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

perttime said:
No. Somewhere off Norway.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of an F-35B making an emergency landing in Finland...

To land in Finland it would need to ignore any number of Norwegian or Swedish diversions...
 
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61482

At a Glance
In this report, the Congressional Budget Office analyzes the recent availability, use, and operating and support costs of stealthy F-35 fighter aircraft. Programwide operating and support costs exceeded $5 billion in 2023. The F-35 has three variants: the F-35A, operated by the Air Force; the F-35B, operated by the Marine Corps; and the F-35C, operated primarily by the Navy.

Availability and Use. As F-35s have aged, their availability and use have decreased, CBO finds. The availability and use of F-35s have been lower, in some cases much lower, than those of other fighter aircraft of the same age. For example, the average availability rate of a 7-year-old F-35A has been about the same as that of a 36-year-old F-16C/D and a 17-year-old F-22. The availability of the Navy’s F-35Cs has been closer to that of its earlier fighter aircraft at the same age.

Operating and Support Costs. Per aircraft and per flying hour, operating and support costs of F-35s have stabilized after a period of decline, CBO finds.

F-35As. Operating and support costs per aircraft and per flying hour have been more variable than those of the Air Force’s other fighter aircraft. In recent years, costs of F-35As have been similar to those of F-15Es, below those of F-22s, and above those of F-16C/Ds.
F-35Bs. In 2023, operating and support costs per flying hour fell below those of the Marine Corps’ AV-8B fighter aircraft for the first time.
F-35Cs. Operating and support costs per aircraft and per flying hour generally have been higher than those of the Department of the Navy’s other fighter aircraft.
 

Attachments

  • 61347-fig29_cost-flying-hours-usn-year.png
    61347-fig29_cost-flying-hours-usn-year.png
    21.1 KB · Views: 33
JetBrain said:
F-35As. Operating and support costs per aircraft and per flying hour have been more variable than those of the Air Force’s other fighter aircraft. In recent years, costs of F-35As have been similar to those of F-15Es, below those of F-22s, and above those of F-16C/Ds.
Click to expand...
Sounds a little high, but I'd say that we're never going to get CPFH down to that of the F-16 purely because the Vipers don't have stealth coatings to deal with.


JetBrain said:
F-35Bs. In 2023, operating and support costs per flying hour fell below those of the Marine Corps’ AV-8B fighter aircraft for the first time.
Click to expand...
That's really good! (And also speaks to how big a pain in the ass a Harrier was to keep flying)


JetBrain said:
F-35Cs. Operating and support costs per aircraft and per flying hour generally have been higher than those of the Department of the Navy’s other fighter aircraft.
Click to expand...
Needs expanding. If CPFH is the same amount above Super Bugs as the F-35As CPFH is above F-16s, I think that's about as good as we're going to get.
 
Can the Voyagers be retrofitted with flying booms Chris? I thought that the Voyagers could not be fitted with them because they are primarily fitted for the hose and drogue? Or can they be retro fitted? :confused:
 
The KC2s are only fitted with wing pods, so I'm sure Airbus (despite their, according to some folk, fag packet approach to design) could retrofit booms. Won't be cheap. Otherwise, as the RAF is at the moment for Rivet Joints, these F-35As will be dependent on USAF refueling support.

Or just buy a couple of proper A330 MRTTs. Or just buy it in from the burgeoning tanker-for-hire people. Oh, we already do that!

Either way, should be interesting for tanker fans.

Chris
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Just saw on the BBC News Channel the UK will finally be getting 12 F-35As for the nuclear deterrence role.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c335406gxdvo
Click to expand...
Very good news indeed, it needs F-35As to carry the full suite of F-35 weapons internally anyway. Better than the B all round.

More:

UK to buy ‘at least’ a dozen F-35As, ‘join NATO’s nuclear mission’​

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/uk-to-buy-at-least-a-dozen-f-35as-join-natos-nuclear-mission/
 
Forest Green said:
Very good news indeed, it needs F-35As to carry the full suite of F-35 weapons internally anyway. Better than the B all round.
Click to expand...

The 99.99999% of the time these aren't dropping nuclear bombs they will be used as trainers, so its ability to carry other weapons is wasted.
 
The F-35A is not qualified to carry any UK weapons.
 
Same here EmoBirb, I want the GCAP/Tempest to take over the nuclear role we could arm it with our own nuclear cruise missiles.
 
Forest Green said:
How do you know that?

More on UK F-35A:

https://www.twz.com/air/royal-air-force-goes-nuclear-with-f-35a
Click to expand...

For a start, from the article you just quoted...

At the same time, the Royal Air Force wants its F-35As to serve primarily as training aircraft to support the frontline F-35B units. Since the F-35A is cheaper to operate, the U.K. Ministry of Defense considers it a better option to use for training sorties, including keeping pilots current on the F-35B. The ministry says buying the 12 jets will bring a saving of 25 percent per aircraft over the F-35B.

"Day-to-day, the F-35As will be used in a training role on 207 Squadron, the Operational Conversion Unit (OCU),” the Royal Air Force says. “As the F-35A carries more fuel than the F-35B variant, it can stay airborne for longer, extending the available training time in each sortie for student pilots. As F-35As also require fewer maintenance hours, there will be increased aircraft availability on the OCU. These factors combined will improve pilot training and reduce the amount of time for pilots to reach the frontline squadrons.”
Click to expand...

These are primarily trainers, with a dubious additional nuclear deterrent option, not a frontline Squadron. The RAF are not going to be procuring new weapons for them.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Can the Voyagers be retrofitted with flying booms Chris? I thought that the Voyagers could not be fitted with them because they are primarily fitted for the hose and drogue? Or can they be retro fitted?
Click to expand...

The full MRTT config is a civil STC mod to the A330, so technically yes and they'd have to be recertified - the Voyagers are certed separately to the boomers.

Contractually it might be more problematic as they're not the RAF's aircraft.
 
FighterJock said:
I would have thought that we should have bought at leat 24 F-35As instead of 12 Forest Green but anyway it is a start.
Click to expand...

I think what the UK should do is buy 24 but only have 12 flying at anyone time so that the airframes can be rotated to keep down their collective airframe hours to stretch out their fatigue-life.
 
Hopefully the RAF F-35A comes in this paint scheme

english-electric-lightning-f6-xs899-5-squadron-5-squadron-lightning-EGGMMD.jpg
 
Grey Havoc said:
Which is an odd oversight to say the least.
Click to expand...
Why would it be an oversight? The UK wasn't buying F-35As until about 36 hours ago, so why would Lockheed Martin have wasted company funds certifying weapons it wasn't going to carry?
 
Yellow Palace said:
Why would it be an oversight? The UK wasn't buying F-35As until about 36 hours ago, so why would Lockheed Martin have wasted company funds certifying weapons it wasn't going to carry?
Click to expand...
It would be mighty fine if LM would actually certify what the RAF has already contracted (AKA Spear 3 and Meteor in the B) this side of 2050...
 
Last edited:
New British nuclear strike jet can’t be refuelled by RAF https://share.google/oT6IQk7RyCHhOaX64

Oh, there's plenty of boom jobs going about and I'm sure the RAF will have first dibs on the Canadian, Dutch, French and Spanish A330 MRTTs just lolling around waiting for the call.

I have a vision of A330 MRTT crews sitting about in armchairs, patting dogs, playing chess and reading the paper waiting for the phone to ring from Strike Command or whatever it's called nowadays.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Anything can be done, as proved by the Israelis adding probes to Phantoms. Probably cheaper to add booms to the Voyagers and provide increased flexibility in that force.

Probe and a boom receptacle, internal nuclear weapon, supersonic performance. As my favourite Frenchman would say...



Need to have a look as I have never paid much attention to the F-35 as all the interesting stuff is hidden inside. Which makes them about as interesting as a single-seat bizjet.

Chris
 
NMaude said:
Could these RAF F-35As be modified on the production line so that they can be equipped with the same refuelling probe that the F-35B and F-35C use?
Click to expand...
In principle it seems it can be done. In practice, it would require design change which would involve spending money. Given that part of the justification is that the F-35A is cheaper, making it more expensive again would be counterproductive.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom