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

F-35 lot 18 has been awarded this week. $11.8B for 145 aircraft, including 48 A's for the Air Force,16 B's and 5 C's for the Marine Corps, and 14 C's for the Navy. The rest are for non-US customers. I've noticed that the last several lots have been for less than 156 aircraft, which is the current production rate of the aircraft. Lockheed also still has jets in storage waiting for the tech refresh 3 upgrade, and they have said that they can/will deliver more than 156 jets per year to deliver the stored aircraft. So, I'm not sure why lot 18 is for less than even the production rate of new aircraft.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/4015078/
 
uhh the skin Coating F-35C is flake ,that so thin on lower and near EO DAS
 

Attachments

  • 471041539_10231126975910498_7926442465446662617_n.jpg
    471041539_10231126975910498_7926442465446662617_n.jpg
    825.2 KB · Views: 106
  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    102.7 KB · Views: 110
Reasonable? War attrition isn't. 1700 35A won't fly all together at the same time.
Think at yourself transported 50 years ago saying that 100 B-52H is reasonable...
:rolleyes:
 
TomcatViP said:
Reasonable? War attrition isn't. 1700 35A won't fly all together at the same time.
Think at yourself transported 50 years ago saying that 100 B-52H is reasonable...
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And this news comes out when the PLA is accelerating their 5th gen procurement efforts; CAC is already building around 100 J-20 per year and SAC is bulding a facility the size of LM's Fort Worth for J-35/35A/FC-31.

Also, a triple-engined heavy 6th gen with vertical stabs is expected to have it's maiden flight at Chengdu before the end of the year, so all in all the situation seems to become increasingly grim for the USAF as PLAAF is leaping ahead of them for the first time ever.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
https://www.defenseone.com/defense-...lan-if-newer-tech-pans-out-secaf-says/401794/
The much delayed development and painful modernization saga has taken its toll, and frankly the POR figure of 1,763 F-35A has not been updated in literally decades. At this point, I think about 1,000 or so aircraft is reasonable, but any more than that would heavily depend on how emerging technologies mature.
Click to expand...
Time to stop the waste of money on this program, and go on NGAD , with what China show to the world stop losing money and time on the F-35 , budget for NGAD, NGAS and B-21.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
https://www.defenseone.com/defense-...lan-if-newer-tech-pans-out-secaf-says/401794/
The much delayed development and painful modernization saga has taken its toll, and frankly the POR figure of 1,763 F-35A has not been updated in literally decades. At this point, I think about 1,000 or so aircraft is reasonable, but any more than that would heavily depend on how emerging technologies mature.
Click to expand...
The bigger Problem is that they don't seem to do anything about lockheeds lackluster work which is the actual problem.
 
FighterJock said:
I agree with that dark sidius they should stop F-35 production after the next upgrade and put all existing funding onto the NGAD, F/A-XX and B-21.
Click to expand...
And then we have a problem similiar too F-22. A small amount of F-35 (yes probaly then around 700-800 airframes across all services) but still a very large legacy fleet with many years to wait until they get replaced. This sounds like an very stupid idea given that we already feel that the 5 Gen fighter are "inadequate". Instead one should kick lockheeds in the ass so they finnish block 4 as fast as possible and then go trought with the AETP upgrade. While yes one would have now 2 engines given the large amount of F-135 sustainment of existing F-35B should be quite easy.

One a side note whats about F-35B? Do you guys think that they should switch back too Harrier or develop something new with an non existing budget?
 
kqcke for you said:
Instead one should kick lockheeds in the ass so they finnish block 4 as fast as possible
Click to expand...
They are delayed not because they don't want to be on time, they don't because they can't and there are problems yet to overcome.

Program issues is an objective reality, it can't be Dart Vadered overnight.
 
Ainen said:
By sending them to gulag?
Click to expand...
Yes give me 5 minutes and i build them one....

Ainen said:
They are delayed not because they don't want to be on time, they don't because they can't.

Programe issues is an objective reality, it can't be Dart Vadered overnight.
Click to expand...
But they seem to not give it all considering Kendalls statement:
"They’re not delivering what they've been promising, and they're not doing as fast as they could by a wide margin,” Kendall said.

https://www.defenseone.com/defense-...lan-if-newer-tech-pans-out-secaf-says/401794/
 
I would think that the best idea for the US Marine Corp would be to develop a brand new VSTOL fighter all on their own seperate from any other program kqcke for you, though I do wonder where that would leave the RAF/RN? I suppose that they could always join in especially when they developed the advanced Harrier AV-8B and GR-7/9 together.
 
FighterJock said:
I would think that the best idea for the US Marine Corp would be to develop a brand new VSTOL fighter all on their own seperate from any other program kqcke for you, though I do wonder where that would leave the RAF/RN? I suppose that they could always join in especially when they developed the advanced Harrier AV-8B and GR-7/9 together.
Click to expand...
That means they would have to operate for many years to come old Harriers waiting for an jet which is highly likely to be just a margin better than the existing F-35B. To me it sounds like an stupid idea given that budgets are already tight and Harriers wont get any younger (or any other legacy jet)
 
Of all fleets, STOVL one is the most ready one. Why?
 
FighterJock said:
I would think that the best idea for the US Marine Corp would be to develop a brand new VSTOL fighter all on their own seperate from any other program kqcke for you, though I do wonder where that would leave the RAF/RN? I suppose that they could always join in especially when they developed the advanced Harrier AV-8B and GR-7/9 together.
Click to expand...

That is clearly a non starter from a money point of view. Moreover, what shortcomings does the F-35B have in USMC service?

IMO it would behoove the USAF to also adopt the B version, if they intend to fight in the first island chain.
 
The Air Force would probably pay for Marine F-35B's before they buy their own. They aren't organizationally flexible enough to actually take advantage of forward basing, and it just adds another training and supply chain to incorporate. If they had oodles of new money to develop those concepts, then sure, it makes some sense. They don't and, barring major changes, won't.

Not sure the Marine plan of trying to play a shell game with FARBs and a $90m stealth fighter is a great plan anyway, but I do not see the Air Force having an appetite for funding it.
 
kqcke for you said:
And then we have a problem similiar too F-22. A small amount of F-35 (yes probaly then around 700-800 airframes across all services) but still a very large legacy fleet with many years to wait until they get replaced. This sounds like an very stupid idea given that we already feel that the 5 Gen fighter are "inadequate". Instead one should kick lockheeds in the ass so they finnish block 4 as fast as possible and then go trought with the AETP upgrade. While yes one would have now 2 engines given the large amount of F-135 sustainment of existing F-35B should be quite easy.

One a side note whats about F-35B? Do you guys think that they should switch back too Harrier or develop something new with an non existing budget?
Click to expand...

My question would be: are F-35B (or any STOVL combat aircraft for that matter) really necessary, from an american point of view?

Sure it gives more flexibility to a USMC amphibious group, they can theoretically operate from smaller airfield and the LHD can be used as small carriers for sea control but...

But realistically, was a USMC operational landing ever conducted without the umbrella provided by a "true" supercarrier or by the Air Force? What F-35B mission can not be accomplished by a F-35C flying from a carrier or by a F-35A (or another type) flying from ashore?

F-35B can operate from smaller airfield, yes. But they need the same supplies as a F-35C detachment (so far from the Harrier austere needs), maybe more due to their mechanical complexity and more moving parts. Why not use F-35C with portable ski-jump and arresting cable instead if needed?
https://www.twz.com/41401/marines-h...-with-catapults-and-arresting-gear-in-vietnam
As for the Sea Control Ship concept, does it have a real advantage over a couple AEGIS ships?

Or to say it differently: does the F-35B variant really gives any sizeable advantage or useful capability to the US fighting forces that couldn't be obtained by other existing platforms/munitions and that justify the huge cost, money that could be better invested buying said alternative platforms/munitions?
 
Ozair said:
I'm more bullish. The USAF has said for a while they were waiting for Blk 4. I expect once it is in place the USAF yearly buy will increase up to 80 or so budget permitting.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree...but it will depend upon what the new regime wants to do.
 
Thats mainly as a lot of the A's aren't being used (partly due to waiting for upgrades and partly due to engine shortage), the fleet is averaging just 10 hours a month in 2023 (about the same as the F-22 and almost a third of the F-15E average monthly flight hours) dropping from 160 hours a year in 2022. The B's on the other hand are averaging 180 hours a year in 2023, up from 160 in 2022, 50% more flighthours than the A's while the C's are averaging 260 hours a year at the same availability rate as F-18E/F and EA-18G .
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom