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

Slightly off topic…does anyone have a list weapons are certified for the F-35 block 3F? Or Block 4 when that becomes available?
 
Josh_TN said:
Slightly off topic…does anyone have a list weapons are certified for the F-35 block 3F? Or Block 4 when that becomes available?
Click to expand...
1AF33731AAE34498BFB5C2C7165FA574.jpg
 
Now an F-35c with the mirror like coatings. Super cool and not looking like a piece of the stealth coating layer cake either.

www.thedrive.com

F-35 And F-117 Spotted Flying With Mysterious Mirror-Like Skin

The Air Force's F-117 and the Navy's F-35C join the F-22 and the Model 401 as aircraft that have donned the mysterious metallic-looking coating.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
Last edited:
Very interesting that they are applying whatever that coating is to operational types. And as the article notes, this treatment seems to only be given to low RCS aircraft, which hints that it might not greatly reduce the radar signature of the aircraft (or perhaps that's one of the things being tested).
 
Josh_TN said:
Slightly off topic…does anyone have a list weapons are certified for the F-35 block 3F? Or Block 4 when that becomes available?
Click to expand...

There is now a rolling capability given they are working in smaller time intervals to deliver capability as opposed to larger software loads less frequently. I believe the SDB-II begins to get rolled out this summer..
 
Navy is currently NCoDing whether the airframe is on the carrier or not. "The status of the aircraft is currently under investigation as are the factors involved in the mishap," Brenda Way, a spokesperson for the U.S. Pacific Fleet
 
SparkyDinosaur said:
Navy is currently NCoDing whether the airframe is on the carrier or not. "The status of the aircraft is currently under investigation as are the factors involved in the mishap," Brenda Way, a spokesperson for the U.S. Pacific Fleet
Click to expand...
was about to ask this, since the pilot ejected from the plane. Sounds like it went into the sea?
speedy recoveries to the sailors
 
The USN is probably being coy about the F-35 going into the drink because it wants to recover the aircraft first.
 
That's really concerning, it definitely fell off the carrier into the South China Sea. Good thing they have a couple carrier groups out there.

news.usni.org

Crashed F-35C Fell off USS Carl Vinson Flight Deck into South China Sea - USNI News

The F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter that crashed on the deck of aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and injured seven sailors was lost over the edge of the flight deck, U.S. 7th Fleet said early Tuesday in a statement. The Navy said Carl Vinson was able to resume flight operations...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Though a Carrier Strike Group's capabilities don't really compare with those of an old Carrier Battle Group, it has to be said.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
The fact that this F-35C landing mishap caused seven injuries is rather bizarre, and I struggle to think of any likely scenarios other than the arresting cable snapping?
Click to expand...
in terms of injuring 7 deckcrew, yes, but in terms of losing the aircraft, should not be so, as there are multiple cables, and he should be able to go around, so could be something odd, undercarriage collapse, wheel came off and hit the deckcrew? Have to wait for the report.
 
The aircraft might as well have landed with some damages. South China sea is a Hotspot, let's not minor that fact.
 
Bhurki said:
Grey Havoc said:
Though a Carrier Strike Group's capabilities don't really compare with those of an old Carrier Battle Group, it has to be said.
Click to expand...
How so?
I thought the name change from CBG to CSG was largely cosmetic.
Click to expand...
I think he’s referencing the smaller number of aircraft and decrease in relative range compared to some of the older aircraft types like A-6 and F-14 (as well as the removal of dedicated tanker assets).
 
Josh_TN said:
Bhurki said:
Grey Havoc said:
Though a Carrier Strike Group's capabilities don't really compare with those of an old Carrier Battle Group, it has to be said.
Click to expand...
How so?
I thought the name change from CBG to CSG was largely cosmetic.
Click to expand...
I think he’s referencing the smaller number of aircraft and decrease in relative range compared to some of the older aircraft types like A-6 and F-14 (as well as the removal of dedicated tanker assets).
Click to expand...
The capabilities of the current carrier strike group would significantly outstrip that capabilities of its late- Cold War equivalent.
The cumulative effective weight, range, accuracy and survivability of the carrier task forces tomahawks, F-35Cs and F-18E/Fs would more than compensate for the slightly longer reach (but potentially rather limited survivability at that reach) of the 2 A-6 squadrons.
 
That was bound to happen - sooner or later. As it happened to the Tomcat right from 1976: barely one year into service, one went into the "drink" (as you anglophone says - reminds me of Airplane "he has a drinking problem")

And with 3000+ F-35s in the pipeline, it will certainly happen again.
 
paralay said:
The capabilities of the current carrier strike group would significantly outstrip that capability of its late- Cold War equivalent. The cumulative effective weight, range, accuracy and survivability of the carrier task forces tomahawks, F-35Cs and F-18E/Fs would more than compensate for the slightly longer reach (but potentially rather limited survivability at that reach) of the 2 A-6 squadrons.
Click to expand...
Nimitz
57 F/A-18C/D in the hangar of the aircraft carrier Nimitz. A full group of 100 (1,155 tons) of such fighters. In peacetime 80 load 7031 kg, radius 1568 km, efficiency 1.42, refueling 4903 kg + 2 PTB = 7861 kg 11064 t : 7.861 t = 1407 departures
7,031 t * 1568 km * 1.42 = 15655 * 100 pcs . * 1407 departures = 2 202 658 500

Nimitz
42 F/A-18E/F in the hangar of the aircraft carrier Nimitz. Full group of 80 pcs. Normal 62 pcs. In hangar 53 - 68% Load 8051 kg, radius 1582 km, efficiency 2.0, refueling with such a radius 9626 kg (2 PTB)
11064 t : 9.626 t = 1149 sorties
8.051 * 1582 km * 2 * 80 pcs. * 1149 departures = 2 341 478 160 (+6% against group F/A-18C/D)

Gerald Ford
52 F-35C in the hangar of the aircraft carrier Nimitz. Full group 73 pcs. Normal 57 pcs. In hangar 71 - 91% The load is 8165 kg. Radius 1241 km, efficiency 2.3 11064 t : 8,959 t = 1235 departures
8,165 t * 1241 km * 2.3 * 73 pcs. * 1235 departures = 2 101 062 275
Click to expand...
Not to digress too far from the actual topic but those figures are both unrepresentative of any typical or intended US Navy air wings and appear to contain inaccuracies (effective radius of 1st generation Hornet is not actually nearly that close to the Super Hornet as stated above and both are actually shorter range than the F-35C, no idea of the providence of the figures quoted above).
 
Shouldn't locating the plane be fairly easy, given how capable underwater beacons are?

If it's anything like the commercial one linked above, the capabilities listed would help out a lot. South China Sea is nowhere near 20 000 ft deep, so it should work perfectly. And even if the signal detection distance is at its worst, at 2000 yards, that should still be plenty for getting a bearing on the wreckage even just by dipping some sensors a bit underwater.

Given how compact those beacons are, it'd seem ludicrous for USN jets not to have them.
 
totoro said:
Shouldn't locating the plane be fairly easy, given how capable underwater beacons are?

If it's anything like the commercial one linked above, the capabilities listed would help out a lot. South China Sea is nowhere near 20 000 ft deep, so it should work perfectly. And even if the signal detection distance is at its worst, at 2000 yards, that should still be plenty for getting a bearing on the wreckage even just by dipping some sensors a bit underwater.

Given how compact those beacons are, it'd seem ludicrous for USN jets not to have them.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, but I'd guess such a beacon is equally detectable to all parties, so from the perspective of giving an edge to the US search effort, it doesn't make sense.
 
I guess that's a different matter. But are such beacons even configured to be turned on and off on a whim? The ones in commercial airliners come with an embedded trigger, within the beacon itself. Basically, when the trigger gets wet, it activates the battery inside the beacon. Not sure if that system is in any way connected to anything made to override it. I mean, in 99% of the cases the USN would want such a beacon to work automatically. I guess this is one of those very few instances where it might not be in its interest. But is the system even made so nuanced so that it can be turned off for just those 1% of the cases, in advance? That would require some standard operating procedure, to turn off the beacon every time a flight is made near China. But given how those beacons are designed - I'm not sure how much the whole thing would have to differ from commercial ones so it's both very easily turned off but at the same very easily activated on its own when the turn off switch was not flipped.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom