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

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...
Physically, yes.

Practically? Not likely. Nobody has been willing to pay for semi-custom work like that. They've been buying A-models instead of buying -Cs and getting the bigger wings and better low-speed handling.
 
They would be wasting their time trying to convert the F-35A to probe and drogue refuelling, better just put the flying boom onto the Voyager tankers instead and keep the drogue system for the F-35Bs.
 
Lockheed offered the probe for the Norwegian Air Force F-35As, stating that space for the retractable probe and plumbing had been left for "future use" - but Norway declined to pay for the integration etc, so their F-35As still require the boom refuelers.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Lockheed offered the probe for the Norwegian Air Force F-35As, stating that space for the retractable probe and plumbing had been left for "future use" - but Norway declined to pay for the integration etc, so their F-35As still require the boom refuelers.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine at the very latest that probe and drogue will be introduced on the F-35A with the models for the Luftwaffe.
 
Interesting EmoBirb the Luftwafe getting the probe and drogue system for the F-35A. Would that mean that it would be possible for the RAF F-35As getting the probe and drogue system fitted as well?
 
FighterJock said:
Interesting EmoBirb the Luftwafe getting the probe and drogue system for the F-35A. Would that mean that it would be possible for the RAF F-35As getting the probe and drogue system fitted as well?
Click to expand...
Anyone buying them can get the probe... someone just has to pay for the actual integration work (getting everything fitted, adjusted, and tested) then everyone who wants it has to pay for the installation before the aircraft are built (retrofitting is likely to cost even more).
 
So that is that myth well and trully busted BlackBat242, I had always thought that the F-35 was boom only after reading about it on a website years ago.
 
eagle said:
The F-35A is boom only at the moment.
It's not going to be the Germans who pay for the probe integration. Their KC-30M (A330 MRTT in German service) tankers of the MRTT (Multinational Multi Role Tanker Transport Unit) are quipped with centre refuelling booms.
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/organisation/luftwaffe/aktuelles/airbus-a330-mrtt-5467258
Click to expand...

Our other tankers however, being KC-130 and A400M are probe and drogue. So are the Eurofighter and Tornado. So it would be quite honestly very odd to not have the same system installed on the F-35.

The main purpose of the F-35 is to be the delivery platform of nukes under the nuclear sharing agreement. To me it seems incredibly weird to have the aircraft that's meant to deliver such ordnance only being able to be refueled by a handful of aircraft we aren't actually own/operate ourselves but share with other states.

1_Training-Betankung-A400M-EF.jpg
 
Has Germany bought probe equipped F-35As? No.
I don't see an issue, as 4 KC-30 tankers are permanently based in Germany and the F-35 special mission is dependent on the US anyway.
The few A400M tankers (10 I think), have the large EF fleet as customers. The C-130s are meant to refuel themselves or helicopters.
 
If the RAF does go for its' upcoming F-35As to be fitted for refuelling probes then that modification is best done on the production line where the F-35 nose-sections are built. Although what about going for an F-35A hybrid where it uses the F-35C nose-section (Which is fitted for a refuelling probe)?
 
Hilarious...
In Switzerland, the purchase of the F-35 turns into an affair of state
The purchase of thirty-six latest-generation American fighter jets will cost much more than the CHF 6 billion announced for 2022. And they could be delivered under-equipped with weapons.

By Serge Enderlin (Geneva, correspondence)

If this were not such a serious matter, it would be laughable. On the one hand, the Swiss government has been suggesting over the last few days that it had been taken for a ride across the Atlantic, and that a ‘fixed price’ had indeed been fixed in the contract initialled on 19 September 2022 for the purchase of thirty-six F-35 fighter jets. Considered to be excessively high-performance for the sole mission of policing the skies that will be entrusted to them in the neutral Alpine country, these aircraft will be delivered progressively to the Swiss Air Force between 2027 and 2030, even though they already equip other European air forces that are members of NATO.

A fixed price, really? In Washington, the Trump administration, which has so far been tight-lipped on the subject, is referring to a ‘misunderstanding’. But on Wednesday 25 June in Bern, the Swiss Defence Minister, Martin Pfister, was forced to admit, after months of rumours, that the acquisition of the American aircraft could cost the taxpayer more than 1 billion Swiss francs (around €1.07 billion) extra, a way of acknowledging that the fixed price was never really fixed except in the minds of those who wanted to impose the aircraft at all costs. In reality, according to some observers, the amount of the overrun could even double.
That was all it took to dramatically re-launch a sensitive issue that has been making waves ever since Bern opted for the Lockheed Martin aircraft rather than the Dassault Rafale - even though the Swiss Air Force pilots preferred it during flight tests.

From the outset, former defence minister Viola Amherd - who resigned to everyone's surprise in March after a series of crises within the armed forces - repeated that the F-35 offered the best value for money and claimed that Switzerland had negotiated and obtained legally binding fixed-price conditions. This statement is all the more strange given that, in the armaments sector, extra production costs are generally billed to the customer. "We buy at a fixed price. This has also been publicly confirmed by the United States, by the American ambassador", she told Parliament in September 2023.

But right from the start too, Pierre-Alain Fridez, a Socialist MP from the canton of Jura and member of the Defence Committee, expressed his doubts. There were several indications that the dice were loaded in favour of the American aircraft during the call for tenders," he said. The criteria on which it was chosen had been twisted so that only this aircraft could meet them. One problem remained: it was much more expensive. That's why this myth of a fixed price was fabricated, to pass through when facing the Rafale . The rules of transparency and procedure have been flouted on numerous occasions, and this is a real affair of state.

Michel Huissoud, former head of the Swiss Federal Audit Office, warned, back in 2022, of the legal impossibility of the notion of a ‘fixed price’ for the F-35. "Our conclusions were solid, but [Minister] Amherd and her entourage brushed aside our remarks. We were accused of playing politics. Perhaps the Swiss negotiators were like children in a toy shop: they hide the price tags, and when it's time to pay, the parents discover the bill."

The F-35 debacle does not stop at cost inflation. According to information published in the Swiss newspaper SonntagsBlick on Sunday 29 June, the contract only provides for rudimentary armament, ‘with which these aircraft are virtually unarmed’, points out Zurich Socialist MP Priska Seiler-Graf, chairwoman of the Swiss parliament's security policy committee. For example, bombs are not included in the order for a third of the aircraft. There are also no Amraam medium-range air-to-air missiles, which will have to be purchased separately. In addition, only one Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missile is planned for each aircraft.

This contrasts with the claims made by the Ministry of Defence, which states on its website that ‘for CHF 6 billion [Swiss francs], Switzerland is obtaining mission-specific equipment, weapons and munitions in addition to the aircraft’. However, equipping all the aircraft with bombs and purchasing long-range missiles will cost several hundred million francs more.

The affair comes at a particular time for Switzerland, at a time when the European countries that are members of NATO have committed themselves to increasing their defence spending to 5% of their gross domestic product, while seeking to increase their autonomy vis-à-vis the United States. As a member of neither the European Union nor NATO, the Swiss Confederation is poorly placed to manage all these contradictions on its own. What's more, it has to face up to the distrust of its public. As elsewhere on the Old Continent, confidence in the United States has eroded. According to a Watson-Demoscope poll on 27 March, 81% of those questioned were opposed to the American fighter jet. And this was even before the deception about its real cost was exposed.

With Parliament set to take up the issue as a matter of urgency on Tuesday 1 July, the government in Bern will have to choose: pay up or reduce the number of aircraft. Giving up the order and running the risk of offending the Trump administration is not an option, at a time when the Swiss side has been multiplying its gestures of deference and high-ranking visits to Washington over the past three months to negotiate the least painful tariffs possible on its own.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The UK's High Court has rejected a case brought by campaigners trying to stop the transfer to Israel of all British-made spare parts for US-produced F-35 fighter jets, saying it didn't have the constitutional authority to intervene.
The government suspended about 30 arms export licences to Israel last September because of a risk of UK-made weapons being used in violations of international law in the Gaza Strip.
But the UK supplies components to a global pool of F-35s which Israel can access. The government had argued it could not pull out of the defence programme without endangering international peace.
Click to expand...
The two judges said the case was not about whether the UK should supply arms and other military equipment to Israel - because the government had decided it should not.
They were being asked to decide on a particular issue: whether the UK "must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration" because of the prospect that some UK-manufactured parts may be supplied to Israel and used in contravention of international law in the conflict in Gaza.
"Under our constitution, that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts," they ruled.
UK industry makes 15% of every F-35, according to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade.
Click to expand...
The court said that Business Minister Jonathan Reynolds was "faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve out or withdrawing from the F-35 programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue".
The government also argued pulling out of the defence programme could undermine US confidence in the UK and Nato.
Click to expand...
The government says it will continue to keep its defence export licensing under review.
"The court has upheld this government's thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter," a spokesman said.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g88rgenlvo.amp
The judges ruled that the UK government’s role in the multinational project is a matter of state policy, not subject to judicial intervention, even amid concerns about the use of the aircraft in Gaza.

Al-Haq argued that British-made parts used in Israel’s F-35 fleet could be linked to breaches of international humanitarian law. But in a joint judgment handed down by Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn, the court found that the case fell firmly within the realm of executive discretion.

“This is not about whether the UK should supply arms to Israel. That decision has been made by the Secretary of State,” the judges wrote. “Rather, this case has been concerned with a much more focused issue… whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration.”
Click to expand...
The F-35 programme includes the United States, Israel and multiple NATO partners. It operates as a joint logistics and manufacturing venture. The UK contributes components into a pooled system from which participating nations, including Israel, draw for aircraft maintenance and operations.

The government’s defence was based on the national and international security consequences of any withdrawal from the programme. “Suspending those licences would disrupt a global supply chain, undermine US confidence in the UK and NATO, and impact international security,” the Department for Business and Trade argued.

The High Court accepted that reasoning, concluding that any decision to withdraw from the F-35 programme is “a matter for the executive… not for the courts.”
Click to expand...
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-court-rejects-bid-to-halt-export-of-f-35-parts-to-israel/
 
Last edited:
I checked both F-35 Topics if this article from June 14 has been shared but I could not find anything

Israel and US modified F-35s to enable Iran attack without refuelling, sources say

The modification is secret, but two US officials speaking to MEE on condition of anonymity confirmed that Israel did not use mid-air refuelling during its attack on Iran or land their warplanes for refuelling at any nearby countries.

Instead, the US officials told MEE that Israel and the US modified the F-35's system to carry additional fuel that did not impact the F-35’s stealth features. The Israeli designation for their version of the F-35s is called the F-35I Adir.

One US official refused to share details on how the F-35 was altered to carry more fuel, but suggested an external feature was added.

The second US official said that Israel attached external drop tanks to the F-35s.

Both officials confirmed that Israel modified their F-35Is with US involvement.
Click to expand...

I am wondering if they may have adopted the Therma F-35 Multi Mission Pod or a similar design for this purpose

1751358938324.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZQQGO-WokQ

It has a stated 221 Gal volume. Not sure if that will be enough though. Could they have also adopted it for the wings?
 
lantinian said:
I checked both F-35 Topics if this article from June 14 has been shared but I could not find anything

Israel and US modified F-35s to enable Iran attack without refuelling, sources say



I am wondering if they may have adopted the Therma F-35 Multi Mission Pod or a similar design for this purpose

View attachment 776397
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZQQGO-WokQ

It has a stated 221 Gal volume. Not sure if that will be enough though. Could they have also adopted it for the wings?
Click to expand...
“Did not impact” the stealth features could be stretched enough to mean “did not impact in protected airspace”.

It wouldn’t surprise me if more standard tanks were used over Syria, then dropped before entering Iranian radar range.
 
Another link worth having here

Modifications to the F-35I Adir: range and electronic warfare
Israel has secured a unique agreement with the United States to extensively modify its version of the F-35, known as the F-35I Adir, in order to meet strict operational requirements linked to its regional military doctrine. One of the main objectives is to ensure direct strike capability against Iran, located approximately 1,500 kilometers away, without the need for in-flight refueling. This autonomy reduces dependence on refueling aircraft, while limiting the risk of prolonged exposure to radar detection.

One of the priorities was to extend autonomy without sacrificing stealth. To achieve this, Israel designed compliant external fuel tanks with low radar signature. Integrated into the fuselage and covered with absorbent materials, they do not significantly alter the aircraft’s radar profile. These tanks enable a range of over 2,200 km in cruise flight, making it possible to fly to Iran and back without refueling. They are attached using pylons designed specifically to preserve the jet’s aerodynamics and electromagnetic signature.
Click to expand...
 
galgot said:
Hilarious...

In Switzerland, the purchase of the F-35 turns into an affair of state
The purchase of thirty-six latest-generation American fighter jets will cost much more than the CHF 6 billion announced for 2022. And they could be delivered under-equipped with weapons.

By Serge Enderlin (Geneva, correspondence)
.....
A fixed price, really? In Washington, the Trump administration, which has so far been tight-lipped on the subject, is referring to a ‘misunderstanding’. But on Wednesday 25 June in Bern, the Swiss Defence Minister, Martin Pfister, was forced to admit, after months of rumours, that the acquisition of the American aircraft could cost the taxpayer more than 1 billion Swiss francs (around €1.07 billion) extra, a way of acknowledging that the fixed price was never really fixed except in the minds of those who wanted to impose the aircraft at all costs. In reality, according to some observers, the amount of the overrun could even double.
That was all it took to dramatically re-launch a sensitive issue that has been making waves ever since Bern opted for the Lockheed Martin aircraft rather than the Dassault Rafale - even though the Swiss Air Force pilots preferred it during flight tests.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Funny... a few years ago, when the Swiss were running an earlier competition to replace their F/A-18s, the candidates were Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen.
Typhoon was dropped first, then the Gripen was finally selected over the Rafale - mostly due to the cost difference allowing for purchase of more Gripens within the planned budget.

Like all major expenditures, Swiss law required a national vote to approve - and the Swiss people voted it down because even Gripen was more expensive than they would accept.

And now the situation is reversed - instead of the least expensive aircraft in the competition, the most expensive was chosen.
And there is anguish and contention over the actual final cost.

You can't make this ^%^$ up!
 
Humm, and if we do integrate mission costs (the total cost to acjieve an objective), what would that price point of the other competitors?
Imagine the IDF ransacking the IRGC with Gripen only... Or not.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Funny... a few years ago, when the Swiss were running an earlier competition to replace their F/A-18s, the candidates were Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen.
Typhoon was dropped first, then the Gripen was finally selected over the Rafale - mostly due to the cost difference allowing for purchase of more Gripens within the planned budget.

Like all major expenditures, Swiss law required a national vote to approve - and the Swiss people voted it down because even Gripen was more expensive than they would accept.

And now the situation is reversed - instead of the least expensive aircraft in the competition, the most expensive was chosen.
And there is anguish and contention over the actual final cost.

You can't make this ^%^$ up!
Click to expand...
The Chocolate Opera is been going on for years.
Lemme check…
  • 2010 First competition between Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen A, SH (?). Rafale best noted by Swiss military. https://www.athena-vostok.com/suisse-grippen-contre-rafalen-le-combat-continue, extract « Les capacités du futur Gripen en ce qui concerne les missions d’offensive antiaérienne, d’exclusion de l’espace aérien ou d’attaque directe sont aussi jugées «moyennes» par les Forces aériennes (5,62). Notamment le rayon d’action, la survavibilité ou la détection, qui restent «faibles». «L’efficacité estimée du Gripen MS21 reste insuffisante [pour accomplir ces missions] avec une bonne probabilité de succès», indique le rapport. L’Eurofighter a été noté 6,54 et le Rafale 7,41. »
  • 2014 (!) selection to buy 22 Gripens for 4.4 bn Swiss Fr, worst noted by Swiss military (!!). Infringing Swiss purchasing regulations, decision makers discard the Military trials and decisions, to buy the cheapest contender. https://www.latribune.fr/entreprise...-rafale-a-ete-ecarte-au-profit-du-gripen.html. Extract : « C’est fait en novembre 2010, deux mois seulement après la reculade du Conseil fédéral. A ce moment précis, tous misent sur le Rafale. Leur déception sera d’autant plus amère, un an plus tard. Le 30 novembre 2011, Ueli Maurer fait savoir que le Conseil fédéral a choisi le Gripen suédois. L’avion le plus mal noté par les Forces aériennes. »
  • 2015 After the scandal being made public, popular vote reject Gripen May 18 2015. https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/8893...liards-pour-de-nouveaux-avions-de-combat.html
  • 2019 competition between SH, Typhoon, Rafale, F-35, (Gripen not selected for this competition due to previous scandal). Buying US jets very unpopular in Switzerland due to Trump Presidency, thus Rafale said to have a good chance.
  • 2021, Biden elected, accuses Switzerland to be a « tax haven »… https://www.newindianexpress.com/wo...ush-back-at-biden-tax-haven-barb-2296899.html, two month later make stop in Switzerland : https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57424507.
  • 2021 F-35 selected because of « fixed price ».
  • 2025 Here we are.
 
Last edited:
BlackBat242 said:
Like all major expenditures, Swiss law required a national vote to approve - and the Swiss people voted it down because even Gripen was more expensive than they would accept
Click to expand...
My talk with a Swiss guy on this indicated that, as a factor of the cost, the populace weren't overly happy with the Gripen selection because it was perceived as a bargain store buy and not the most capable.
BlackBat242 said:
And now the situation is reversed - instead of the least expensive aircraft in the competition, the most expensive was chosen.
And there is anguish and contention over the actual final cost.
Click to expand...
The irony of this situation is the F-35 was the cheapest, by 2 billion francs...

The F-35 bid was some 2 billion Swiss francs (CHF, equalling some $2.16 billion) lower than the other bids, the statement explained. The procurement costs in Lockheed Martin’s bid also fell below the Swiss government’s top line budget for the fighter buy of CHF 6 billion ($6.5 billion) at CHF 5.068 ($5.48 billon).
Click to expand...
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/06/f-35-nabs-6-5b-swiss-deal-lowest-operating-costs/
So even if the cost increases by 1.5 billion francs then the Swiss would still be better off than with either the SH or the Rafale, which may well have had price increases.
 
Ozair said:
My talk with a Swiss guy on this indicated that, as a factor of the cost, the populace weren't overly happy with the Gripen selection because it was perceived as a bargain store buy and not the most capable.

The irony of this situation is the F-35 was the cheapest, by 2 billion francs...


https://breakingdefense.com/2021/06/f-35-nabs-6-5b-swiss-deal-lowest-operating-costs/
So even if the cost increases by 1.5 billion francs then the Swiss would still be better off than with either the SH or the Rafale, which may well have had price increases.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but how do you know the other bidders were not giving costs estimating inevitable increases (as per usual in weapons deals, no "fixed price" trick) AND planes equipped to their full weapon capacity (unlike LM apparently) ? Thus well above the LM estimated costs but still within the Swiss government top line budget.
That's in the paper I posted , from a Swiss MP : "One problem remained: it was much more expensive. That's why this myth of a fixed price was fabricated...".
 
Last edited:
galgot said:
Sorry, but how do you know the other bidders were not giving costs estimating inevitable increases (as per usual in weapons deals, no "fixed price" trick) AND planes equipped to their full weapon capacity (unlike LM apparently) ? Thus well above the LM estimated costs but still within the Swiss government top line budget.
Click to expand...
How do you know the other bidders weren't low balling their costs even more?

Generally it's impossible to tell what's the real situation is in almost all these competitions. Almost no one has access to the real information but that doesn't stop them making things up for whatever point they want to make. e.g. Rafale's supposed massive cost escalation for India's MRCA programme after being selected as lowet bidder provided plenty of ammunition for the Indian opposition parties. But there's little real information in the public domain so who knows.

Denmark's published selection report for F-35 looks much more like "best practice" but still leaves many questions about methodology and numbers used.
 
red admiral said:
How do you know the other bidders weren't low balling their costs even more?

Generally it's impossible to tell what's the real situation is in almost all these competitions. Almost no one has access to the real information but that doesn't stop them making things up for whatever point they want to make. e.g. Rafale's supposed massive cost escalation for India's MRCA programme after being selected as lowet bidder provided plenty of ammunition for the Indian opposition parties. But there's little real information in the public domain so who knows.

Denmark's published selection report for F-35 looks much more like "best practice" but still leaves many questions about methodology and numbers used.
Click to expand...
Sure sure... Yet we still have that "fixed price" and "one sidewinder per plane" story coming out now. But all fine, everyone happy.
I'll move on, and sorry for the bother. Cheers !
 
galgot said:
Sure sure... Yet we still have that "fixed price" and "one sidewinder per plane" story coming out now. But all fine, everyone happy.
Click to expand...
Like I said, people with political agendas

Maybe Swiss government chose not to negotiate for (m)any weapons under any of the contracts? Maybe it's just not true?
 
galgot said:
Sorry, but how do you know the other bidders were not giving costs estimating inevitable increases (as per usual in weapons deals, no "fixed price" trick) AND planes equipped to their full weapon capacity (unlike LM apparently) ? Thus well above the LM estimated costs but still within the Swiss government top line budget.
Click to expand...
The whole point of an evaluation team is to evaluate against a set of requirements. Each vendor would have had to submit to each requirement statement including with their assumptions and the team would have evaluated against each submission, scoring them. We know the Swiss did this as they stated the score delta between the submissions.

Invariably there would be differences in submissions. Likely LM and Boeing had an advantage because the airframes were replacing the classic Hornet meaning the weapons are already compatible. Clearly Rafale did not have that. Rafale would have had advantages in other areas.
galgot said:
That's in the paper I posted , from a Swiss MP : "One problem remained: it was much more expensive. That's why this myth of a fixed price was fabricated...".
Click to expand...
The Swiss evaluation wasn't one single data point. There was the Belgium and the Finnish competitions which arrived at the same conclusion. The advantage the F-35 has is mostly down to capability and volume. It is clearly a more capable aircraft but the volume of production and fleet size makes it cost competitive.

red admiral said:
Like I said, people with political agendas

Maybe Swiss government chose not to negotiate for (m)any weapons under any of the contracts? Maybe it's just not true?
Click to expand...
It would be unlikely that weapons were a specific data point that LM, Boeing or Dassault would have directly bid on. Raytheon makes AMRAAM and Sidewinder. MBDA makes Meteor etc.
 
Interesting reply by DoD:

A Department of Defense (DOD) official has now provided the following statement regarding external fuel tanks for the F-35:

“The DoD will explore [the] feasibility of all forms of external fuel tanks, to include under-wing tanks, for all three variants of the F-35.”
Click to expand...

This come in parallel with the Navy reportedly studying every form of range extending measure, in the air and on deck, operationally.

To me this include, battery powered flat form tractor (to move the jet around w/o wasting a drop of fuel), wingmen flying in tip vortices etc...

The DoD quote is more specific: External tanks in all forms, hence, EFT, CFT, wet wb and whatever they have in mind, like, why not, tracted fuel tank, CCA fuel tank (with a transferring mean yet unknown) ?
 
TomcatViP said:
Interesting reply by DoD:



This come in parallel with the Navy reportedly studying every form of range extending measure, in the air and on deck, operationally.

To me this include, battery powered flat form tractor (to move the jet around w/o wasting a drop of fuel), wingmen flying in tip vortices etc...

The DoD quote is more specific: External tanks in all forms, hence, EFT, CFT, wet wb and whatever they have in mind, like, why not, tracted fuel tank, CCA fuel tank (with a transferring mean yet unknown) ?
Click to expand...
Is this a reaction to the probable kicking of the F/A-XX can a few years down the road?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom