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

​

​

Denmark may be on its way to buy 10 new F-35 fighter jets

https://www.tv2bornholm.dk/bornholm/danmark-kan-vaere-pa-vej-til-at-kobe-10-nye-f-35-kampfly-20b66
Edge translation:
This is what Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen (V) tells TV 2, while he, Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen (M) and Defense Chief Michael Hyldgaard are visiting the United States. Here they have held a meeting with those responsible for the F-35 program.
"I believe, based on what I have talked to people in the F-35 office about, there is a good opportunity to speed up further deliveries of F-35 fighter jets if we make a quick decision," Troels Lund Poulsen told the media. Specifically, the defense minister will buy at least 10 new F-35 fighter jets from the United States in October for an unknown, but very large amount of billions.
Click to expand...
 
https://aviationweek.com/podcasts/c...25&utm_medium=email&utm_rid=CPEN1000320232266
Mahnaz Khan (03:25): Sure. Going back to what Matt said in the F-35 jet, I think that's a perfect example and it's always referred to in policy circles. And the reason is that F-35 jet has about 900 pounds of rare earths. That's about 3% of the weight of that jet. You had a great graphic on LinkedIn showing every single critical mineral in that F-35 jet, and I was looking at it from the lens of what Silverado calls strategic defense critical minerals, which are critical minerals that we are most exposed to from China. So every single part almost of that jet has a strategic defense critical mineral that means besides the tubing and the wiring and the landing gear, we cannot make that F-35 jet. So that's a bit scary. Also, when we're talking about defense applications, when you look at the news, this most recent Israel-Iran conflict, you saw these ballistic missiles flying around. You saw drones, you saw we used what they call a bunker bomb blaster. Those all have rare earths to guide those type of weapons. So without rare earths, we cannot engage in modern warfare, we can't strike our targets and we just can't win.
Click to expand...
 
Deltafan said:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/audit-reveals-uks-f-35-readiness-lags-behind-global-fleet/
Click to expand...
Am I understanding this right, not even 90 flight hours a year ? o_O

The shortfall in airworthy jets is directly affecting pilot training. The MoD originally required 10 hours of flying per pilot per month. Even after reducing this to 7.5 hours to reflect other duties, “this number of flying hours was insufficient to meet requirements for all pilots in post as of March 2024.”
 
The problem of needing to source war materials from an enemy state goes back centuries. The Swedish Vasa needed 1000 oak trees for its construction, 900 of which were sourced from Poland, who the Swedes were at war with at the time.
In the 1960s the titanium required for the SR71 had to be smuggled out of Russia.
The Russians have been sourcing semiconductors and CNC machine tools for decades.
The Chinese near monopoly on some strategic minerals is a tough problem, and was caused mostly because they have been smarter than western governments.
 
NMaude said:
The USAF appears to be wanting to add stealth drop-tanks to the Block 4 F-35 upgrade package, from Sandboxx:

Click to expand...

[I searched previous pages but couldn't find an answer. I apologize if this is a dumb question or has been asked.]

My understanding is that pylons 3 and 9 cannot be jettisoned, and that the F-35 cannot (currently) carry drop tanks at all. What creative solutions could be used to work around the pylon issue?

Regarding the F-35Is, would it be reasonable to presume that the Israeli's didn't produce "stealth" tanks, but rather installed general drop tanks? My impression is that the "stealth" descriptions were added by social media.
 
I am surprised that Lockheed did not try to design conformal fuel tanks for the top of the fuselage as well as the under wing fuel tanks too thus having enough fuel for long missions.
 
Pepin said:
Am I understanding this right, not even 90 flight hours a year ? o_O

The shortfall in airworthy jets is directly affecting pilot training. The MoD originally required 10 hours of flying per pilot per month. Even after reducing this to 7.5 hours to reflect other duties, “this number of flying hours was insufficient to meet requirements for all pilots in post as of March 2024.”
Click to expand...
91 flights hours per UK F-35B in 2024... compared to ~185 hours/yr for USMC F-35Bs. Not good would be an understatement...

Also worrisome is a comment about "an emerging issue with higher corrosion than expected in maritime environments (...), the MoD identified corrosion as an important issue affecting aircraft availability". This is leading to longer maintenance times and requires more spare parts to be corrected.

Edit: And one more head scratching item! They miscalculated the # of aircraft maintenance personnel required and the UK is adding 3.5 flight engineers per aircraft (+30% over the original JPO assumption).

"In December 2024 the MoD delayed the declaration of the Initial Operating Capability of the second frontline squadron because of engineering workforce shortages. Pinch-points for engineering supervisors and managers meant that the squadron was incapable of operating independently of the first frontline squadron. Engineering shortages are partly due to the MoD miscalculating its F-35 engineering requirement. The MoD originally used the assumption, based on advice from the JPO, of 12 engineers per aircraft. However, this did not account for engineers being unavailable because of other requirements such as annual leave, sick days, mandatory training and guard duties. In 2023, the MoD approved the recruitment of 168 additional F-35 engineers, since its workforce growth was lagging 18 months behind the requirement for managing the expected aircraft deliveries. However, it does not expect all these personnel to be in post until 2028."
 
Last edited:
And a good indicator of the confidence level in the F-35's ability to operate in a high threat environment against ground based air defenses... stealth does not mean you can fly high and launch LGBs from short ranges and expect to survive.

"Paveway IV lacks the range to be an effective standoff weapon. This means that UK F-35 aircraft cannot currently perform all missions against ground-based targets at a safe distance. To acquire a more capable interim air-to-surface weapon the UK F-35 programme has requested funding for Small Diameter Bombs."
 
Last edited:
Oh and this nugget:

"Without a rapid solution being found to problems with the engine and its cooling systems, current engines will burn out quicker than planned and need to be replaced sooner, undermining Block 4 benefits."
 
EmoBirb said:
I know it's just a cover, but the F-35 would look really good with such a light colored radome
Click to expand...

The F-35 looks even better with the orange tarp on... :p
To say it politely, the F-35 is the most physically challenged 5th gen aircraft. The J-35 on the other hand...
Of course this has 0 technical relevance. ;)
 
GTX said:
It's pugnacious
Click to expand...
I've grown to appreciate its appearance, but I can't help but imagine how it might look if the designers had a few more feet of length to work with (no length restriction due to LHA/LHD elevator area).

Some people have complained about the looks of stealthy fighter designs in general, but I don't really agree. I just wish they could devise some top layer of LO paint to allow some more interesting color schemes. The three-tone splinter paint scheme some Aggressor F-35s have now is something, but thus far it's only limited to those Aggressor units and its technically just different shades of gray.
 
No wonder French are prancing around claiming they have a better aircraft ,they are definetly more operationaly capable than Brit F35 . Brit fleet is parade grade but it's hard to do parade with untrained pilots that have grand total of flying 7.5hours per month , sounds like them post soviet breakup flying hours VKS had. Well if only they had a twin seat F35 RAF could start offering joyrides like the Russians in the 90's.

Between October 2024 and January 2025, no aircraft were available "to perform any mission" because they were undergoing maintenance, the report said.''

Perhaps the most glaring omission in UK F-35 capability is the absence of a long-range air-to-surface weapon. The current primary strike option, the Paveway IV, laser-guided free-fall bomb lacks the standoff range to survive in contested airspace. Integration of MBDA’s SPEAR-3 missile has been delayed until the early 2030s An interim solution, the Small Diameter Bomb, has been proposed but remains unfunded.Similarly, integration of the Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile has slipped beyond the end of the decade.

Works only as long as no one can shoot back
Sounds like 3rd world airforce :
The MoD attributed the gap in performance to differing maintenance philosophies. “The UK only prepares aircraft that are scheduled to fly,” the report explains, “whereas the US tries to have the maximum possible number of aircraft available.”
 
Last edited:
VishnuOsiris said:
[I searched previous pages but couldn't find an answer. I apologize if this is a dumb question or has been asked.]

My understanding is that pylons 3 and 9 cannot be jettisoned, and that the F-35 cannot (currently) carry drop tanks at all. What creative solutions could be used to work around the pylon issue?

Regarding the F-35Is, would it be reasonable to presume that the Israeli's didn't produce "stealth" tanks, but rather installed general drop tanks? My impression is that the "stealth" descriptions were added by social media.
Click to expand...

None of the pylons can be jettisoned. New jettisonable pylons would have to be developed.

I bet if the Israeli did actually increase the range in any way (instead of just using tankers), they simply carried F-16 600 gal tanks.

FighterJock said:
I am surprised that Lockheed did not try to design conformal fuel tanks for the top of the fuselage as well as the under wing fuel tanks too thus having enough fuel for long missions.
Click to expand...

There is no space to install F-15 or F-16 like CFTs.
On top of the fuselage, they would block the vertical stabilizers.
On the fuselage sides, they would block the landing gear.

An A-4 / F-16 twin seater like spine could work, maybe. Probably not with a large capacity. Underwing fuel tanks are the best option. If someone pays for it, LM would be more than happy to develop them I'm sure. ;)
 
It should've been a design requirement right from the beginning for the F-35 to have jettison able stealth drop-tanks AND stores pylons.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I've grown to appreciate its appearance, but I can't help but imagine how it might look if the designers had a few more feet of length to work with (no length restriction due to LHA/LHD elevator area).
Click to expand...
Something between J-35 and Su-75. In all honesty, probably a whole lot like the J-35 but with one engine.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I've grown to appreciate its appearance, but I can't help but imagine how it might look if the designers had a few more feet of length to work with (no length restriction due to LHA/LHD elevator area).
Click to expand...
As a single engine aircraft with that engine size and thrust required I expect additional length wouldn't have made much of a difference. F-35 still carries more fuel and internal payload than any of its contemporaries and I think that dictated the shape as much as anything else.
Colonial-Marine said:
Some people have complained about the looks of stealthy fighter designs in general, but I don't really agree. I just wish they could devise some top layer of LO paint to allow some more interesting color schemes. The three-tone splinter paint scheme some Aggressor F-35s have now is something, but thus far it's only limited to those Aggressor units and its technically just different shades of gray.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of the female population actually appreciate 50 shades of grey...
 
TomcatViP said:
Senate committee adds 10 extra F-35A to 2026 procurement (bringing the total to a somewhat erroneous 35 if we understand the original base was 24!)
Click to expand...
It's a start but the question will be whether the production line can even deliver them on top of current commitments.
 
TomcatViP said:
I haven't heard about Fort Worth line having reached yet its maximum capacity.
Click to expand...
IMO it is less the line itself and more the supplier base. There might be as many as 190 aircraft delivered this year but that increase is from the aircraft that were parked last year while the US halted deliveries. I remain sceptical that the supplier base can deliver the rate expected now and for the next 3-5 years, especially as we know the global fleet is also struggling for a lot of those same parts.
 
Ozair said:
IMO it is less the line itself and more the supplier base. There might be as many as 190 aircraft delivered this year but that increase is from the aircraft that were parked last year while the US halted deliveries. I remain sceptical that the supplier base can deliver the rate expected now and for the next 3-5 years, especially as we know the global fleet is also struggling for a lot of those same parts.
Click to expand...
Titanium parts, particularly forgings, are a hot item.
 
Ozair said:
It's a start but the question will be whether the production line can even deliver them on top of current commitments.
Click to expand...

The Fort Worth production line runs at 156 aircraft per year, and with a thick order book, any slots not reserved for the US go to the other program partners and FMS customers.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I've grown to appreciate its appearance, but I can't help but imagine how it might look if the designers had a few more feet of length to work with (no length restriction due to LHA/LHD elevator area).

Some people have complained about the looks of stealthy fighter designs in general, but I don't really agree. I just wish they could devise some top layer of LO paint to allow some more interesting color schemes. The three-tone splinter paint scheme some Aggressor F-35s have now is something, but thus far it's only limited to those Aggressor units and its technically just different shades of gray.
Click to expand...
We have had color Ram paint since the F117. Lockheed actually put alot of effort to make that happen so it can better blend in.

Then the air force basicallly said paint it black so it will do so, even tho that been proven multiple times to not work but well Generals are going to general.

Its just not used now cause well...

The Military sees no point in doing camo patterns these days after a few studies that say its not that useful outside of niche situations.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I've grown to appreciate its appearance, but I can't help but imagine how it might look if the designers had a few more feet of length to work with (no length restriction due to LHA/LHD elevator area).

Some people have complained about the looks of stealthy fighter designs in general, but I don't really agree. I just wish they could devise some top layer of LO paint to allow some more interesting color schemes. The three-tone splinter paint scheme some Aggressor F-35s have now is something, but thus far it's only limited to those Aggressor units and its technically just different shades of gray.
Click to expand...

There are colored roundels on some F-35, B-21 is light colored while the B-2 is black, Su-57 is colored in a pallette of blueish-grey tones.

Coloring isn't a technical issue I'd argue, there isn't really much holding anyone back from using anything else but various shades of grey, as indicated by the bright red Danish roundels. But most air forces around the world settled on mono-grey color schemes. With some exceptions like the F-22, J-20 or Su-57 having at least camouflage patterns and different shades.
 
Ozair said:
As a single engine aircraft with that engine size and thrust required I expect additional length wouldn't have made much of a difference. F-35 still carries more fuel and internal payload than any of its contemporaries and I think that dictated the shape as much as anything else.
Click to expand...
True, considering the basic requirements and thrust available the design really couldn't afford to be any heavier while keeping the desired characteristics, but from an aerodynamic standpoint it would have benefitted from a bit more length. So, I just wonder if it would have been possible to slim the design elsewhere in order to "stretch" it? While maintaining the same fuel load and weapons bay capacity.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
So, I just wonder if it would have been possible to slim the design elsewhere in order to "stretch" it? While maintaining the same fuel load and weapons bay capacity.
Click to expand...

Maybe with the F-35A but with the F-35B and F-35C they have to be able to fit onto the lifts of the CVNs so they can't be too long.

Defense Updates has just put out this video concerning the deployment of US F-35s to the Phillipines and how this will be a danger sign for China:


A disturbing development is unfolding for China.The Philippines is rapidly emerging as a key frontline state in the intensifying U.S.-China rivalry in the Indo-Pacific. As part of the strategically crucial first island chain—which includes Taiwan and Japan—Manila is now hosting some of the most advanced U.S. military systems.Just days after the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington docked near the Philippine capital, the U.S. deployed its state-of-the-art F-35 fighter jets to the country for the first time.​
Click to expand...
This move underscores the growing alignment between Washington’s strategic goal of protecting its regional allies and the Philippines’ escalating security concerns in response to China’s increasingly assertive behavior in the South China Sea.​
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why the deployment of F-35 in the Philippines is a danger sign for China?
#defenseupdates #f35 #usvschina
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:09 SPONSORSHIP - NordVPN
01:43 F-35s IN THE PHILIPPINES
03:39 TACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
05:58 CONTINUATION OF SEVERAL PREVIOUS STEPS
06:30 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...

Personally I hope that this will cause a lot of heartburn for the PLA and CCP.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Maybe with the F-35A but with the F-35B and F-35C they have to be able to fit onto the lifts of the CVNs so they can't be too long.
Click to expand...
A carrier elevator is some 50x85ft. And you can hang everything up to the MLGs off the side of the elevator for length.

The length limit was the LHwhatever elevators.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom