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

Josh_TN said:
USAF is not paying for any of that. Plus they are still waiting on full TR3, let alone blk4. Their faith in LM execution is basically zero, along with any chance of a program budget increase. So unless these changes are self funded by LM, none of this is happening.
Click to expand...

Bingo. As realistic as DJT mentions of a twin engine F-35 called F-55.
 
Archibald said:
a twin engine F-35
Click to expand...
If you stretch the definition of an engine to cover the F-35's PTMS because of its auxiliary power function, it's already here.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
You just have to know how to sell it. As it happens, there's this bridge you might be interested in ...
 
Josh_TN said:
USAF is not paying for any of that. Plus they are still waiting on full TR3, let alone blk4. Their faith in LM execution is basically zero, along with any chance of a program budget increase. So unless these changes are self funded by LM, none of this is happening.
Click to expand...

I think it is too early to tell. The USAF is not walking away from the F-35. Even in the worst case the service will still maintain an eventual fleet of about 1,000 - 1,200 F-35A's, and buy the aircraft through probably mid to late 2030s to get there. They will have to figure out what post block 4 path to pursue and it is possible, if not likely, that this would be a service decision as I don't see the JPO lasting much beyond the current block 4 effort. LM on the other hand is looking on a 10-15 year horizon in terms of producing and selling F-35s through all of next decade and into the following one (to export customers if not to US services) where it will begin to compete with 5, 5+ and 6 th generation competitors...Stars there could align on a company funded set of technologies or capabilities added to the program either as retrofit to existing jets or via new built variants.
 
bring_it_on said:
LM on the other hand is looking on a 10-15 year horizon in terms of producing and selling F-35s through all of next decade and into the following one (to export customers if not to US services) where it will begin to compete with 5, 5+ and 6 th generation competitors...Stars there could align on a company funded set of technologies or capabilities added to the program either as retrofit to existing jets or via new built variants.
Click to expand...
Block 70? Or is the Block 60 the more advanced version?
 
Not sure what an unmanned version brings to the table. You would still pay for the full up aircraft.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Changes to the OML?!? Okay, that's MAJOR!

Hopefully they'd stretch the airframe out (FB-22 style) because it doesn't need to fit on LHD elevators. Ideally part of this stretch would be to make the IWBs longer, long enough to stick a couple of SM6s internally.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't something like being able to carry the AGM-158 internally more useful?

Currently the Su-57 is the only stealth fighter hat carries ALCMs internally. Which is a capability that's too useful to pass up on imo.
 
Josh_TN said:
I definitely cannot, unless LM is self funding.
Click to expand...

Well, currently the F-35 is their flagship offering and that won't change in the future.

LRS-B went to Northrop Grumman
NGAD to Boeing
F/A-XX is either Boeing or Northrop Grumman

So I can imagine that Lockheed Martin would be very invested in generating new orders or upgrades for the F-35. And changing the airframe could ensure that such sales or modification contracts are signed. It's like car manufacturers doing facelifts to boost sales without actually bringing an all-new successor model to the market.
 
My inner integra/nsx nerd appreciates the Type R ref, Forest Green

As I've written before in this thread, F-35 isn't going anywhere this decade, or next, or the one after, so a better thought out upgrade roadmap to maintain relevance, seems to make a great deal of sense (LMTs distasteful mixing of car metaphors aside).
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
Wouldn't something like being able to carry the AGM-158 internally more useful?
Click to expand...
AIM-174 is a bit longer, though AGM-158 is wider and a little flatter. SM6 can pack into a 21"x21" box, while AGM-158 is an 18"x25" box.

So if we're stretching, add enough stretch for AIM-174s, and enough bay width/depth for AGM-158s.
 
Right now the AIM-174 appears to be a US Navy, F/A-18 Super Hornet based capability for fleet defense. There is no indication at all that the USAF is even remotely interested in the weapon. The same can be said for non US users. If LM did design the system for air to air weapons that were 'outsized' compared to the AIM-260A, it would do so most likely aligned with what the US Air Force has in mind for long range air to air weaponry. An extended range IWB compliant weapon for 5/6 gen fighters is proabably going to look a lot different than the AIm-174. I like the idea of it being something in the AARGM-ER / SiAW form factor but that's just my opinion and not based on any USAF requirements for such a class of extended range weapons.
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
My inner integra/nsx nerd appreciates the Type R ref, Forest Green

As I've written before in this thread, F-35 isn't going anywhere this decade, or next, or the one after, so a better thought out upgrade roadmap to maintain relevance, seems to make a great deal of sense (LMTs distasteful mixing of car metaphors aside).
Click to expand...
Especially since everybody knows the F-22 is the real Ferrari.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Changes to the OML?!? Okay, that's MAJOR!

Hopefully they'd stretch the airframe out (FB-22 style) because it doesn't need to fit on LHD elevators. Ideally part of this stretch would be to make the IWBs longer, long enough to stick a couple of SM6s internally.
Click to expand...
I think people are reading too much into this, especially the ONL point, perhaps from a wishful thinking POV. Looking at what LM
CEO Jim Taiclet, actually said:

“The kinds of technologies we’re speaking about are coatings, for example, stealth coatings—both infrared and radar coatings—on the aircraft surface,” ... “There have been some adjustments, or learnings I’ll say, on what we call the outer mold line, which is the actual shape of the aircraft itself.”

He further said that this could be done within two to three years - now as anyone has been involved in programs such as this knows, major changes to the design, of the type some have been musing about, do not happen that fast.
 
The Times are reporting that the RAF are considering the F35A to revive the tactical nuclear capacity lost when WE.177 was retired, using B61s provided under the existing NATO Nuclear Sharing agreement. Presumably this will either mean a refurbishment of the WE.177 storage facilities at Marham or dispersed operation using the existing stocks at Lakenheath.

While I’ve never been a fan of a split A/B for the RAF, lest it compromise carrier strike, this would seem a more compelling argument.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/review-fighter-jets-nuclear-weapons-x9vldt0sv
 
Hello folks, when the RAF gets F-35As, maybe they also might retrofit some or buy new Airbus Voyager KC.Mk 3s with a centre refuelling boom to "Voyager KC.Mk 4s". Those new MRTTs could also refuel their C-17s. I know, that the F-35A currently conducts aerial refueling via boom and receptacle method, but the aircraft can be modified for probe-and-drogue refueling. I wonder, which option is technically feasible and especially cheaper. This program called "F-35K" should hopefully have IMHO more success than the F-111K. ;)
 
WatcherZero said:
Trump administration has requested a three year pause in F/A-XX development and has requested Congress remove the $500m currently earmarked to the program. The program is in limbo at the moment.
Click to expand...
So. . .business as usual for the USN. It should be child's play to make the case for the F/A-XX yet the USN fails once again.
 
GTX said:
I think people are reading too much into this, especially the ONL point, perhaps from a wishful thinking POV. Looking at what LM
CEO Jim Taiclet, actually said:

“The kinds of technologies we’re speaking about are coatings, for example, stealth coatings—both infrared and radar coatings—on the aircraft surface,” ... “There have been some adjustments, or learnings I’ll say, on what we call the outer mold line, which is the actual shape of the aircraft itself.”

He further said that this could be done within two to three years - now as anyone has been involved in programs such as this knows, major changes to the design, of the type some have been musing about, do not happen that fast.
Click to expand...
Okay, that's a pretty small change to the OML then, if they're getting it done in a couple of years.

To be a little flippant, sounds like the equivalent of taking a little bondo to smooth out a couple of spots that have turned out to be reflectors.



fightingirish said:
Hello folks, when the RAF gets F-35As, maybe they also might retrofit some or buy new Airbus Voyager KC.Mk 3s with a centre refuelling boom to "Voyager KC.Mk 4s". Those new MRTTs could also refuel their C-17s. I know, that the F-35A currently conducts aerial refueling via boom and receptacle method, but the aircraft can be modified for probe-and-drogue refueling. I wonder, which option is technically feasible and especially cheaper. This program called "F-35K" should hopefully have IMHO more success than the F-111K. ;)
Click to expand...
I mean, there's physically space to install the probe in the F-35A, and even leave the boom receptacle in place. For whatever reason, the Probe and Boom Receptacles are in two different locations...

Canada and IIRC Norway will promptly lose their minds if the UK finally does this, as they've been wanting IFR Probes but couldn't swing the development costs.
 
Sferrin said:
So. . .business as usual for the USN. It should be child's play to make the case for the F/A-XX yet the USN fails once again.
Click to expand...
2 reasons:
1) golden dome needs money
2) the admin, as the last, operates on the belief that war with china will happen before any 6th gen come online and thus prioritizing near term peer weapons - missiles missiles missiles.
 
EmoBirb said:
Wouldn't something like being able to carry the AGM-158 internally more useful?

Currently the Su-57 is the only stealth fighter hat carries ALCMs internally. Which is a capability that's too useful to pass up on imo.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to carry stealth standoff weapon internally if the plane is already stealthy? The more requirements stacked on something the worse it gets at actually performing its mission.
 
Sferrin said:
So. . .business as usual for the USN. It should be child's play to make the case for the F/A-XX yet the USN fails once again.
Click to expand...

Not the case as the Navy was ready to basically announce at the DOD and even WH level back in march apparently. For some reasons these now need to happen at the WH instead of normal program decisions at the DOD acquisition or service level. Setting that aside, the problem most likely stems from the fact that the Navy is confronted with a flattish budget from the Trump administration which is a decline in real terms. So they must 'rebuild the military' and deliver 'peace through strength' but with fewer resources.

The reconciliation dollars were supposed to plus up lackluster FY25 funding from the Biden administration but was spun around by the current administration as boosting FY26 spending (majority if not most of it) so that they could also come out with an even more lackluster FY26 budget (described by GOP members of Congress as Biden's fifth budget) that is even lower than previous administrations' funding levels.

Given all this, the service is probably not in a position to fund this to a reasonable level over the FYDP and beyond. The $500 Million in added reconciliation funding isn't enough to fund the program if the base budget cannot sustain it. It merely makes up for the money cut in FY25 IIRC. On top of that, the administration wants $20+ Bn a year on Golden Dome, and other investments not included in the FY24 or 25 budget plans. Combine added budgetary priorities and lower purchasing power for procurement or RDT&E and you have to make hard choices. Admin probably wants to priorities ship building which was a campaign promise so F/A-XX gets pushed out (or killed off) to do that..Navy's failure here is probably related to it not being able to make the case for gutting the Army's budget further to pay for Navy's priorities. Something even the USAF seems to have failed at going by its FY26 budget allocation being a mere 1.4% increase over Biden levels so effectively a 1.5% cut in purchasing power. One would have hoped that with the 8% cutting exercise some if not most of that Army cut would have found its way into Air Force and Navy budgets but that does not appear to have happened. And since there was no real budget increase..the math doesn't look all that great for either service.

The Trump administration’s proposed budget for 2026 would modestly increase Air Force spending but cut Space Force funds, according to new details published May 30.

Overall, the Department of the Air Force would receive $260.8 billion to fund the Air Force and Space Force next year, an increase of $3.7 billion, or 1.4 percent. That’s roughly half the rate of inflation for 2024, which was 2.9 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
I think it is too early to tell. The USAF is not walking away from the F-35. Even in the worst case the service will still maintain an eventual fleet of about 1,000 - 1,200 F-35A's, and buy the aircraft through probably mid to late 2030s to get there. They will have to figure out what post block 4 path to pursue and it is possible, if not likely, that this would be a service decision as I don't see the JPO lasting much beyond the current block 4 effort.
Click to expand...
The OSE capability also potentially increases USAF flexibility outside of the Blk upgrade schedule so there is certainly scope for more evolution within USAF units.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ose-...hlid=28db360fb88a86259e344c941fe7eea792305d8b
bring_it_on said:
LM on the other hand is looking on a 10-15 year horizon in terms of producing and selling F-35s through all of next decade and into the following one (to export customers if not to US services) where it will begin to compete with 5, 5+ and 6 th generation competitors...Stars there could align on a company funded set of technologies or capabilities added to the program either as retrofit to existing jets or via new built variants.
Click to expand...
I wonder if like the F-16E, and for Boeing the F-15SA, LM might be able to find a partner willing to invest in the airframe for an upgrade. There will be additional competitors as you say but I expect the F-35 will remain cost competitive against most realistic alternative options, especially as the force grows past 2500 aircraft in service globally.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Why would you want to carry stealth standoff weapon internally if the plane is already stealthy? The more requirements stacked on something the worse it gets at actually performing its mission.
Click to expand...
Because of the interactions between the weapons and the airframe.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because of the interactions between the weapons and the airframe.
Click to expand...
And that is just the actual carriage considerations. Using a stealth aircraft to launch the weapon may also allow both weapon and aircraft to reman more survivable and undetected until the later moments of the engagement. Launching stealth weapons is also about the target they are intending to hit as much as the platform carrying the weapon, ie a JASSM might have a lower RCS than a SDB II, and therefore allow greater survivability of the weapon against target defences.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because of the interactions between the weapons and the airframe.
Click to expand...
That's just one point of consideration for a very limited scenario. Effective engagement range of a JASSM is in the order of thousands of kilometres if we're talking about a direct to target strike, no loiter. A F-35 carrying JASSM internally cannot fully exploit that range advantage because by itself it's already undetectable for a couple hundreds of miles after initial penetration, and a couple more scattering points will not change much in the equation (you could also fit the payload within an OML optimized pod). An F-35 carrying JASSM carrying JASSM internally will not be optimized to survived against a SAM capable of erecting a thousand-kilometres AD bubble because it was designed to TACAIR requirements ie interdiction. Design to both (strategic and battlefield ADS) and you end up with a white elephant.
 
The F/A-XX program is practically dead, but the need for a replacement for the Super Hornet has not disappeared.
It would be foolish for LM not to offer an alternative in the new situation. It may not be the mythical F-55, but there is no doubt that LM is trying to get back into the game.
 
I would not say that the F/A-XX program is dead yet Geo we have not heard anything about that situation officially from the US Navy.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Why would you want to carry stealth standoff weapon internally if the plane is already stealthy? The more requirements stacked on something the worse it gets at actually performing its mission.
Click to expand...

Because it allows you to conduct a launch closer to the target, thus reducing reaction time and as a consequence increasing the likelihood of a successful strike.

Subsonic cruise missiles are fairly vulnerable, LO or not. So getting them as close as possible without putting launching aircraft into harms way is an undeniable advantage. And any true multirole aircraft should have this capability, not having it is very narrow minded. Especially given that the natural increase in IWB volume also lends itself to the carrying capacity of other weapons. When you can carry ALCMs internally, you can most likely carry VLRAAMs.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom