F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[AGRA]

Israeli, like Singapore, has paid for access to JSF information. This is the level of participation below that of the partners. The UK is a Tier I partner, Italy and the Netherlands Tier II and the rest Tier III (Australia, Denmark, Turkey, Canada, Norway).

This level of access enables the IDF/AF to be informed about JSF capabilities but does not place the Israeli defence industry into the project. That being said participation in JSF is by competition and is not exclusive to the industries of the partner nations.

However Elbit is what they call a multi-domestic company. In that while the group is owned and run in Israel they have a range of companies in countries around the world, in particular the US. The US companies are Kollsman, EFE, Talla-Com, VSI, etc. Elbit is traded on NASDAQ.

Elbit’s main helmet mounted display (HMD) business is Vision Systems International (VSI), jointly owned with Kaiser Electronics (a Rockwell Collins Company). VSI makes JHMCS helmets and the F-35 HMD not Elbit.

http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/

 

[gf0012-aust]

This level of access enables the IDF/AF to be informed about JSF capabilities but does not place the Israeli defence industry into the project.

Thanks. That explains why they're "PNG" into one of the thermal management projects.

 

[AGRA]

The weight of these helmets is a minor problem. I wore one for about half an hour while doing functionals and it gave me a sore neck. I guess aircrew do special exercises to build up their neck muscles but I do know it is an issue that has been raised. I predict that in the not to distant future the average fighter jock will have a neck similar to a South African front rower.

JHMCS is no where near as bad for weight as some of the first generation NVG systems. These had to be borne by pilot's necks until the solution was found for the increased helmet weight back in the 1970s. Tactical helicopter pilots having to wear heavy NVGs simply suspended their helmets from the roof of the cockpit with weight bearing, but flexible (allowing full pilot head movement) cables.

This approach could be used in fighter aircraft with JHMCS and the new F-35 HMD with the solution to two problems:

1. Suspending a helmet from a canopy that is explosively removed before the pilot during ejection could lead to termination of the relationship between the head, neck and torso with extreme prejudice. The helmet suspension system would have to be incoporated into the canopy ejection system so it is separated before the canopy. Considering the number of actions carried out by the ejection system adding another shouldn’t be too difficult.

2. Fighter pilots tend to have a more demanding self image than helicopter pilots so might object to looking like a dufus having a suspender connecting their head to the canopy above them…

However with increasingly long strike fighter missions and the physical limitations of reducing weight in a HMD something’s got to give.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

F35B rolles out! On scedule too i might add.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5387865.html

 

[Grand Danois]

Note the serrated edge of the tail pipe.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Looks like they changed the hatch on the lift fan too! Cant wait to see it in full paint and hovering! We should see the F35C sometime next year.

 

[lobbie111]

How Much less payload can the 'B' model take? Even though Australia has no carriers I think it would be good aquiring a few B's for forward operating bases like the British had. Equip it with for Brimstone pods (x12 Missiles) and some Anti Radiation or Anti Air missiles internally and you have the perfect high echelon support system. (ARH Tiger being the lower echelon)

 

[F-15 Eagle]

How Much less payload can the 'B' model take? Even though Australia has no carriers I think it would be good aquiring a few B's for forward operating bases like the British had. Equip it with for Brimstone pods (x12 Missiles) and some Anti Radiation or Anti Air missiles internally and you have the perfect high echelon support system. (ARH Tiger being the lower echelon)

I think the F-35B can only carry 1000lbs bombs well the F-35A and F-35C can carry 2000lbs. The A and C models can carry 10 AAMs but I think the B model can only carry 8 AAMs. I'll have to look it up.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA Conf - JSF Program Brief - 26 Sept 06.pdf
I found the link.
The weapons capability for the F-35 is on page 38 to 41.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Even though Australia has no carriers

Well its getting atleast two ships which could land and launch a few F-35B. There are several airfields on islands where regular fighters can't land or take off.

Could be handy to have a few that could rearm, refuel or sit ready to go on the ship or at nearby airfields. Relieving the tankers somewhat (or keeping them out of harms way) and allowing higher sortie rates with fewer aircraft. 1000lb bombs are still plenty big, and you would be able to drop two or three times as many compared to refuelled aircraft over a longer mainland distance. You also have a mini escort carrier if you ever require it. It would be worth it just to mess up the picture and add possibilities.

They could be very valuable if energy weapons become viable. I would imagine they would have good 2nd hand value much like the harriers have as many nations would like to have that sort of capability.

But it would depend heavily on how much they are going to cost. If they are just a few million more I think its possible. But if they are twice the price forget it.

 

[lobbie111]

I was thinking something similar to what you said Stingray, in terms of carriers I don't think the capability will be alloted no matter how much anybody b*tches and complains our political situation dictates what we will and wont get.

I think and I also believe the government thinks this too, that by having even something like fixed wing aircraft on our amphibious ships alarm bells will ring saying "AIRCRAFT CARRIER".

Having "AIRCRAFT CARRIERS" to me says we are here to dictate what others can or can/can not do and we are a world/regional power, in short asking for terrorist attacks on Australian soil.

The FOB idea is good for the island as all you will need is some caribou's or C-130 (depending on runway size) to transport material and personel, no need for radar thats what we have JORN for.

 

[Tasman]

Well its getting atleast two ships which could land and launch a few F-35B. There are several airfields on islands where regular fighters can't land or take off.

Could be handy to have a few that could rearm, refuel or sit ready to go on the ship or at nearby airfields. Relieving the tankers somewhat (or keeping them out of harms way) and allowing higher sortie rates with fewer aircraft. 1000lb bombs are still plenty big, and you would be able to drop two or three times as many compared to refuelled aircraft over a longer mainland distance. You also have a mini escort carrier if you ever require it. It would be worth it just to mess up the picture and add possibilities.

They could be very valuable if energy weapons become viable. I would imagine they would have good 2nd hand value much like the harriers have as many nations would like to have that sort of capability.

But it would depend heavily on how much they are going to cost. If they are just a few million more I think its possible. But if they are twice the price forget it.

I agree that it would be handy for Australia to include some F-35Bs for deployment from areas unable to support the F-35A. The LHDs could act as staging bases for a small number of F-35Bs but as has been said many times (including the last post by Lobbie 111, there are both operational and political reasons not to try and use the LHDs as aircraft carriers. Never the less I think that having the capability would be very worthwhile because of the additional deployment options it would provide the ADF, providing, of course, that the cost is not excessive (I include the ongoing operating costs of a second variant and the operational disadvantages that may come about from a reduced F-35A buy).

Tas

 

[Salty Dog]

F-35 Lot 2 Production

LOCKHEED MARTIN RECEIVES $2.2 BILLION FOR F-35 LOT 2 PRODUCTION, $197 MILLION FOR LOT 3 LONG-LEAD FUNDING

FORT WORTH, Texas, May 22nd, 2008 -- The United States Department of Defense has authorized the release of funds to buy six conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A Lightning IIs for the U.S. Air Force, with provisional approval to purchase six short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35Bs for the U.S. Marine Corps following a senior leadership review and the inaugural flight of that variant. The 12 aircraft will be built in the second phase of F-35 low-rate initial production (LRIP 2).

The $2.2 billion contract authorization comes after the Defense Acquisition Board’s recommendation to release the funds and proceed with production. “We welcome the board’s decision and their vote of confidence in the F-35 program,” said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. “We’re seeing excellent progress on our production line, with 17 preproduction aircraft in assembly flow, the first two production-model F-35s already under way and unprecedented assembly quality across the board.”

Long-lead funds of $197 million for LRIP 3 were released on May 14 for at least 18 additional F-35s. The LRIP I contract for the first two F-35A production aircraft was finalized and issued in July 2007.

The first F-35A test aircraft has completed 40 flights and has exceeded performance and reliability expectations. The inaugural flight of the first F-35B is on schedule for late spring/early summer.

The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most economical fighter program in history.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.

Funds for the Marine Corps’ first six F-35B STOVL fighters will be released only after the variant’s first flight, due in June.

 

[thorpete1]

Just been reading slideshow that F-15 eagle pointed out. Israel is a security cooperation partner. I presume this so they can know the capabilities of the aircraft and get it at the same time as the main partner nations, but not be invovled in aircraft requirements, tech transfers etc.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just been reading slideshow that F-15 eagle pointed out. Israel is a security cooperation partner. I presume this so they can know the capabilities of the aircraft and get it at the same time as the main partner nations, but not be invovled in aircraft requirements, tech transfers etc.

The Israelis are not entitled to hi-level data about the platform. That requires consensus between the Tier 1's.

 

[Pingu]

Going back to missile carriage:

I think I am correct in saying that the two A2A missiles are attached to the door of the bay (one on each bay) so that when the door opens, the missle enters the slipstream. I wonder whether this will serverly effect the handling of the aircraft when a missile is being fired. I doubt a missile could be fired during a violent maneuver and the launch velocity of the missle will probably suffer due to the drag created on the aircraft with the bay swung open.

I imagine that the 6 missle carriage will be achieved by installing a dual-missile launcher in place of a bomb but I wonder how the missiles will be launched. Am I correct in hearing recently that the ASRAAM will not be fired interally and will have to be fired from external stations?

I imagine that adding even ASRAAMs externally to the F-35 will multiply its RCS many times over and will be dissappointed if internal, WVR missile carriage is not taken seriously enough.

I think the best loadout would be one AMRAAM and one ASRAAM; not much I know, but at least it makes the best of a bad situation and offers a better mix than AMRAAM only carriage

 

[Salty Dog]

Some nice F-35 links especially for those just getting started:

The Lockheed Martin F-35 brochure

F-35 Joint Program Office briefing on the F-35

F-35 JSF Global Industry Team website (updated daily)

 

[Aussie Digger]

Going back to missile carriage:

I think I am correct in saying that the two A2A missiles are attached to the door of the bay (one on each bay) so that when the door opens, the missle enters the slipstream. I wonder whether this will serverly effect the handling of the aircraft when a missile is being fired. I doubt a missile could be fired during a violent maneuver and the launch velocity of the missle will probably suffer due to the drag created on the aircraft with the bay swung open.

I imagine that the 6 missle carriage will be achieved by installing a dual-missile launcher in place of a bomb but I wonder how the missiles will be launched. Am I correct in hearing recently that the ASRAAM will not be fired interally and will have to be fired from external stations?

I imagine that adding even ASRAAMs externally to the F-35 will multiply its RCS many times over and will be dissappointed if internal, WVR missile carriage is not taken seriously enough.

I think the best loadout would be one AMRAAM and one ASRAAM; not much I know, but at least it makes the best of a bad situation and offers a better mix than AMRAAM only carriage

It doesn't on the F-22 which can fly at higher speeds than the F-35 is intended to do.

The LAU-142 AVEL missile launcher ( or more correctly: ejector) was designed specifically to launch AIM-120C missiles from the F-22's internal bays and the ability to launch these missiles from internal bays at high mach speeds was a critical design requirement.

You can read about this launcher (manufactured by EDO Corporation) here:

http://www.edocorp.com/AMRAAMAVEL.htm

And view pics of the 3x AIM-120 missiles carried inside each of the F-22's internal bays.

Then consider that the F-35's internal bays are both longer, deeper AND wider then the F-22's and the "limited" missile carriage of the F-35 doesn't seem so much of a problem to me...

It's more important to get this revolutionary aircraft through it's tremendous design challenges than it is to get the "nth degree" of capability out of it, just yet. Whilst external carriage of weapons will compromise the LO characteristics of the aircraft, in HOW many likely situations will the F-35 require "full" LO? Future tactics of "full" LO aircraft and "missileers" (given 6x external hardpoints in addition to the 4x internal) the F-35 is well suited to being "loaded up" and loads of 8-10 AMRAAM and 4-6 WVR missiles should be WELL within it's capability, if absolutely necessary.

The ASRAAM is intended for internal launch on the F-35. It is the only short ranged IIR A2A missile that will be capable of doing so, so far I believe. There are no "rails" on the internal hardpoints in the F-35. They are all ejectors. Your concern about the "firing" of the missile effecting the handling of the aircraft is unfounded because of this.

The primary air to air load of USAF/RAAF F-35A's in their initial "Block III" configuration will be: 2x AMRAAM, 2x WVR AAM, or 4x AMRAAM or some other combination (3x AMRAAM, 1x WVR AAM) plus the gun.

All will be carried internally, as will ALL the fuel. A future spiral development should include "dual carriage" ejectors which will allow a maximum of up to 6x AMRAAM missiles to be carried internally which should allow for a combination of AMRAAM missiles and WVR AAM's.

Under these circumstances 4x AMRAAMs and 2x WVR AAM's should be easily carried on the aircraft which equates to typical "external" loads carried in DCA and OCA operational missions today.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

It doesn't on the F-22 which can fly at higher speeds than the F-35 is intended to do.

The LAU-142 AVEL missile launcher ( or more correctly: ejector) was designed specifically to launch AIM-120C missiles from the F-22's internal bays and the ability to launch these missiles from internal bays at high mach speeds was a critical design requirement.

You can read about this launcher (manufactured by EDO Corporation) here:

http://www.edocorp.com/AMRAAMAVEL.htm

And view pics of the 3x AIM-120 missiles carried inside each of the F-22's internal bays.

Then consider that the F-35's internal bays are both longer, deeper AND wider then the F-22's and the "limited" missile carriage of the F-35 doesn't seem so much of a problem to me...

It's more important to get this revolutionary aircraft through it's tremendous design challenges than it is to get the "nth degree" of capability out of it, just yet. Whilst external carriage of weapons will compromise the LO characteristics of the aircraft, in HOW many likely situations will the F-35 require "full" LO? Future tactics of "full" LO aircraft and "missileers" (given 6x external hardpoints in addition to the 4x internal) the F-35 is well suited to being "loaded up" and loads of 8-10 AMRAAM and 4-6 WVR missiles should be WELL within it's capability, if absolutely necessary.

The ASRAAM is intended for internal launch on the F-35. It is the only short ranged IIR A2A missile that will be capable of doing so, so far I believe. There are no "rails" on the internal hardpoints in the F-35. They are all ejectors. Your concern about the "firing" of the missile effecting the handling of the aircraft is unfounded because of this.

The primary air to air load of USAF/RAAF F-35A's in their initial "Block III" configuration will be: 2x AMRAAM, 2x WVR AAM, or 4x AMRAAM or some other combination (3x AMRAAM, 1x WVR AAM) plus the gun.

All will be carried internally, as will ALL the fuel. A future spiral development should include "dual carriage" ejectors which will allow a maximum of up to 6x AMRAAM missiles to be carried internally which should allow for a combination of AMRAAM missiles and WVR AAM's.

Under these circumstances 4x AMRAAMs and 2x WVR AAM's should be easily carried on the aircraft which equates to typical "external" loads carried in DCA and OCA operational missions today.

Yes you are 100% correct the F-35 can carry 4 AMRAAMs internally I don't know about AIM-9s though. Externally it can carry 4 more AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9s for a total of 10 AAMs. Though external weapons reduces the F-35s stealth a bit it still out performs any current fighter jet such as the SU-30. LM has already proven the F-35 can carry 6 internal AAMs for a max load of 12 AAMs, its just when this might be operational is the question.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes you are 100% correct the F-35 can carry 4 AMRAAMs internally I don't know about AIM-9s though. Externally it can carry 4 more AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9s for a total of 10 AAMs. Though external weapons reduces the F-35s stealth a bit it still out performs any current fighter jet such as the SU-30. LM has already proven the F-35 can carry 6 internal AAMs for a max load of 12 AAMs, its just when this might be operational is the question.

AIM-9X and ASRAAM are intended for internal carry on the aircraft in it's SDD "baseline" configuration.

L-M have confirmed that the aircraft will be capable of carrying up to 10x air to air missiles missiles externally in the SDD baseline configuration for a total of 14x air to air missiles.

E: A2A weapon load of the F-35

The F-35 will be able carry 4 missiles on internal stations and up to 10 additional missiles on external stations. To look at potential future increases in internal carriage capability, studies have been done to explore the use of advances in launcher technology, however, current mission analysis does not necessitate further exploration of these capabilities at this time.


Thanks,
Cheryl

Cheryl Limrick
F-35 Lightning II Program Office
Assistant Public Affairs Officer
200 12th S, Suite 600
Arlington,VA 22202
(o) 703-601-5503
(c) 703-608-8965
[email protected]


Taken from f-16.net