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

timmymagic said:
Believe this is 24 F-35B's on HMS Prince of Wales in the Eastern Med...which will be the most F-35 that have ever gone to sea on 1 vessel before (previous record was 20 F-35B on a USN LPH trialing the Lightning Carrier concept. They're undertaking Exercise Falcon Strike.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1986448163650089135
View: https://x.com/RoyalNavy/status/1986448163650089135

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2...rive-on-hms-prince-of-wales-for-nato-exercise
Click to expand...

Just thinking on this....is this the most fighters/fighter bombers on an RN carrier since the 70's? Or at least equal? I know HMS Hermes had over 20 in the Falklands (16 SHAR and 10 GR.3 were deployed on her in total through the course of the war)...but with losses of SHAR and GR.3 did it ever exceed 24? I know Hermes lost 2 SHAR, were they lost prior to the arrival of the GR.3? I think they were...Ark Royal in the 70's routinely had 12 x F-4 and 14 x Buccaneer onboard for a total of 26 (plus 4-5 Gannet).
 
Regarding potential powered air-to-ground munitions that can be carried internally in the F-35, wasn't there a powered version of JSOW developed? Did that find any customers?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Regarding potential powered air-to-ground munitions that can be carried internally in the F-35, wasn't there a powered version of JSOW developed? Did that find any customers?
Click to expand...

As @GTX noted it was cancelled. Given that it was going to cost >$700k when a JASSM was costing just over $1m it wasn't a huge surprise. Remember it would have needed some integration work as well, and JASSM was getting integrated regardless.
 
timmymagic said:
Just thinking on this....is this the most fighters/fighter bombers on an RN carrier since the 70's? Or at least equal? I know HMS Hermes had over 20 in the Falklands (16 SHAR and 10 GR.3 were deployed on her in total through the course of the war)...but with losses of SHAR and GR.3 did it ever exceed 24? I know Hermes lost 2 SHAR, were they lost prior to the arrival of the GR.3? I think they were...Ark Royal in the 70's routinely had 12 x F-4 and 14 x Buccaneer onboard for a total of 26 (plus 4-5 Gannet).
Click to expand...
Just to note...it's unlikely that Hermes had 24 Harrier variants on deck at anyone time as a number of SHAR had been lost by the time the GR.3 arrived and some of the GR.3 went ashore at HMS Sheafbill (the FOB at San Carlos). 21 in total was the maximum recorded with 9 helos onboard. So for fixed wing, at least, this is the most since 1977/78.
 
Ukstan

"And now there is one more F-35 capability thrown away: one more example of how the government’s “war footing” and “increased defence expenditure” rhetoric is exposed as hollow. On page 146 of the Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2024 to 2025 is a single line, “Rolling Vertical Landing upgrade cancellation”. Amount saved: £309,000. I’ll come back to budgeting later but for now, this very small saving is being achieved by essentially throwing away much bigger sums invested over past years. It is also sacrificing an important capability for our F-35s.This is because a normal landing for the F-35B on one of our carriers involves the jet coming alongside the ship, going into the hover (matching the ship’s speed) and transitioning laterally over the deck before descending vertically to set down. This is, for now, the standard method of landing an F-35B at sea, but it was never intended that the Royal Navy would use it as routine.The plan was that the RN would by now be using the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL), the full name for the line deleted in the accounts.
In an SRVL the jet approaches the ship from astern and lands whilst still doing approximately 40 knots relative to the carrier, so generating lift from its wings as well as its downward-pointing jet exhaust and the engine driven lift fan. The plane then rolls to a stop using its brakes.That speed doesn’t sound like much but add it to whatever speed the ship is doing and the extra lift means that the jet can come in significantly heavier than it can in a hover landing.

Some estimates put the difference as high as 7,000lbs. This matters because if the jet arrives back at the ship too heavy, it has to jettison fuel and weapons until it is light enough to land. Jettisoning fuel is bad enough, as the carrier only has finite amounts of it on board: throwing away expensive weapons into the sea is even worse."..."

What is specifically being scrapped here is the RN’s second “Bedford array” which is the bit of kit no longer being fitted to HMS Queen Elizabeth. This is an array of lights installed to provide improved visual references to the pilot conducting an SRVL. HMS Prince of Wales already has this and SRVL trials have been conducted by test pilots, most recently a couple of years ago.Deciding not to fit out the other carrier, and the cessation even of trials – let alone any move to routine use – for SRVL makes it pretty clear: the plan has been kicked into touch.That’s depressing.
One of the many things that would have been achieved by the 2010 plan to switch our ships to catapult launch and tailhook landing was that the necessary different jets – F-18 Hornets to begin with and F-35C tailhook stealth planes later – would have been much cheaper than F-35B jump jets and able to carry much more fuel and weaponry, and bring that weaponry back to the deck as required.When the decision was taken to revert back to the F-35B jump jets – expensive and with sharply reduced lifting ability on both takeoff and landing – SRVL was supposed to mitigate the obvious operational limitations of hover landings. Now it has been dropped, and yet another major reduction in combat power has been quietly accepted."

G5uQ0e5WgAAezDZ.jpg
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Dump the -B in the sea with them and buy the -C and fit cats whatever it costs, or the regret will continue. Amazing how the decision to 'save' money 20 years ago keeps costing money.
Click to expand...
The RNs QE CVs and their airwing are truly a culmination of questionable compromises lined up with one another. Quite frankly I'd argue less F-35Cs on a compact CATOBAR carrier would provide more benefits than a couple more, more complex, I think more expensive as well, F-35Bs. On the other hand, I don't grasp why America Class LHA and the Italian flat top don't have the same issue. The UK certainly had little luck with their F-35s so far.
 
EmoBirb said:
The RNs QE CVs and their airwing are truly a culmination of questionable compromises lined up with one another. Quite frankly I'd argue less F-35Cs on a compact CATOBAR carrier would provide more benefits than a couple more, more complex, I think more expensive as well, F-35Bs. On the other hand, I don't grasp why America Class LHA and the Italian flat top don't have the same issue. The UK certainly had little luck with their F-35s so far.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, the argument was that STOVL carriers cost slightly less and are a bit cheaper to operate, but the -Bs are more expensive to operate than the -Cs and now you apparently have to drop expensive munitions in the sea as well. Then factor in the smaller bays that can't fit JSM, JSOW or AARGM-ER/SiAW and the inferior performance and range and you've basically compromised capability with zero saving in cost and probably more expensive even.

And the worst part is that they have to wait about 30-40 years before getting another chance to probably make the same mistake. I hope that next time round there isn't even a STOVL option.
 
It's possible that the Bedford array conflicted with requirements for a drone capability, and may come back in a revised form.
 
EmoBirb said:
The RNs QE CVs and their airwing are truly a culmination of questionable compromises lined up with one another. Quite frankly I'd argue less F-35Cs on a compact CATOBAR carrier would provide more benefits than a couple more, more complex, I think more expensive as well, F-35Bs. On the other hand, I don't grasp why America Class LHA and the Italian flat top don't have the same issue. The UK certainly had little luck with their F-35s so far.
Click to expand...
Brits ara absolute world champs in misguided procurment decision , only rivaled by India and one has to ask are Indans so f*cked up due to being ex British colony or is Britain now so fucked up due to having so many colonials in positions of power

RN QE is full sized carrier that had no business to even consider VTOL jet. Cavour is a tiny flat top where it was clear from day one VTOL is the only option with all the compromises that stem from it.

RN QE has to count as some of the biggest procurment blunders ever , two mega sized vtol carriers that for for years even lacked own planes and are mostly in tow by tugs or dry dock undergoing repairs , like if they were realy trying hard to match Kuznetsov .

I guess they will be sailing around with tug escorts for decade or two to come.
 
Forest Green said:
Well yeah, the argument was that STOVL carriers cost slightly less and are a bit cheaper to operate, but the -Bs are more expensive to operate than the -Cs and now you apparently have to drop expensive munitions in the sea as well. Then factor in the smaller bays that can't fit JSM, JSOW or AARGM-ER/SiAW and the inferior performance and range and you've basically compromised capability with zero saving in cost and probably more expensive even.
Click to expand...

Why so negative. None of the weapons heavier than 1000lbs are integrated in the B model anyway, so you don't have to drop them into the drink. Genius. o_O
 
Forest Green said:
Dump the -B in the sea with them and buy the -C and fit cats whatever it costs, or the regret will continue. Amazing how the decision to 'save' money 20 years ago keeps costing money.
Click to expand...
My personal opinion is that for anything beyond "equipping ships below the Essex size/weight threshold" and "fighting under a massive IRBM runway destruction op" turbofan based V/STOL fighter bombers are largely useless.
 
https://interestingengineering.com/military/b61-12-flight-tests-on-f-35
The August campaign included the only B61-12 stockpile flight tests of joint test assemblies on an F-35 aircraft, demonstrating the full end-to-end reliability of the aircraft, its crews, and the weapon system. The Sandia website mentions that this test also achieved a technical first. The initial thermal preconditioning of a joint test assembly for carriage on an F-35 before release.
Click to expand...
“These B61-12 F-35A stockpile flight tests and captive carry flight test were the capstone accomplishment of a tremendous amount of planning and effort by those who were involved across not only Sandia, but many other agencies,” said Sandia’s Jeffrey Boyd, surveillance lead for the B61-12 and B61-13.
Click to expand...
The tests highlight the unique position of the F-35, which stands out among fifth-generation fighters for having both stealth characteristics and nuclear-strike certification. While China’s J-20 and Russia’s Su-57 also feature stealth designs, neither aircraft has received clearance for such operations.
Click to expand...
And Trump is keen to sell F-35s to S.Arabia
 
F-35s for Canada (a good read):

Screenshot 2025-11-18 161738.png

According to sources, the signatories of the letter include Tom Lawson, who was chief of the defence staff of the Canadian Armed Forces from 2012 to 2015.

In an interview with CBC News, he refused to comment on the letter, but raised questions about plans to purchase Gripen fighter jets.

“Unfortunately, regarding the F-35, there just is nothing available in the free world that comes close to the quality of the F-35,” he said.

“The F-35 is so far beyond anything that the Gripen can provide that anything you'd be saving in terms of money by going to a second fleet would be lost, because that fleet would be close to useless in a wartime situation.”
Click to expand...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-canada-sweden-saab-9.6982139
 
Would the Canadians go down that route and purchase the Gripen over the F-35 to get one up on Trump? It would be a big mistake if they did decide to do it.
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7512rkvg7ro

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgmypgrdn4t

15:34​

a1462f87-b5c0-43b2-8a08-2f7c7a8f1bff.jpg.webp
Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the White House
Among the topics that are to be discussed today at the meeting between Trump and the crown prince are the sale of advanced US F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia - a controversial move that has raised eyebrows among some observers.
In the US, some defence officials have expressed concern that sales of the jet - considered the world's most advanced - would give the Saudis access to sensitive stealth technologies, which it could then share with China under a partnership between the two countries.
In Israel, some officials have also noted that F-35 sales to Saudi Arabia could upset Israel's qualitative military edge in the region. At the moment, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that operates the aircraft.
Trump, however, has been adamant that the sale will go through, saying on Monday that "we will be selling F-35 jets" and that the Saudis have been a "great ally".
Click to expand...
 
It had to happen sooner or later, Saudi Arabia has always wanted the F-35 and the Israeli strikes in Iran has accelerated the process.
 
FighterJock said:
It had to happen sooner or later, Saudi Arabia has always wanted the F-35 and the Israeli strikes in Iran has accelerated the process.
Click to expand...
He promised it to the Emiratis too, and we all know how that played out. Just wait and see...

With Israel keeping a tight grip on U.S. MidEast policy, it’ll most definitely come with almost unacceptable conditions, pushing the Saudis to look elsewhere instead.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1990830912431333578
View: https://x.com/FirasMaksad/status/1990830912431333578?s=20
 
Last edited:
The German State Secretary Nils Hilmer had the honor of visiting the Lockheed Martin plant in Dallas today, where he signed the bulkhead of the first German F-35A 'MG-01'. :cool: The first F-35A aircraft for the German Air Force will be stationed at Ebbing Air National Guard Base, where pilots will be retrained on the F-35 together with the Polish Air Force.
Source ( X fka twitter):
https://twitter.com/x/status/1991956619630936481
View: https://x.com/GermanyinUSA/status/1991956619630936481?s=19
Another source:
Code: 
https://x.com/thef35/status/1991869653803524110?s=20
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Would the Canadians go down that route and purchase the Gripen over the F-35 to get one up on Trump? It would be a big mistake if they did decide to do it.
Click to expand...
It isn't over, they're commited to F-35 purchase anyway.
Rather, it's a split fleet, and its anything but stupid. It results in more airframes for less money and better overal capability. Yes, it dilutes F-35 success as a market dominance aircraft, but that's it.

To be frank, i don't think it's very honest when people are at the same time very supportive of F-15EX procurement.
 
Forest Green said:
Dump the -B in the sea with them and buy the -C and fit cats whatever it costs, or the regret will continue. Amazing how the decision to 'save' money 20 years ago keeps costing money.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, shall UK save money on landing assistance systems as is the case with HMS QE, F-35C won't be able to land at all.
After spending another 10-something billion on them, cats and traps, some 10 years later. As is customary in UK.
yeetmahboi said:
My personal opinion is that for anything beyond "equipping ships below the Essex size/weight threshold" and "fighting under a massive IRBM runway destruction op" turbofan based V/STOL fighter bombers are largely useless.
Click to expand...
A horrible handicap of somewhat smaller range and internal bays (for which brits don't have any suitable 2000lb weapons anyway) with exact same sensor suit, LO and ironically even somewhat better performance here and there(oversized wing isn't free). Also, given the UK industrial participation, F-35C even being slightly cheaper is very much debatable.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom