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

NMaude said:
Shouldn't LM be paying penalties to HM's government for late delivery?
Click to expand...
This isn't a commercial transaction. My understanding is that this is not permitted under UK government defence procurement rules, regardless of whether it is LM, JPO, or other. You can only have incentive fees and not penalties.

I wonder how bankrupt Eurofighter would have been for delivering "Eurofighter 2000" many years late? Etc. etc. many other examples

Bankrupting your critical suppliers via punitive fees isn't very sensible.
 
Last edited:
And, at last, a twin seater*:

21123144_web1_web_RAMclr-112625-copilot-WED.jpg


[/Joke]

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/michael-ramirez/cartoon-in-the-cockpit-3587057/
 
I would encourage you to direct your remark to the cartoonist, but yes. I think, as an artist, he might have been more attracted to the graphic perfection of the Norwegian roundels*.

To be fair, anyone could have drawn a similar cartoon depicting an F-15SA with a US pilot in the back (F-15EX). But would have that be fun?

*not a Joke!
 
Last edited:
We (the US) has been handing out F-35s like candy now. I should be receiving my F-35C by the end 2Q2026. I ordered the C model since I am former USN. Plus when I ordered I had a coupon so I get 1 year of free JP-5, now have to just figure out where to park the plane and store the fuel though.
 
Ainen said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Just circling back to the HMS Queen Elizabeth Bedford Array story....It appears to be massively overblown.

Reality appears to be that MoD have decided that the full Bedford Array will be fitted at a later date as right now there is no need for it.

I think the reasons are likely to be.....a mixture or all of the below...
  1. PoW has Bedford Array fitted already so can continue the trials which are nowhere near complete if necessary (last trial campaign off the US East Coast was cancelled due to ship defect). There are lots of trials and training necessary before it became an operational procedure.
  2. There is no need for SRVL at present, UK max weapon load can be recovered with VL. This is unlikely to change significantly before 2035....SRVL may look cool and brings some additional capability, but it also adds risk...SRVL was conceived when carrying Storm Shadow was on the SDD...
  3. The cost that was cancelled was c£350k. There is no way that is the cost for the full Bedford Array installation...and although the MoD are skint...they're not that skint where £300k makes the blindest bit of difference...if it was £300m perhaps...
  4. No military pilots are currently qualified for SRVL (there was 1 of the 2 test pilots from the Navy but he has left the navy for civvy test pilot role). We're not losing a capability...
  5. The current delays in flight training, due to MFTS and delays in F-35 deliveries due to TR-3 etc. mean there is no time available in the near future where SRVL could be trained to the F-35 force (and it would be an extensive effort). All effort will be on expanding the force and bringing 3rd operational squadron online in the early 2030's. This applies even more so if we go ahead with the insanity and buy 12 F-35A that also need to train for a nuclear mission, and the inevitable TR-3/Block IV upgrades that will put even more strain on the numbers of aircraft available for training and ops.
  6. Installing an unnecessary bit of equipment means you have to maintain it, and it will degrade over time...better to store safely and add when actually needed in next yard period.
When I look at the above it appears a perfectly rational decision....the near hysteria that greeted the news wasn't really considering the possible reasons....
 
They have to purchase the Stormbreaker bombs as the SPEAR 3 is years away from getting into service, and anyway with the Stormbreaker you can put eight of those bombs into the bays whereas with the Paveway IV you can only have those on the external hardpoints which is bad for stealthy missions.
 
FighterJock said:
They have to purchase the Stormbreaker bombs as the SPEAR 3 is years away from getting into service, and anyway with the Stormbreaker you can put eight of those bombs into the bays whereas with the Paveway IV you can only have those on the external hardpoints which is bad for stealthy missions.
Click to expand...

SDB2 may be integrated in late 2026...but we have a handful of jets at most that will be capable of using it. All the rest will need to go through the TR-3 and Block IV upgrade...which cannot be completed for the entire fleet before 2035. The UK's tranche 2 aircraft (15 F-35B and 12 F-35A) won't arrive before 2031/2 at the earliest and won't complete deliveries until 2035...

Meanwhile Spear should arrive in 2032....

Buying SDB1 makes sense as a cheap gliding munition....
But SDB2 for a capability a handful of aircraft can use, but simultaneously dealing a blow to your own GW industry is typical MoD insanity...
It would make more practical sense to use the money we're about to spunk on SDB2 and buy a limited number of SDB1 for F-35 and actually fund integration of Spear to Typhoon....Spear could then actually go operational on a platform...and there are other Typhoon operators waiting...
Just like buying JAGM at 3 times the cost of Brimstone for AH-64E this is madness, and a symptom of there being no real plan, contractual capability or responsibility in MoD.
 
TsrJoe said:
Can Meteor be carried by the B ? wondering if clearing a weapon for one variant reads across to the others ?
Click to expand...

Not 100%. Weapons bays are different as are release aerodynamics. Software probably the same.
 
An F-35B multirole fighter, featuring a distinctive paint scheme, was observed at the Japan Air Self-Defense Force base in Nyutabaru. It seems that the design was likely prepared for the upcoming official ceremony celebrating the formation of a new unit.
The 202nd Tactical Fighter Squadron, which was disbanded in 2000, is anticipated to be reactivated as the first F-35B unit in the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.
Source (X fka twitter):
https://twitter.com/x/status/1996558123901817213
View: https://x.com/OSINTWarfare/status/1996558123901817213?t
 
Still no update on the UK F-35A purchase I see GTX, what is going on at Lockheed Martin? It has been common knowledge that the UK is now purchasing the F-35A for nuclear deterrence as well as continuing the purchase of the F-35B.
 
yes but at the exception of the C model. Double the maintenance hours than their Air Force counterparts with generally a higher constrained environment to conduct maintenance at sea. That still look slightly excessive.
 
With the retirement of both the AV-8B Harrier 2+ in USMC service and the A-10C in the USAF I can see the number of F-35s going up higher than that Ozair.
 
bobbymike said:

F-35 fighter now armed with the 'no escape' Mach 4 ramjet Meteor missile​

Click to expand...

'no escape' in a 90s-10s environment? Sure. But there's a reason why both China and the U.S. seriously considered developing ramjet-powered missiles, but ultimately opted for dual-pulse engines instead.​


image0-3.jpg

Modern AAMs fly very parabolic BM-like trajectories. A high-speed low-drag rocket is going to achieve a longer range than a ramjet-powered missile in such a trajectory. Ramjet missiles have a lot of energy but they are too limited in speed. They give too much time to the opposing fighter to realise it is getting attacked, fire back and then u-turn. This is especially critical between stealth aircraft because the engagements are expected to happen within a few dozen kilometres.

The Meteor would be a beast if air combat stayed in the 1990s, but China and the U.S. progressed way beyond that.
 
Last edited:
snne said:

'no escape' in a 90s-10s environment? Sure. But there's a reason why both China and the U.S. seriously considered developing ramjet-powered missiles, but ultimately opted for dual-pulse engines instead.​


View attachment 794562

Modern AAMs fly very parabolic BM-like trajectories. A high-speed low-drag rocket is going to achieve a longer range than a ramjet-powered missile in such a trajectory. Ramjet missiles have a lot of energy but they are too limited in speed. They give too much time to the opposing fighter to realise it is getting attacked, fire back and then u-turn. This is especially critical between stealth aircraft because the engagements are expected to happen within a few dozen kilometres.

The Meteor would be a beast if air combat stayed in the 1990s, but China and the U.S. progressed way beyond that.
Click to expand...
Couldn't the Meteor fly a more direct path to the target though, rather than a parabolic arc, and it would remain propelled longer for manoeuvring. Using stealth CCA's or space-based AMTI to detect the target could also allow manned or non-stealth assets to fire from further away.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
U.S. seriously considered developing ramjet-powered missiles but ultimately opted for dual-pulse engines instead.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that the US has 'ultimately opted for dual-pulse engines' for these applications. We don't know what characteristics the AIM-260's motor possesses and what the ultimate plan is for that family. Ramjet, whether simpler SFRJ or VFDR, have been looked at as growth options for a whole host of applications including medium and long range ground and air launched missiles.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom