credible...look at the Combat Air Budget...
 
138 is also quoted for the number of F-35s ordered on the official F-35 website timmimagic, then that is the number that I am going to go with until it is set in stone.
 
That’s nice, but a lot of that is for forsakes and that probably just equals J20 production in the same time frame. That’s why I think the CCA program is critical: the U.S. needs to be producing a lot more platforms that can still present a credible threat, even if they are not cutting edge.
 
Josh_TN said:
hat’s nice, but a lot of that is for forsakes and that probably just equals J20 production in the same time frame.
Click to expand...

What is the J-20 production rate. How has it trended over the last 5-10 years. How do I establish it with high confidence? And if indeed you can verify J-20 production at 200+ a year, why do you then think they won't be able to beat the US CCA production per year by a similar factor to maintain a 2-1 or 3-1 numerical edge over US's annual buy rate? Or worst?
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
What is the J-20 production rate. How has it trended over the last 5-10 years. How do I establish it with high confidence? And if indeed you can verify J-20 production at 200+ a year, why do you then think they won't be able to beat the US CCA production per year by a similar factor to maintain a 2-1 or 3-1 numerical edge over US's annual buy rate? Or worst?
Click to expand...

To the first part, I think most anyone agrees j-20 production is over a hundred. It is hard to verify such numbers, but i doubt anyone on this forum thinks j-20 production is less than a hundred, and I suspect my number is closer.

To your second point: because CCA production would be on top of manned fighter production, and because I there is an obvious potential, if not intent, of producing multiple types from multiple production lines and manufacturers, I think the U.S. can achieve economy of scale with CCA that it cannot with manned aircraft. And moreover that this expansion of airframes do not require an expansion of pilots and the associated time and money costs, or even tactics associated with a manned aircraft.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think most anyone agrees j-20 production is over a hundred. It is hard to verify such numbers
Click to expand...
Sorry, I did not ask what others thought about production numbers but for some specific evidence and the confidence level in that assessment. I assumed given your prior post you actually had a fairly good idea with high degree of confidence level rather than "ask anybody what it is and they will tell you the same".. I have not yet seen GOTUS assessment of it. Nor have any other assessments conclusively established a number with a high degree of confidence. It is not something that is easy to do especially if there are active measures at making this hard But that clearly doesn't stop folks from throwing numbers out there. In the very recent media articles, I have seen 60 / year and 150 or so per year on forums and from so called OSINT experts. Are these accurate? Are these off? Is the true number 300 a year ? Perhaps. I don't know and cannot conclusively establish it. But neither can most even those who speak as if they are confident that they know it.

Josh_TN said:
I there is an obvious potential, if not intent, of producing multiple types from multiple production lines and manufacturers, I think the U.S. can achieve economy of scale with CCA that it cannot with manned aircraft
Click to expand...

You claimed that J-20 is sitting at 220 / year. What's stopping China from also doing multiple production lines of CCA and out producing US by 3 to one? If they are out buying the US 2-3 to one when it comes to fifth gen aircraft they can do even better on CCA. Of course their build and buy rates cannot be substantiated conclusively though I'm sure others here and on social media and other 'forums' have strong opinions.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
True but Aussie politicians might decide otherwise.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article I linked? Aussie politicians made that decision and the current govt was just re-elected. They have at most three years to continue their stated direction. The opposition wanted to acquire the additional 28 aircraft to get to 100 but they were soundly beaten and unlikely to form a winning Govt at the next election.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom