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

[EwenS]

I don’t understand all the fuss about this recovery operation, as there is nothing new about navies trying to get kit back from ocean depths. A quick google shows recovery operations for F-14s in 1976, 1994 and 2004 lost at sea.

The RN also tries to get its kit back. There are stories of Sea Kings lost at sea and recovered, dating back to 1972.

What has changed over the years is the technology allowing recovery from ever greater depths. Project Azorian back in 1974 attempted the recovery of a Soviet sub from 16,000 feet down. That was an extraordinary feat for its time. Back then the offshore oil industry considered a deep water well was 350ft down in the North Sea. Now we have an offshore oil industry that is drilling oil wells in 11-12,000 feet of water and scientific research drilling in double that depth.

So an aircraft lost overboard that might have been considered irrecoverable back in the 1970s is now considered recoverable and worth recovering, not only to deny its secrets to today’s “enemy” but to find out just what did go wrong and hopefully prevent it happening again.

Operating aircraft at sea inevitably means losing one sooner or later. And with that the acceptance of the cost of recovery. Thankfully it now happens a lot less than it did back in the1950s or 1960s.

 

[Josh_TN]

The F-35 is going to work out as the most expensive plane ever if the F-35 navies have to factor in the cost of a salvage operation every time one of these things goes splash.

This happens periodically to any embarked naval aircraft. The cost of doing business. The Russians lost two MiG-29s on the Kuznetsov's last deployment, and it only operates a dozen.

 

[Archibald]

The F-35 is going to work out as the most expensive plane ever if the F-35 navies have to factor in the cost of a salvage operation every time one of these things goes splash.

Maybe in peacetime they could carry a pod, with inflatable pontoons.

aka 'Water wings'.......

How about a wooden badger ?

 

[Archibald]

The F-35 is going to work out as the most expensive plane ever if the F-35 navies have to factor in the cost of a salvage operation every time one of these things goes splash.

This happens periodically to any embarked naval aircraft. The cost of doing business. The Russians lost two MiG-29s on the Kuznetsov's last deployment, and it only operates a dozen.

The French Navy had a damn expensive and murderous one back in 2009. As if Rafale M weren't scarce and expensive enough (barely 60 built and procured, including the first batch of F1s in storage), TWO of them collided during training, killing one pilot. A very sad and silly accident.

 

[torginus]

The F-35 is going to work out as the most expensive plane ever if the F-35 navies have to factor in the cost of a salvage operation every time one of these things goes splash.

I mean, don't they have to, for all naval aircraft?
And what sensitive tech does the F-35 contain, compared to, say a late block F-15? I refuse to believe the stealth coating is that special.

 

[sferrin]

The F-35 is going to work out as the most expensive plane ever if the F-35 navies have to factor in the cost of a salvage operation every time one of these things goes splash.

You do realize the F-35 isn't the first USN aircraft to be fished out of the water, no? Hell, the third one down, as I recall, went over the edge right in front of a Soviet "trawler".

 

[In_A_Dream]

It's not that aircraft recovery is unprecedented, it's what's at risk with every downed plane and the value adversaries can get from mere pieces of the F-35.

 

[sferrin]

It's not that aircraft recovery is unprecedented, it's what's at risk with every downed plane and the value adversaries can get from mere pieces of the F-35.

Or the F-14.

 

[Sundog]

Well, we just fished the RN F-35B off of the bottom. I'm sure the same group is otw to get the F-35C. I'm also quite sure we know where it is and probably have a sub parked over it or near it. It turns out carrier strike groups have excellent sonar assets and could most likely track where it sank. It's not like it went down "somewhere" five hundred miles from the carrier over yonder.

 

[Josh_TN]

It's not that aircraft recovery is unprecedented, it's what's at risk with every downed plane and the value adversaries can get from mere pieces of the F-35.

Well, we just fished the RN F-35B off of the bottom. I'm sure the same group is otw to get the F-35C. I'm also quite sure we know where it is and probably have a sub parked over it or near it. It turns out carrier strike groups have excellent sonar assets and could most likely track where it sank. It's not like it went down "somewhere" five hundred miles from the carrier over yonder.

I assume the USN has separate recovery assets in the Pacific theater, though I'm not sure what ship types specialize in this activity. I think there are some modified ocean going tugs that can serve as recovery ships.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Or the F-14.

I would not put the F-14 in the same class as the F-35 in terms of technology or value, even respective of the era they are both associated with.

 

[sferrin]

Or the F-14.

I would not put the F-14 in the same class as the F-35 in terms of technology or value, even respective of the era they are both associated with.

The Tomcat that went over had the new AWG-9, and had a Phoenix missile loaded on it. It also had been in service for less time than the F-35 is now and the Soviets didn't have the luxury of being able to download terabytes of data on it or literally BUY some of the same components.

The F-14 Tomcat posed such a serious threat to the Soviets that they once tried to fish one that fell off the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy - The Aviation Geek Club

The F-14 Tomcat posed such a serious threat to the Soviets that they once tried to fish one that fell off the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy

theaviationgeekclub.com

 

[Archibald]

Well you should. The F-35 is quite advanced: VSTOL + stealth + supersonic + AMRAAM into the same airframe remains pretty unique (even if the bird ends a bit bloated with all the conflicting requirements).

The Chinese would certainly don't spit on a F-35 wreck to "polish" all their new stealth aircraft: there is always something new to learn.

In passing, they should have left the TF30s in the drink: not worth the effort recovering them. Rotten engines.

 

[paralay]

,

 

[Helix88]

Well you should. The F-35 is quite advanced: VSTOL + stealth + supersonic + AMRAAM into the same airframe remains pretty unique (even if the bird ends a bit bloated with all the conflicting requirements).

The Chinese would certainly don't spit on a F-35 wreck to "polish" all their new stealth aircraft: there is always something new to learn.

In passing, they should have left the TF30s in the drink: not worth the effort recovering them. Rotten engines.

Absolutely, though the lost F-35C has no VSTOL system.

 

[sferrin]

 

[Josh_TN]

Presumably the USN has plan for this situation, as it is always a risk with any air operations inside the first island chain.

 

[jstar]

The F-35 is going to work out as the most expensive plane ever if the F-35 navies have to factor in the cost of a salvage operation every time one of these things goes splash.

Maybe in peacetime they could carry a pod, with inflatable pontoons.

aka 'Water wings'.......

Everything old is new again......

 

[Hood]

No recovery isn't anything new, but Clive Cussler levels of salvage races every time an F-35 goes splash is going to become tiresome. In fact why bother letting every news agency on earth know you've just dropped one?

 

[Archibald]

No recovery isn't anything new, but Clive Cussler levels of salvage races every time an F-35 goes splash is going to become tiresome. In fact why bother letting every news agency on earth know you've just dropped one?

Because of the TF30s a lot of Tomcats with AWG-9 and some Phoenix still attached went into the drink - so nothing really new under the sun. Sooner or later the press will just didn't care anymore.

 

[aonestudio]

The F-35C's Radar-Absorbent Skin Is Looking Pretty Rough After Months At Sea

F-35Cs have become covered in rusty-looking deposits on their first operational carrier cruise.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Alifzero]

I think those are just accumulated dirt and grime from maintainer walking on F-35 because they need to reach access panel. Which explain why folding part of wing and nose not have same scratch or discoloration.

 

[Fluff]

Looking at the F18 behind, not showing any issues, its almost certainly the iron in the RAM coating.

I'm sure they will now analyse, and either change the composition of the surface treatment, or find a temporary treatment to reduce it.

Of course it may be just a visual defect, RAM performance all fine, so may be left until the aircraft is due a depot visit.

 

[helmutkohl]

Has this happened with the F-35Bs as well? seeing as how they've also been deployed at sea for some time now

 

[stealthflanker]

Looking at the F18 behind, not showing any issues, its almost certainly the iron in the RAM coating.

Yeah, kinda makes methink if the RAM coating is based on Hexaferrite. along with some additives.
The resonant frequency can then be "tuned" by the particle size which is a function of sintering process.

 

[jsport]

‘Billions Of Dollars’ On F-35 Stealth Fighter Jet Upgrade Go Up In Smoke; Pentagon Calls It ‘Immature, Deficient’

A $14 billion software upgrade, which is being installed on US F-35 fighter jets, is “immature, deficient and insufficiently tested,” the Pentagon's testing office said in a report.

eurasiantimes.com

?

 

[Alifzero]

Knowing the tape(?) also got "rusty" look, i don't think its rust.

 

[In_A_Dream]

It's probably much more simpler than we think. The US Navy's contemporary color scheme includes rust, it's no surprise the F-35 is sporting it.

Carl Vinson in 2017

 

[sferrin]

It's probably much more simpler than we think. The US Navy's contemporary color scheme includes rust, it's no surprise the F-35 is sporting it.

Carl Vinson in 2017

View attachment 673266

That happens when you actually go to sea for longer than a photo op.

 

[sferrin]

Looking at the F18 behind, not showing any issues, its almost certainly the iron in the RAM coating.

It's not "iron in the RAM coating". Jesus.

The first question anybody should ask is, "why doesn't the F-35B have the same problem"?

Almost looks like the paint is wearing away and you're seeing the underlying skin:

 

[Hydroman]

The at sea environment is brutal on aircraft. I think the USN should concentrate on durable aero-marine coatings which will hold up to the marine environment and sacrifice some LO. Imagine what the F-35 would look like if it was continuously exposed to the storm and the flight ops we were in during NorPac 1983 (part of our '82-'83 WestPac) when I was aboard CVN-65. We had huge seas, were conducting flight ops in sleet/icing conditions and had plenty of sea water coming over the bow. Hard to have VLO like the USAF for the USN.

 

[sferrin]

The at sea environment is brutal on aircraft. I think the USN should concentrate on durable aero-marine coatings which will hold up to the marine environment and sacrifice some LO.

Is there any evidence to suggest the paint has anything to do with LO?

 

[flateric]

Looking at the F18 behind, not showing any issues, its almost certainly the iron in the RAM coating.

It's not "iron in the RAM coating". Jesus.

The first question anybody should ask is, "why doesn't the F-35B have the same problem"?

Almost looks like the paint is wearing away and you're seeing the underlying skin:

View attachment 673267

'Underlying skin' in the same area has which color on your photo?

 

[sferrin]

Looking at the F18 behind, not showing any issues, its almost certainly the iron in the RAM coating.

It's not "iron in the RAM coating". Jesus.

The first question anybody should ask is, "why doesn't the F-35B have the same problem"?

Almost looks like the paint is wearing away and you're seeing the underlying skin:

View attachment 673267

'Underlying skin' in the same area has which color on your photo?

See post 3015.

 

[jeffb]

Might they be spraying them with some sort of material to protect the coating while at sea and it's residue from that that we're seeing?

 

[In_A_Dream]

Is there any evidence to suggest the paint has anything to do with LO?

Yes, it's one of the reasons the B & C can't fly supersonic, lol.

 

[sferrin]

Is there any evidence to suggest the paint has anything to do with LO?

Yes, it's one of the reasons the B & C can't fly supersonic, lol.

Okay, so that would be "no".

 

[Fluff]

Looking at the F18 behind, not showing any issues, its almost certainly the iron in the RAM coating.

It's not "iron in the RAM coating". Jesus.

The first question anybody should ask is, "why doesn't the F-35B have the same problem"?

Almost looks like the paint is wearing away and you're seeing the underlying skin:

View attachment 673267

'Underlying skin' in the same area has which color on your photo?

See post 3015.

Then it would be grey, not brown……

 

[helmutkohl]

The first question anybody should ask is, "why doesn't the F-35B have the same problem"?

Thats what I posted earlier. I was looking of videos and pics of the 35Bs on the Queen Elizabeth which also just returned from its deployment.. doesn't seem to have the same skin issue. Is there something unique to the 35C in terms of its skin or materials? that the B doesnt have? or does it have to do with anything operational related?

 

[totallyaverage]

Is there any evidence to suggest the paint has anything to do with LO?

Yes, it's one of the reasons the B & C can't fly supersonic, lol.

They can fly supersonic, there is just a peacetime limitation on afterburner usage. Said limitation restricts the number of seconds the two variants can use afterburner, but only in specific segments of the flight envelope. There is some concern about damage to the RAM, but moreso the concern is with damage to the ESM apertures in the horizontal tails.

The problem however has been extremely limited, and at the time it was revealed publicly it had only been recorded to have occured once on each variant.