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

Ronny said:
Seem like F-35 will get new LO pylons, unfortunately, they seem to only work with JASSM-ER and AARGM-ER
Click to expand...
I'd guess that there isn't much point to using an LO pylon if it's not also holding an LO store. See also: the allegedly LO pylons used for the bespoke LO AIM-9X variant. We knew JASSM-ER is stealthy, so does this also imply that AARGM-ER is actually stealthy too?
 
NMaude said:
Would that also mean that in combat use the pylon would be jettisoned after its' payload was launched?
Click to expand...
The stealthy outer wing pylon they use on the F-35C for sidewinders is retained rather than discarded after firing, judging by pictures of the empty rails.

I think the original non-LO mid and inner wing pylons (for “beast mode”) are designed to discard after launch in order to quickly restore RCS. New LO pylons would both be more expensive and less impactful to the RCS, so it might make sense to retain them too.
 
JS23 said:
The stealthy outer wing pylon they use on the F-35C for sidewinders is retained rather than discarded after firing, judging by pictures of the empty rails.
Click to expand...

I was referring to combat use not in a live fire exercise.
 
JS23 said:
The stealthy outer wing pylon they use on the F-35C for sidewinders is retained rather than discarded after firing, judging by pictures of the empty rails.

I think the original non-LO mid and inner wing pylons (for “beast mode”) are designed to discard after launch in order to quickly restore RCS. New LO pylons would both be more expensive and less impactful to the RCS, so it might make sense to retain them too.
Click to expand...
Only pylon for fuel tank are designed to be discarded
 
JS23 said:
The stealthy outer wing pylon they use on the F-35C for sidewinders is retained rather than discarded after firing, judging by pictures of the empty rails.

I think the original non-LO mid and inner wing pylons (for “beast mode”) are designed to discard after launch in order to quickly restore RCS. New LO pylons would both be more expensive and less impactful to the RCS, so it might make sense to retain them too.
Click to expand...

All current F-35 pylons are bolted on so can't be jettisoned.
https://marvineng.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/01/F-35-Wing-with-External-Pylons.jpg

Ronny said:
Only pylon for fuel tank are designed to be discarded
Click to expand...

Not what they're doing with the F-22 LO-pylons.
Assuming they are working on a similiar solution for the F-35 is not unreasonable.
 
eagle said:
Not what they're doing with the F-22 LO-pylons.
Assuming they are working on a similiar solution for the F-35 is not unreasonable.
Click to expand...
I meant the pylon for 600 gallons tank on F-22 can be ejected, there are photo of them being ejected actually
 
Thanks to Air & Space Forces we now have unit-level flyaway costs, including GFE, for the latest lots (18-19), in 2026 dollars:

VariantLots 15-17Lots 18-19% Change
F-35A$82.5 million$92.0 million11.52%
F-35B$109 million$121.4 million11.38%
F-35C$102.1 million$110.8 million8.52%

The Lots 18-19 column is in 2026 dollars and comes from the JPO as quoted by A&SF. The lots 15-17 comes from Lockheed Martin's website, according to A&SF, but I'm not sure which year's dollars those are.

My understanding is that the numbers from the recent SAR, which are very different, are in 2012 dollars and include all historic and future lots.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/what-an-f-35-costs-right-now-variants-2026/
 
The Pentagon budget is public, we always had the Fly Away Unit Cost (including GFE) in the year dollars of every aircraft bought by the Pentagon since (at least) 1997.
We can find the exact numbers for things like the cost of the engine or the electronics of a particular aircraft there.

Example for F-35A (USAF budget 2026):
1788534758935.png


The entire USAF budget (from 1997 to today) is here :
https://www.af.mil/Secretariat-of-the-Air-Force/Financial-Management-SAF-FM/

Links for the Army and Navy are on the bottom of the page.

Cheers
 

Attachments

  • 1788534722755.png
    1788534722755.png
    326.6 KB · Views: 23
Last edited by a moderator:
"Carrying more missiles internally could give the F-35 greater magazine depth during high-intensity air combat, allowing the fighter to support more engagement opportunities before rearming or resorting to external weapons carriage. That would be particularly valuable in contested environments where preserving a low-observable configuration and sustaining combat persistence are both critical to survivability and mission effectiveness.
The capability appears on the FY2027 F-35 Modernized Selected Acquisition Report, effective April 21, 2026, under the F-35 Aircraft Subprogram. The document lists “Six in the Bay (SITB)” in development and states that it increases F-35 internal missile carriage from four to six, but it does not identify the missile type or specify whether the modification applies to the F-35A, F-35B, F-35C, or multiple variants."

https://www.armyrecognition.com/new...missiles-under-six-in-the-bay-upgrade-by-2030
 
The fact that sidekick, or any of the other related published stories on this capability are not mentioned in this article is a bit odd. It's like it's the first time the author is hearing about this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
what_is_that said:
The fact that sidekick, or any of the other related published stories on this capability are not mentioned in this article is a bit odd. It's like it's the first time the author is hearing about this.
Click to expand...
I think the author was mainly referencing the "Technologies and Systems Engineering" section in the same MSR posted earlier in the thread. That talks about it using the SitB terminology rather than "Sidekick" because it's actually discussing the software upgrade necessary to recognize the additional rails, and Sidekick technically refers to the double-rail kit hardware.
 
Sintra said:
The Pentagon budget is public,
Click to expand...

I'm quite aware of the existence of the J-book. The numbers there are not always accurate or the most up to date. The lot-specific numbers directly from the JPO are new information not contained in the PB.
 
joshjosh said:
I'm quite aware of the existence of the J-book. The numbers there are not always accurate or the most up to date. The lot-specific numbers directly from the JPO are new information not contained in the PB.
Click to expand...

I have been reading the budget documents and SAR reports for the best part of three decades and the exact opposite seems to be true, the numbers provided by the JPO in the past have contained glaring errors (i can clearly remember when the JPO was using the "recurring Fly Away Unit Cost" at a time/year(s) in wich "non recurring" hardware/software was absolutely essential to build one flyable F-35...) and contains vastly less information, you cant get the cost numbers for, lets say, the TR3 modifications to the fleet last year, or the cost of one F-35B engine in 2016 through the JPO.
For the JSF program a/the "lot" is simply a year, you can get almost any cost information about any given (non secret) program by simply reading the budget documents of the year/lot that you have an interest in.
The costs for the lot 18 and 19 are described in the FY 2027 budget documents that were released in February; amusingly (giving you quite a bit of reason by the way :) ...) it seems that someone did a very, very silly mistake in the F-35A Fly Away Unit Cost for FY 2026 and 2027 (i'm on a phone right now, its hell to get a image from a pdf in this "thing"... but open the doc and go the F-35A bit and you'll see the silly mistake, its quite obvious)
https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/docume...ent Volume I.pdf?ver=4kiKWbFkcqsD4dDrO7-P4g==



Cheers
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking a versatile all-internal CAP load-out might be an AIM-424, 2x AIM-120/260, and 4x CAAM. It could engage AWACs, fighters, and CCAs, at the range-bands you'd expect to encounter them, in the ratios you'd expect to encounter them.
 
JS23 said:
I've been thinking a versatile all-internal CAP load-out might be an AIM-424, 2x AIM-120/260, and 4x CAAM. It could engage AWACs, fighters, and CCAs, at the range-bands you'd expect to encounter them, in the ratios you'd expect to encounter them.
Click to expand...
Agree and when you put that across a flight of aircraft then a very well rounded load out.
 
That is exactly what I was thinking Sferrin, you could have multiple Cudas in the weapons bays fitted with different seeker heads (IR and Radar) and that would mean that there would be no need for any external hardpoints with Sidewinders attached.
 
:cool:
First flight for the first German F-35A 'MG-01' / '35+01".
Germany’s first of many F-35As took to the skies over Texas this morning. A monumental moment for the Luftwaffe and an incredible milestone to witness here in Fort Worth.
Here are some photos and videos from this historic first flight.
Click to expand...
Sources with pictures (X fka Twitter):
https://twitter.com/x/status/2097373704896327999
View: https://x.com/KpAviationPhoto/status/2097373704896327999?s=20

https://twitter.com/x/status/2097416330982953097
View: https://x.com/LMEuropeNews/status/2097416330982953097?s=20

https://twitter.com/x/status/2097693255190077683
View: https://x.com/GermanyinUSA/status/2097693255190077683?s=20
 
Last edited:
helmutkohl said:
nice, I like that they kept the high viz flag, unit logo on the tail, but kinda wish the iron cross could be kept black
Click to expand...
Hello folks and @helmutkohl , the first eight F-35A aircraft for the Luftwaffe will be stationed at Ebbing Air National Guard Base, where pilots, weapons system specialists, and ground crew will undergo training. Other countries such as Singapore and Poland have also conducted pilot and crew training there.
IMHO, that is why the German flag, unit logo 'Taktisches Ausbildungskommando der Luftwaffe USA' , and '35+01' are currently high-visibility for now.
 
when you say for now, you think they will change the flag to low viz later?

I wonder if Belgian and Danish F-35s switched to low viz, as they also had their regular colored flags.
 
The first luftwaffe F-35A flies

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/CpdtuIdjKAI?si=lGXDVenM2Z63nFk5


Tbt attending ILA Berlin Air Show back in June big shout to L-M for their kind hospitality so my photos of their mock up for the third tme running (last two shows, they painted in the Luftwaffe colors) and for the cool patch.

cheers
 

Attachments

  • ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_0.jpg
    ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_0.jpg
    270.6 KB · Views: 288
  • ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_1.jpg
    ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_1.jpg
    160.1 KB · Views: 271
  • ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_2.jpg
    ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_2.jpg
    151.3 KB · Views: 276
  • ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_3.jpg
    ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_3.jpg
    212.2 KB · Views: 283
  • ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_4.jpg
    ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_4.jpg
    225.5 KB · Views: 288
  • ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_5.jpg
    ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a_5.jpg
    107 KB · Views: 270
  • ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a.jpg
    ila_berlin_luftwaffe_f35a.jpg
    256.9 KB · Views: 22
Last edited by a moderator:
So what will happen to the Swiss F-35 purchase now Deltafan? Will they go ahead or abandon it?
 
And if the Swiss abandons the F-35 they will put the Swiss air defence backward by a good number of years as they will have to look for an alternative replacement. I think that the best option would be to continue the purchase.
 
Deltafan said:
There are several articles in the Swiss press, but I only found this one in English (The essential information is there, even if some adjectives are superfluous):

Swiss Oversight Report: There Was Never an F-35 Fixed Price

https://migflug.com/afterburner/fr/swiss-gpk-n-report-f-35-no-fixed-price-2026/
Click to expand...
This is stupid...

Switzerland ordered via FMS. That means they pay the price the US Govt pays plus the admin fees. Can the US Govt guarantee a fixed price for themselves? No of course not, every year until MYP is approved the US Govt will pay a different price. What is fixed is that no one is ripping the Swiss off with the airframe price compared to any other acquirer. They conceivably could have acquired the aircraft via a direct commercial sale with LM, has been done previously with other US fighter aircraft, and could have received a fixed price but it would have paid significantly more per airframe had they done so.

The prices are binding​

Switzerland is procuring the aircraft via “Foreign Military Sales” (FMS) from the US government and at the same conditions that it applies to itself. The US government in turn transacts the procurement through its own contract – visible for the DDPS – with the manufacturer company Lockheed Martin. The prices and contractual conditions are defined bindingly in this contract and are also enforced by means of strict supervision.

In addition, Switzerland and the USA have negotiated a specific clause and signed a separate declaration which establishes the fixed price nature of the agreement.
Click to expand...
https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/swiss-f35-contract.html

What is binding and fixed is the FMS agreement and the costs associated with the FMS purchase, those costs and ratios will not increase.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
So what will happen to the Swiss F-35 purchase now Deltafan? Will they go ahead or abandon it?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, it is too late to restart the competition. The deal will go ahead. Even though the current target is 30 aircraft instead of 36—or even fewer (Switzerland is looking to secure 400 million Swiss francs to proceed with the acquisition at this stage)—I believe the transaction will take place, even if the order has to be topped up later, as other European F-35 customers have done.

Personally, at this point, the only thing that interests me is an explanation of exactly how the competition was conducted and the reasons behind certain claims that have turned out to be false. I find it hard to believe that the law firm selected for the competition was unaware of all the legal and financial aspects of the contract, or that they failed to bring them to the attention of Swiss decision-makers. Only a more in-depth investigation (if one ever takes place) will reveal the facts, whatever the underlying cause—be it incompetence, a lack of professionalism, or something else.
 
There is nothing there than big words and headlines made to attract people attention. We have discussed the very same months if not years ago. All FMS F-35 contracts are the same and guarantee fair and best prices regardless of quantity, even to small orders. Hard to beat that, even via relentless inaccurate reporting.

Should we go on here with something that remains internal affair of Switzerland *? It´s not even aviation. Feel free to discuss this in the Bar section aside Milk and Groceries cost.

* teaching young kids and adults to read with the proper attention to assimilate its content is an universal problem, to be fair
 
Last edited:
Deltafan said:
I find it hard to believe that the law firm selected for the competition was unaware of all the legal and financial aspects of the contract, or that they failed to bring them to the attention of Swiss decision-makers.
Click to expand...

The law firm only examined the competition with the Swiss law in mind. They actually advised the gov. to also include an US law firm to cover the US specifics. The gov. declined...
 
Last edited:
Deltafan said:
As far as I know, it is too late to restart the competition. The deal will go ahead.
Click to expand...

Some bribery here and there, some general "lawyer" with no proper understanding of the subject matter at hand... There can be many reasons. Contracts of that magnitude often include inflation clauses, as there are many external factors that can dramatically impact the price. Just consider the current energy costs which dramatically impacts manufacture, shipping and travel costs. Things like these must not be ignored and aren't entirely predictable, and the longer such a project runs, the more uncertainities are in there. People are then shocked about price increases, they should check their own paycheck and living expanses balance. They'll notice they haven't forseen this or that and may need to adapt here and there. For such complex programs it's even worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom