F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[SpudmanWP]

Caution Light causes a Cautionary landing in Lubbock Texas

F-35 fighter forced to land in Texas en route to Nevada air base - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of two F-35 fighter jets headed to a Nevada air base made an unscheduled landing in Lubbock, Texas on Monday after a caution light came on in the cockpit, according to a Pentagon spokesman and the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp.

The next-generation stealth fighter was flying from the Lockheed plant in Fort Worth, Texas to Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas on Monday afternoon, when a caution warning light came on, requiring the pilot to land at the nearest airport, said Lockheed spokesman Michael Rein.

He said the pilot landed safely. The second plane landed as planned at the Nevada air base, joining two other aircraft that arrived there last week, where they will be used for operational testing and evaluation of the new warplane.

A team of Lockheed maintenance experts was en route to examine the single-engine plane at the Lubbock airport, which is about 300 miles from Fort Worth, Rein said. It was not yet clear what caused the caution light to come on, he said.

More at the Jump

 

[Air Force Brat]

Caution Light causes a Cautionary landing in Lubbock Texas

F-35 fighter forced to land in Texas en route to Nevada air base - Yahoo! News



More at the Jump

Well and thats the kind of thing that happens when you drive your new plane off the lot, probably the first long cross country on that airframe, but all of those airframes will have been flown multiple times by a factory test team, and likely at least once by an Air Force Acceptance pilot, who officially takes delivery of that aircraft. Max Moga flew the last Raptor back to Alaska as it is to be "his airplane" as he is the squadron commander at JBF/Elmendorf, that happened about this time last year. You always approach a "ferry" flight with a new aircraft, or an aircraft that is coming out of depot level maintenance with a jaundiced eye.
When I worked at Klem's we had a Cessna 152 trainer that a student had run off the end of the runway, nose gear collapsed, and over on its back. Of course we pulled the wings and repaired any bent sheet metal on them and replaced the vertical stab and rudder. Well after the major repairs were made, we cleaned it up and began to test fly it, at cruise it wanted to roll to the left in a big way, we all had a go at setting the little cams on both wings to their limits both fore and aft. The odd thing was that it stalled straight as a string, No tendency want to spin, roll off on a wing at the break,either power on or power off. I flew it to the paint shop in Sandwich, Illinois about a two hour ferry flight, still wanted to roll off at cruise. The customer, a flight instructor "reluctantly took it after it came out of paint", a month passed and it came back, so we pulled the left wing and sent it to a shop that specialize in wings, the bottom line was, behind the area where you could see with a light and mirrors, there were 7 ribs that were crushed on the top leading edge, at rest the outer skin was straight as a string, at cruise the leading edge was compressed by the air load down to those collapsed ribs. Not until they opened it up with the can opener were those crushed ribs found and replaced, problem solved. So at this stage it could be anything, and everyone is playing it safe with this aircraft at this time.

 

[fretburner]

I just came across this article from Reuters. It says...

"...Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert left the door open for possible adjustments in the Navy's planned purchase of 260 jets..."

Wasn't this supposed to be like a 480 aircraft buy? Or did they cut their purchase sometime ago? 260 is closer to the 183 Raptor purchase.

 

[ADMk2]

I just came across this article from Reuters. It says...

"...Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert left the door open for possible adjustments in the Navy's planned purchase of 260 jets..."

Wasn't this supposed to be like a 480 aircraft buy? Or did they cut their purchase sometime ago? 260 is closer to the 183 Raptor purchase.

The USMC is buying 80 as well. JSF program is looking at 340 F-35C, 460 F-35B and 1760 F-35A.

Which is why it's hilarious when people postulate that you could save money by cancelling the -A model. Er, by buying 6 times as many of the more expensive model? Ah, yeah, okay...

Btw, despite Airforcebrat's curious anecdote the "emergency" that the F-35A suffered was an extremely minor malfunction. It was on the ground at Lubbock airfield for about 3.5 hours before it was on it's way again...

 

[fretburner]

^ For sure it's all about the USAF. If you cut your buy a good chunk, then piece price would skyrocket.

On the 460 USMC purchase - is this number that big because they have no other fixed wing jets? Have they ever considered a mixed fleet like the USN?

 

[ADMk2]

^ For sure it's all about the USAF. If you cut your buy a good chunk, then piece price would skyrocket.

On the 460 USMC purchase - is this number that big because they have no other fixed wing jets? Have they ever considered a mixed fleet like the USN?

Well they are buying the F-35B to replace their AV-8B Harrier II, EA-6B Prowler and F/A-18A/B fleets. Does that count as mixed?

I guess you could say they kind of are buying mixed with F-35B and F-35C. However they are only buying F-35C in order to keep up their USN carrier commitments. USN has already told the USMC in no uncertain terms that it won't be flying -B models off it's carrier decks...

Edit: 540 strike, EW and fighter aircraft is about what the USMC is at right now, so it's not much of a change...

The USN's total is only "small" because they have 560 odd F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and 114 EA-18G Growlers already in-service or on order. Adding the F-35C into that fleet and you get a tactical fighter force of 930+ aircraft.

And people like to postulate that the USN and USMC will be overwhelmed numerically somewhere?

Ha! The US Department of Navy will has and will continue to have a tactical fighter force of around 1500 aircraft for the forseeable future...

 

[mAIOR]

Well they are buying the F-35B to replace their AV-8B Harrier II, EA-6B Prowler and F/A-18A/B fleets. Does that count as mixed?

I guess you could say they kind of are buying mixed with F-35B and F-35C. However they are only buying F-35C in order to keep up their USN carrier commitments. USN has already told the USMC in no uncertain terms that it won't be flying -B models off it's carrier decks...

Edit: 540 strike, EW and fighter aircraft is about what the USMC is at right now, so it's not much of a change...

The USN's total is only "small" because they have 560 odd F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and 114 EA-18G Growlers already in-service or on order. Adding the F-35C into that fleet and you get a tactical fighter force of 930+ aircraft.

And people like to postulate that the USN and USMC will be overwhelmed numerically somewhere?

Ha! The US Department of Navy will has and will continue to have a tactical fighter force of around 1500 aircraft for the forseeable future...

I think that numbers were, the USAF was the World's largest airforce and, the USN is the World's third largest. This is in numbers alone. If capabilities of platforms were taken into consideration, it's one and two. No doubts about that.

 

[fretburner]

Well they are buying the F-35B to replace their AV-8B Harrier II, EA-6B Prowler and F/A-18A/B fleets. Does that count as mixed?

I guess you could say they kind of are buying mixed with F-35B and F-35C. However they are only buying F-35C in order to keep up their USN carrier commitments. USN has already told the USMC in no uncertain terms that it won't be flying -B models off it's carrier decks...

No, I meant a mixed fleet of F-35Bs and F/A-18 E/Fs just like the USN. In wars where stealth is not critical, I believe they are better of with using Super Hornets. Besides, if the USN can do with a mixed fleet, then why not them?

 

[colay]

No, I meant a mixed fleet of F-35Bs and F/A-18 E/Fs just like the USN. In wars where stealth is not critical, I believe they are better of with using Super Hornets. Besides, if the USN can do with a mixed fleet, then why not them?

Of all the armed services, the Marines have the most urgent need to replace their TACAIR fleets of Hornets and Harriers which are on their last legs. For years, the Corps had successfully resisted attempts by the Navy for them to acquire SuperHornets in lieu of the F-35B STOVL jet as a better fit to their needs as it would replace the Hornet, Harrier and Queer with a single platform. Splitting the USMC order between Bs amd Cs was a compromise to get the Navy off their back IMO.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Of all the armed services, the Marines have the most urgent need to replace their TACAIR fleets of Hornets and Harriers which are on their last legs. For years, the Corps had successfully resisted attempts by the Navy for them to acquire SuperHornets in lieu of the F-35B STOVL jet as a better fit to their needs as it would replace the Hornet, Harrier and Queer with a single platform. Splitting the USMC order between Bs amd Cs was a compromise to get the Navy off their back IMO.

You are exactly right, and when the Brits retired their Harriers, the USMC was lined up to take them, which they did for spares, thats why the developement and production of the B seems to be a priority over the C, they did not and do not want to lose that STOVL capability, who knows someday their baby may prove invaluable, rather than just costly? cheers, Brat

 

[fretburner]

Of all the armed services, the Marines have the most urgent need to replace their TACAIR fleets of Hornets and Harriers which are on their last legs. For years, the Corps had successfully resisted attempts by the Navy for them to acquire SuperHornets in lieu of the F-35B STOVL jet as a better fit to their needs as it would replace the Hornet, Harrier and Queer with a single platform. Splitting the USMC order between Bs amd Cs was a compromise to get the Navy off their back IMO.

How come they won't replace the Hornets with the Supers? And the Harriers with the F-35Bs?

 

[colay]

How come they won't replace the Hornets with the Supers? And the Harriers with the F-35Bs?

They wanted to standardize on the F-35B, a far more capable platform and were willing to wait patiently for it,and hold off on pressure by the Navy to buy the SH. Buying a contingent of C jets made the Navy happy. Now that the wait is nearly over, it makes no sense to go for the SH. The Bs will replace the Harriers.

 

[Air Force Brat]

They wanted to standardize on the F-35B, a far more capable platform and were willing to wait patiently for it,and hold off on pressure by the Navy to buy the SH. Buying a contingent of C jets made the Navy happy. Now that the wait is nearly over, it makes no sense to go for the SH. The Bs will replace the Harriers.

The Marines have a very strong aviation component, preferring when possible to provide their own air support. Marine aviators are Marines first, they did not want the SHornet, and felt the legacy Hornets were sufficient and in some cases superior to the Super Bug. They do pride themselves on the STOVL mission, they know the Harriers are about to be exhausted, and they will have the F-35B, so happens the Brits feel the same way. The USMC is very concerned about their aeroplane, [think Pappy Boyington or cigar smoking Joe Foss], they have doggedly clung to the Harrier, at a great price in blood and gold, and they knew intuitively that if the USN began to dictate their aeroplane choices, the STOVL mission would be lost, thats why they have stood up the F-35B at Yuma, with only three aeroplanes, they are willing to fight for the best airplane for their mission.. AFB

 

[Belesari]

That's the bad part. Of the 3 models the B is the only one that cant be replaced by another aircraft.

The Marines have a very strong aviation component, preferring when possible to provide their own air support. Marine aviators are Marines first, they did not want the SHornet, and felt the legacy Hornets were sufficient and in some cases superior to the Super Bug. They do pride themselves on the STOVL mission, they know the Harriers are about to be exhausted, and they will have the F-35B, so happens the Brits feel the same way. The USMC is very concerned about their aeroplane, [think Pappy Boyington or cigar smoking Joe Foss], they have doggedly clung to the Harrier, at a great price in blood and gold, and they knew intuitively that if the USN began to dictate their aeroplane choices, the STOVL mission would be lost, thats why they have stood up the F-35B at Yuma, with only three aeroplanes, they are willing to fight for the best airplane for their mission.. AFB

 

[RobWilliams]

Which you could interpret to make the prediction that the USMC will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the F35B will work because they know nothing will be coming along to "fix" it.

EDIT: I have to say though, I was under impression that recently there's been more pressure on the F35C than the F35B as of late.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That's the bad part. Of the 3 models the B is the only one that cant be replaced by another aircraft.

And the other two can be replaced by what? The F-99? No you would replace them with the previous generation or a new program. So why wouldn’t this apply to the F-35B? New build or rebuilt Harriers would keep the USMC in the STOVL business and so would a new STOVL fighter program.

There is an awful lot of nonsense commentary around the world about the F-35. One of the dot points on this page is that STOVL is holding the project back and therefore (or for other half baked reasons) isn’t needed. But STOVL fighters are the cornerstone of US marine air power and the naval powers of the Royal and Italian Navies (all partners) and two more prospective customers (Spain and India) and potentially a few more allied fleets. One could even present a pretty good argument that the USN should convert to STOVL. Though of course there is enormous institutional inertia against the later move.

 

[ADMk2]

No, I meant a mixed fleet of F-35Bs and F/A-18 E/Fs just like the USN. In wars where stealth is not critical, I believe they are better of with using Super Hornets. Besides, if the USN can do with a mixed fleet, then why not them?

The USN has a mixed fleet because of timelines of their relevant fighter recap plans. The F-35C was hardly ready in 2001 when Super Hornets began entering the fleet...

I imagine if the USN was looking to replace it's entire TACAIR fleet over the next 5-7 years it may very well decide to consolidate on the F-35C (though they'd run EA-18G alongside it of course) as their sole strike fighter.

The USMC however will be able to drag it's legacy fleet along sufficiently well to meet up with the in-service timelines of the F-35B. Given the F-35B is able to perform STOVL missions from ships, Forward Operating Bases and traditional airfield based CTOL operations, it makes a lot of sense for them to consolidate on this single type.

As to the "non-stealth" issue, I'm not sure in what area the Super Hornet is superior to the F-35 even when LO is not an issue? F-35's have external pylons and even the -B model can carry large amounts of external stores as demonstrated in the attached pic.

I'm sure the Super Hornet buddy refuelling pod could be added to the F-35 centreline station if necessary and whilst the Shornet needs 2 seats in some variants, the F-35 (just like the F-22A) doesn't, so I don't really see the benefit here?

 

[colay]

Gen. Bogdan's recent public criticism of LMA and P&W got a lot of play. Subsequently, he has been attempting to put his comments in context. Unfortunately, the image of greedy contractors he painted cannot be undone and his more recent measured pronouncements won't be propagated to the same extent.


F-35 Production on Track, Program Chief Says

F-35 production is “the shining star” of the program, the general said. About 30 aircraft are being built each year, he said, and the cost per unit has come down with each successive low-rate initial production, or LRIP, lot. Between LRIP 4 and LRIP 5, there was a 4-percent decrease in build costs, Bogdan said, a trend he said he believes will continue until per-unit costs approach the original 2001 estimate of $69 million.

“I think we can get there,” he said. “Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney are doing a pretty good job of coming down that cost curve. They're getting more efficient in their production line [and] their quality is going up, … and that is a good thing, because I promise you the one thing that our partners care most about is how much this airplane's going to cost.”

Eight nations have committed to participate in the development program, and another three may buy F-35s, with nearly 3,000 aircraft expected to be produced. With such a large order and so many partners invested in the aircraft, it’s essential to keep costs down to avoid what Bogdan called the “death spiral,” something he said he’s seen kill off many programs.

The death spiral is when increasing costs lead to a reduction in the number of units purchased, which in turn leads to further per-unit cost increases, and so on.

“I don't think that's the fate of this program,” Bogdan said, “but the proof is in the pudding, and we have to continue to see Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney investing in making the production line more efficient, squeezing the costs out, and getting the unit cost of this airplane down. I think they can do it, but we have to wait and see.”..

 

[fretburner]

As to the "non-stealth" issue, I'm not sure in what area the Super Hornet is superior to the F-35 even when LO is not an issue? F-35's have external pylons and even the -B model can carry large amounts of external stores as demonstrated in the attached pic.

I'm sure the Super Hornet buddy refuelling pod could be added to the F-35 centreline station if necessary and whilst the Shornet needs 2 seats in some variants, the F-35 (just like the F-22A) doesn't, so I don't really see the benefit here?

I believe, IIRC, the Super Hornet could carry more weapons and is cheaper based on what LM or the USG is quoting right now. It also has a greater bring back weight and possibly better low speed manueverability. Are these inaccurate?

 

[ADMk2]

I believe, IIRC, the Super Hornet could carry more weapons and is cheaper based on what LM or the USG is quoting right now. It also has a greater bring back weight and possibly better low speed manueverability. Are these inaccurate?

Super Hornet can't carry as much ordnance as the F-35C can (in total weight) and doesn't have the same range.

I'm not sure bring-back weight is an issue for the F-35C ( though of course it is for the F-35B, however the F-35B isn't a concern, it won't be landing on US carriers anyway, except perhaps in an emergency) and as to low speed maneuverability, the F-35C won't be a slouch in such a "phone booth" and in any case will handily out-match a Super Hornet long before WVR combat becomes a deciding factor.

If you compare low production rate F-35 to full production rate Super Hornet, yes the Super Hornet is cheaper.

However you gets what you pay for. If the USMC were to buy Super Hornet it does so at 95% of the cost and 65% of the capability of the F-35.

Hence their lack of interest...