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

TomS said:
It's been a fairly constant back and forth since 2021, with some official expression of interest (but not classified level briefs) back then, coupled with an official denial of plans to procure F-35. Then in 2023 another denial, and a third round of denials today. Possibly more related to the shakiness of FCAS/SCAF?
Click to expand...
Still no order to cancel. Just sloppy reporting/nothing stores - like when they reported Portugal was also "cancelling their order"
 
GTX said:
Still no order to cancel. Just sloppy reporting/nothing stores - like when they reported Portugal was also "cancelling their order"
Click to expand...

The Reuters article I can see says nothing about cancelling an order, it says Spain has ruled out buying the F-35.

MADRID, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Spain is no longer considering the option of buying U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets and is choosing between European-made Eurofighter and the so-called Future Combat Air System (FCAS), a defence ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday.
The spokesperson was confirming an earlier report by El Pais newspaper that the government had shelved plans to buy the F-35, which is manufactured by U.S. aerospace giant Lockheed Martin.
Click to expand...
 
TomS said:
The Reuters article I can see says nothing about cancelling an order, it says Spain has ruled out buying the F-35.
Click to expand...
Fair point - perhaps I was reacting to other reporting on the same which specifically said "cancelling order"
 
GTX said:
Still no order to cancel. Just sloppy reporting/nothing stores - like when they reported Portugal was also "cancelling their order"
Click to expand...
If they are waiting the FCAS they will awaiting forever :eek::D:D The FCAS is born dead
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
As far as we know there are no attachment points, or fueling routes for a conformal tank on any F-35 variant. There is some serious engineering, structural reinforcement and testing to be done for a conformal tank to be flight ready...let alone combat capable....and Israel has 1 x F-35I test aircraft.....Let alone the design effort to build a LO conformal tank that actually works in conjunction with an LO airframe (can you imagine the interdependencies around signature management??).

800 gallons of JP- is 5,440 lb.'s.....that's 2,467 kg....2.5 tonnes, and that's not including the tank structure....

You don't just bungee cord that weight on an aircraft....

Put me in the very, very sceptical group for conformal tanks....
Click to expand...
Been thinking about this. Spitballing but the obvious attachment location is the drogue chute attachment point which I believe all aircraft now come equipped with while the fuel could potentially transfer via the boom receptacle? Would cut down on aircraft engineering significantly.

Would mean the aircraft couldn't be AAR in flight as the CFT would cover a portion of the center and rear of the upper fuselage but for Israel that likely isn't a big issue as they have so few tankers anyway.

Still challenges with keeping VLO but perhaps with Iran, the obvious use case, Israel was confident they could accept an airframe with potentially greater RCS.
 
The source cited is a newspaper called maariv, they in turn cite "publications" as their source, if google translate is correct.
They use pics taken from the AIAA 2008-376 paper. The tank on the right is a 426 gal aerodynamicall shaped tank i.e. very close to 425 gal.
Consider me sceptical.
 
eagle said:
The source cited is a newspaper called maariv, they in turn cite "publications" as their source, if google translate is correct.
They use pics taken from the AIAA 2008-376 paper. The tank on the right is a 426 gal aerodynamicall shaped tank i.e. very close to 425 gal.
Consider me sceptical.
Click to expand...
Certainly more to doubt than believe in the article. External pylon mounted drop tanks at least make some sense and possible that Israel could have tested and deployed these, the conformal tanks are a lot harder to believe.
 
Ozair said:
Certainly more to doubt than believe in the article. External pylon mounted drop tanks at least make some sense and possible that Israel could have tested and deployed these, the conformal tanks are a lot harder to believe.
Click to expand...

I could buy some, non-LO, external tank that was discarded with the pylon before entering Iran....that was only cleared for straight and level flight...

But full LO tanks? Or conformals? Nope....

I'd also be more inclined to believe that the US or even the Saudi's had helped out with some discrete tanking support....
 
dark sidius said:
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/...-weighs-how-lockheed-martin-could-evolve-f-35
Click to expand...
I don't really understand the reasoning of "filling the gap until F-47". There is no gap to be filled, as it's unlikely that even the Chinese aircraft enter service significantly earlier than their American counterpart. Such F-35 derivatives would be stupidly expensive and also take years to mature, even if concepts are currently laying around. So in essence it would be burning money on something that's not really needed. Also, given that LM is still struggling with the upgrades for the current crop of F-35s, the likelihood of them delivering something much more complex and in-depth on time and budget is basically zero. LM with the usual overpromising and underdelivering.

The renders look cool though.
 
Last edited:
True, While I would like to see an updated twin engined F-35 (F-55 as some are calling it) most people are not aware of Lockheeds current problems with updating the software of the base line F-35.
 
There's no fundamentally impactful gap in combat aircrafts that could not be addressed with just building more of the stuff we have now. F-47? Hush it into service, there's your 1/2 AirSup. You need a forward deployed striker with reliable ToT and tanking usage? Ask Israel for some counselling.
20 years and mil-stuff news haven't advanced at all from the big ticket items.
 
It will be interesting to see whether Lockheed Martin do offer Morocco and possibly a Gulf State (Saudi Arabia) a downgraded variant of the F-35 and what advanced technologies are left out of the full fat variant.
 
dark sidius said:
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/...-weighs-how-lockheed-martin-could-evolve-f-35
Click to expand...
“When we did the YF-23, three of the most labor-intensive, painful things were the crew station and canopy, the weapon bay and the landing gear—and especially the landing gear relationship to the weapon bay,” Cummings says. “These things are all done on the F-35. Compared to those three things, implementation of new wings and other components are much less complex. So the F-35 has a running start.”

A noteworthy point he made.
 
Guy on DLR was going on about a cranked arrow F-35 built for European theatre years ago.

Imagine if you will, a world where Lockheed Martin offer up a cranked-arrow F-35 for the Euro-centric theater of operations.


They wouldn't do such a thing, would they?


Would they?...
Click to expand...

Nope - Full on cranked-arrow on a stretched fuselage. Looks minty crisp too.

Or so I am told.
Click to expand...

Miss his posts, time will tell.
 
EmoBirb said:
I don't really understand the reasoning of "filling the gap until F-47".
Click to expand...
Instead of getting a new F-35 variant right now, I'd rather see upgraded radar and sensors for the current fleet + the F-22. Given the scope of a redevelopment like this, any redevelopment of the F-35 is at best going to enter service like.... 3 - 4 years before F-47? That's not an interim solution to anything. For your air superiority needs, Having a beefed up F-22 and F-35s with better radars should hold out long enough for the F-47 to enter service.

That's not to say there's no value in upgrading the F-35 though. Having a transformative upgrade with more weapons, sensors, stealth or upgrades that allow current ones to be retrofitted would help enormously as a force multiplier. IMO the only way for this transformative upgrade to be palatable to anyone is if currently built F-35s can be retrofitted with these upgrades. Otherwise that's not an upgrade, that's a new plane.
 
Reddington777 said:
Instead of getting a new F-35 variant right now, I'd rather see upgraded radar and sensors for the current fleet + the F-22. Given the scope of a redevelopment like this, any redevelopment of the F-35 is at best going to enter service like.... 3 - 4 years before F-47? That's not an interim solution to anything. For your air superiority needs, Having a beefed up F-22 and F-35s with better radars should hold out long enough for the F-47 to enter service.
Click to expand...
That is already happening though for F-35, the Blk 4 upgrade does that for quite a few of the systems and will, eventually, also include engine upgrades. Most delivered jets can be upgraded to Blk 4 and TR3.

Reddington777 said:
That's not to say there's no value in upgrading the F-35 though. Having a transformative upgrade with more weapons, sensors, stealth or upgrades that allow current ones to be retrofitted would help enormously as a force multiplier.
Click to expand...
I expect LM are targeting this as a means to prevent a follow on aircraft. Essentially offer enough advancement of the F-35 that the USAF will not pursue a replacement and just continue to take F-35 in upgraded forms at least to the current ~2043 final delivery and from LM's perspective hopefully beyond.

Reddington777 said:
IMO the only way for this transformative upgrade to be palatable to anyone is if currently built F-35s can be retrofitted with these upgrades. Otherwise that's not an upgrade, that's a new plane.
Click to expand...
Just as the USAF replaced early build F-16s with later builds they could do the same thing with later build F-35s where it is a poor investment to upgrade an existing jet that already has 5000 hours on it compared to buying a new aircraft.
 
Ozair said:
follow on aircraft
Click to expand...
The follow on aircraft are already here. F-47 and F/A-XX are going to be the mainstay fighters in the future. I don't see there being another manned followup to the F-35. What I meant to say was that, outside of blk4 upgrades, anything else needs to be able to retrofit existing fighters until the 6th gens enter service in the near term. That's where the money is best spent and that's the best "bridge" that would feasibly make sense. Having non retrofittable upgrades - like a new planform - just doesn't make any sense to pursue as it won't enter service in time nor will it be the most effective spend of money.
Ozair said:
Just as the USAF replaced early build F-16s with later builds they could do the same thing with later build F-35s where it is a poor investment to upgrade an existing jet that already has 5000 hours on it compared to buying a new aircraft.
Click to expand...
That's fair. I think there's still value in a jet that requires some affordable changes to production in exchange for much better performance like adding a second engine and expanding weapons load - but only when the 6th gens start rolling off the production line should that ever be considered. F-47 and F/A-XX, shipbuilding, A2A missiles, UCAS, sentinel- those are the foundational things that should be taking priority. Beyond that, an F-35 makeover is a "would like to have" for a good force multiplier and not a must have.

Besides in 5 or 10 years, where would a hypothetical F35 upgrade sit in terms of cost vs capability? If you want something more capable, theres already F47/ F/A-XX. If you want something less capable and more amassable, you have any number of CCAs and UCAS of different sizes and capabilities. Hell by then there may even be CCAs that are equally as capable. Then it'll also have to compete with the fact that the F47 is airforce IP. The only way this would work is if LM can implement all these changes while still being cost competitive, capable enough, more flexible than it currently is and easy enough to upgrade at a rate faster than its current. Thats a hard balance to strike in what will be an increasingly crowded market.

In the European/Asian markets it'll have to contend with GCAP and even FCAS whenever the French decide to stop being French again. If it strikes the right tone, I can see it being a useful asset but... thats going to be tough both technologically and sales pitch wise.
 
Last edited:
I could see LockMart messing around with an F-35XL development program. Yes, it'd be a lot more work; the F-16XL was simple because they were merely adding a few fuselage frames with no care for stealth, while the "F-35XL" is reshaping an LO outer mold line.

If the USAF was desperate for longer range in a hurry, the obvious easy answer is -C wings on their plane.

I do not believe that LockMart would try to make an F-35XL a twin-engine, however. Just because that's an even bigger redesign than a mere fuselage stretch.
 
Reddington777 said:
The follow on aircraft are already here. F-47 and F/A-XX are going to be the mainstay fighters in the future. I don't see there being another manned followup to the F-35.
Click to expand...
Disagree. F-47 is never going to be procured in the numbers of the F-35. The projections have always been in the 300s or so. Obviously a war may influence that.

What LM would be worried about is the concept that was studied during the NGAD pause partially discussed here,
https://www.twz.com/air/air-force-f...-its-heavy-fighter-program-may-be-in-jeopardy
If F-47 and the whole digital engineering/century goes well could easily see a follow on lightweight fighter that would be expected to replace those airframes not replaced to date by the F-35 incorporating now more mature 6th gen tech.

Above is obviously dependant on progress with CCAs.

Reddington777 said:
That's fair. I think there's still value in a jet that requires some affordable changes to production in exchange for much better performance like adding a second engine and expanding weapons load - but only when the 6th gens start rolling off the production line should that ever be considered. F-47 and F/A-XX, shipbuilding, A2A missiles, UCAS, sentinel- those are the foundational things that should be taking priority. Beyond that, an F-35 makeover is a "would like to have" for a good force multiplier and not a must have.
Click to expand...
Lets not count the F-47/F/A-XX chickens before they hatch but if LM is footing the bill on initial F-35 work then let them go ahead and see what they can do.
Reddington777 said:
Besides in 5 or 10 years, where would a hypothetical F35 upgrade sit in terms of cost vs capability? If you want something more capable, theres already F47/ F/A-XX. If you want something less capable and more amassable, you have any number of CCAs and UCAS of different sizes and capabilities. Hell by then there may even be CCAs that are equally as capable. Then it'll also have to compete with the fact that the F47 is airforce IP. The only way this would work is if LM can implement all these changes while still being cost competitive, capable enough, more flexible than it currently is and easy enough to upgrade at a rate faster than its current. Thats a hard balance to strike in what will be an increasingly crowded market.
Click to expand...
My expectation is CCAs that are as capable as a manned fighter are going to cost close to a manned fighter, at least until there is significant scale involved.
Reddington777 said:
In the European/Asian markets it'll have to contend with GCAP and even FCAS whenever the French decide to stop being French again. If it strikes the right tone, I can see it being a useful asset but... thats going to be tough both technologically and sales pitch wise.
Click to expand...
Scale is the key. If the USAF keeps buying F-35 and there are significant mods then production volume will keep the cost down and the platform affordable.
 
Ozair said:
Disagree. F-47 is never going to be procured in the numbers of the F-35. The projections have always been in the 300s or so. Obviously a war may influence that.
Click to expand...
Not just the F47 coming into service. There's F/A-XX and a whole host of CCAs and UAVs that are coming into service, many of which are taking over roles from F35s. We also dont know what the airforce plans on doing with the F47. Like I said before, when you own the IP, its easier to iterate on it and re-compete components as the air force intends on doing. 300 could be the total force. It could also be the initial buy with whatever forthcoming iterations receiving more orders. Things are less clear with F/A-XX but its not going to be anywhere less than F47s either. Together with all the unmanned options, the NGAD system of systems is the "next thing" and it was designed to be the "next thing".

Depending on unmanned technology and how well the 6th gen programs proceed, if things really get rough then I wont rule out the need for a somewhat lower end fighter that Lockheed could compete in, but no matter which way you cut it, its ultimately whether or not Lockheed can really deliver on "80% of NGAD capability for n% of the price". And whether its market, technology, or contractual things, it either just doesnt make sense, doesnt seem possible or is at a disadvantage for LM's idea.
Ozair said:
Lets not count the F-47/F/A-XX chickens before they hatch
Click to expand...
I mean its not like theres a choice here. Those programs have to and are delivering no matter what. They arent ever being cancelled unless suddenly either china collapses or aircraft is made obsolete overnight. Pouring money into a system you know you arent relying on when you've got so much backlogged and critical modernization to do is just unwise. But I agree - let LM cook. If they can make F35s better for the right price then... why not?
Ozair said:
Scale is the key. If the USAF keeps buying F-35 and there are significant mods then production volume will keep the cost down and the platform affordable.
Click to expand...
The economy of scale that allowed the vanilla F35 to be cheaper came from the fact that so many orders came from foreign sales. If 1. Your allies may not be buying as they want to build their own fighters, 2. If you are adding more exquisite systems then it wont be at that same price point anymore even with economy of scale. Contrast that with the sheer amount of unmanned and manned systems covering essentially the whole spectrum of mass vs capability and it still might end up being a hard sell. Given LM's history thus far, unless it gives up that IP to the military, I still dont see it being as flexible and attractive.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I could see LockMart messing around with an F-35XL development program. Yes, it'd be a lot more work; the F-16XL was simple because they were merely adding a few fuselage frames with no care for stealth, while the "F-35XL" is reshaping an LO outer mold line.

If the USAF was desperate for longer range in a hurry, the obvious easy answer is -C wings on their plane.

I do not believe that LockMart would try to make an F-35XL a twin-engine, however. Just because that's an even bigger redesign than a mere fuselage stretch.
Click to expand...

I think an "F-35XL" has the most potential as well, more fuel, more range, and it further emphasizes it's role as a strike fighter. I don't see it as a gap filler but more so as the successor to the F-15E
 
Aviation week running an article that is akin to "fantasy fighter jet" (only partly held back by having a designer able to give their own 2 cents on said concepts) is a bit odd.

I suppose it serves an educational purpose for readers who are not sure what future trends of tactical air design features may look like, and apply them backwards onto the open ended idea of a LM proposed "evolved F-35"... but it all seems to jump the shark a bit considering no such project is being pursued by a customer as of yet.
 
NMaude said:
This! And no doubt with the wing-folds deleted and the outer wings having fuel in them too.
Click to expand...
Range but poor acceleration and reduced G. The range difference between the jets isn't enough to warrant that change.
 
Blitzo said:
Aviation week running an article that is akin to "fantasy fighter jet" (only partly held back by having a designer able to give their own 2 cents on said concepts) is a bit odd.

I suppose it serves an educational purpose for readers who are not sure what future trends of tactical air design features may look like, and apply them backwards onto the open ended idea of a LM proposed "evolved F-35"... but it all seems to jump the shark a bit considering no such project is being pursued by a customer as of yet.
Click to expand...
No doubt but if LM are willing to put money in to study it then there should be no complaints.
 
Reddington777 said:
Not just the F47 coming into service. There's F/A-XX and a whole host of CCAs and UAVs that are coming into service, many of which are taking over roles from F35s.
Click to expand...
At the moment we haven't seen any plans for ground attack CCAs. Not saying they won't happen but that is probably 7 to 10 years away based on current progress.
Reddington777 said:
We also dont know what the airforce plans on doing with the F47. Like I said before, when you own the IP, its easier to iterate on it and re-compete components as the air force intends on doing. 300 could be the total force. It could also be the initial buy with whatever forthcoming iterations receiving more orders.
Click to expand...
We already know the current plan for F-47, four tranches of 75 aircraft.

Reddington777 said:
The economy of scale that allowed the vanilla F35 to be cheaper came from the fact that so many orders came from foreign sales.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Even if it had been only US orders the production volume per year would have exceeded the three Eurocanards combined consistently year on year.
Reddington777 said:
1. Your allies may not be buying as they want to build their own fighters,
Click to expand...
The customer base would be broadly the same, US purchases still account for approx 70% of orders.
Reddington777 said:
2. If you are adding more exquisite systems then it wont be at that same price point anymore even with economy of scale.
Click to expand...
Depends on the volume, especially if some of those systems are shared with the F-47. The F-35 is still receiving exquisite systems today and the cost as remained relatively stable.
Reddington777 said:
Contrast that with the sheer amount of unmanned and manned systems covering essentially the whole spectrum of mass vs capability and it still might end up being a hard sell. Given LM's history thus far, unless it gives up that IP to the military, I still dont see it being as flexible and attractive.
Click to expand...
Which comes back to if you want fighter performance at the moment you have to pay fighter prices, whether it is unmanned or manned. I'm not saying it will happen. just that it remains an option.
 
NMaude said:
Why would such a proposed F-35 variant have poor acceleration and reduced G poor performance?
Click to expand...
Stand-off missile platform, similar in operational concept, at least with regards as to the air-to-air / battlefield air interdiction role, to that of the german Medium Range Missile Fighter (Lampyridae) of the 1980s?
 
NMaude said:
Why would such a proposed F-35 variant have poor acceleration and reduced G poor performance?
Click to expand...
The bigger wing increases drag, see the transonic acceleration numbers for the C compared to the A. The C is also a 7.5G jet not a 9G jet and that is likely a factor again of the bigger wing.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom