F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35B SUCCEEDS IN STOVL PROPULSION GROUND TEST

FORT WORTH, Texas, May 29th, 2008 --

The shaft-driven lift fan propulsion system that will enable the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II stealth fighter to perform short takeoffs and vertical landings (STOVL) operated for the first time in the aircraft during ground testing on Sunday, May 25. At full power, the F-35B's system generates more than 40,000 pounds of lifting force, or about 170 percent more than current-generation STOVL fighters.

Read more

Photo

F-35 Hover Pit Video
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Israel submits request to buy F-35 jets

Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST May. 22, 2008

The Israeli Defense Ministry submitted an official request to the Pentagon two weeks ago asking to purchase a squadron of F-35 stealth-enabled Joint Strike Fighters (JSF). Each plane is estimated to cost between $70-80 million.

In addition to the 25 planes, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, the Defense Ministry also asked for an option to purchase 50 more. Already in September, the IDF announced its intention to purchase up to 100 JSF fighter jets over the next decade. Two weeks ago it finally submitted an official Letter of Request (LOR) to the Pentagon.

The announcement of the Israeli request came as a high-level Syrian military delegation was in Moscow for arms talks with the Russian Defense Ministry. Syria is interested in purchasing advanced MiG fighter jets, S300 anti-aircraft missile systems and advanced submarines.

In the request, Israel also asked the US government for permission to purchase a number of JSF planes with vertical take-off and landing capabilities. This would be the first time that the IAF would obtain this capability. The request came out of fear that Israeli airfields would be paralyzed by enemy missiles in a future conflict and would not be able to take off.

Delivery will likely begin in 2013 and Bob Trice, a Senior Vice President at Lockheed Martin currently visiting Israel, said Thursday that LM would provide all the necessary support to the US and Israeli governments to facilitate the deal.

It is possible however that the plane will arrive earlier. In October, The Jerusalem Post reported that Defense Minister Ehud Barak had asked the Americans to deliver the plane to Israel as early as 2012.

Israel's interest in the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft was first reported in The Jerusalem Post in December. The decision to consider the vertical airplane, called the F-35B, was made due to an understanding that at a time of war, Israeli bases and runways will be heavily targeted by enemy missiles.

In this configuration, the F-35B can hover, land vertically, take off in a few hundred feet fully loaded, or take off vertically with a light load. When the aircraft transitions from jet-borne to conventional wing-borne flight, the doors close and the pilot can then accelerate to supersonic speeds.

Eight countries - including Britain, Turkey and Australia - are members of the JSF. Israel enjoys the status of a Security Cooperation Participant after paying $20 million in 2003 to obtain access to information accumulated during the development of the jet.

In addition to the request for the JSF, Israel also asked the Pentagon to buy 5-6 C-130 Hercules transport aircraft to begin replacing its aging fleet.
Israel wants both the F-35A and F-35B.

Another request too for more C-130s.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
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
14 AAMs nice now thats on hell of a deadly air to air fighter!:D How do they put 10 AAMs externally?

Can you give me a link though because the one you gave me does not work for some reason it just says error when I try to install it.

One last thing whats a SDD baseline configuration?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
14 AAMs nice now thats on hell of a deadly air to air fighter!:D How do they put 10 AAMs externally?

Can you give me a link though because the one you gave me does not work for some reason it just says error when I try to install it.

One last thing whats a SDD baseline configuration?
With 6x external hardpoints, (the outer 2 on each wing are only capable of carrying a single AAM each) with "dual rail" launchers on the middle and inner external pylons on each wing, the total equals 10x external and 4x internal.

I just tried that link again and it worked for me. I'm using Firefox and it worked just fine. Just click on it. I have tried cutting and pasting...
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Lockheed Martin F-35B STOVL Stealth Fighter Achieves Successful First Flight

FORT WORTH, Texas, June 11th, 2008 --

The first Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing stealth fighter takes off from Lockheed Aeronautics in Fort Worth, Texas, on its inaugural flight Wednesday, June 11.

The jet, which will be used by the U.S. Marine Corps, the United Kingdom and Italy, is the first aircraft to combine stealth with supersonic speed and short takeoff/vertical landing capability.

Hi Res Photo

With test pilot Graham Tomlinson at the controls, the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35B Lightning II streaked into blue Texas skies Wednesday, marking the first flight of an aircraft that will provide a combination of capabilities never before available: stealth, supersonic speed and STOVL basing flexibility.

Read more
 

Pingu

New Member
Aussie Digger:

The F-22's ejector has been designed to operate at high speed by punching out the missile at very high speed; I am aware of this. However, my concern was regarding how the F-35s missile ejection system would operate given its different principle of operation.

This sounds like you are defending an attack (which I am not doing) against the F-35 and then trying to Vs the F-22 against the F-35. The fact that the bays are deeper has no relevance to my comments because I was voicing concern over the door mounted launcher's effect on the F-35's handling and not how the carriage compares against the F-22. Also, if the bays are bigger but the carriage is limited, then the carriage is still limited.

As regards to comments about external carriage with relation to RCS, I am aware that the F-35 has an excellent external carriage ability but am concerned about the option of all internal WVR missile carriage being removed. Also, my concern about "the missile firing off the rail" has nothing to do with it being a launcher or rail or what have you; it was simply to do with the open door creating drag.

You've said that the removal of WVR internal carriage is not a problem by arguing against the need for RCS to an extent and in doing so, have gone against any justification of encorporating any RCS reducing methods in the first place.
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger:

The F-22's ejector has been designed to operate at high speed by punching out the missile at very high speed; I am aware of this. However, my concern was regarding how the F-35s missile ejection system would operate given its different principle of operation
Will the ejector systems work at supersonic speeds?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
You've said that the removal of WVR internal carriage is not a problem by arguing against the need for RCS to an extent and in doing so, have gone against any justification of encorporating any RCS reducing methods in the first place.
Actually, what most people are oblivious of, or selctively ignore is that the concept of absolute airframe cleanliness provides insertion advantages at D+1 to D+nn. As in the Iraq war, once the C3 and IADS were decapitated, all the LowerO platforms were gradually replaced by dirty aircraft.

the premise behind the JSF is that after decapitation they can go in as dirty as they like - detection at that point is less relevant as solutions like Compass/Rivet/Prowler/Growler and SEAD systems have paved the way.

The less experienced posters will always claim that carriage for carriage issues of "xx" platform vs JSF clean denote a weakness. In actual fact they ignore the fact that the F-22 and JSF are designed to enter complex and contested battlespace with greater integrity than less sig managed platforms.

There is a redundancy and efficiency of capability that travels with this. For less sophisticated airforces who lack system coherency - then of course thats an issue.

people who claim a weakness in JSF hardpoints vs "name my other aircraft" are demonstrating their lack of awareness. Thats fine, but they should seek to ignore empirical statements that only reinforce publcily their lack of awareness of the shift in doctrine.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Will the ejector systems work at supersonic speeds?
It's not so much whether the ejector seat works at high speeds because AFAIK there is a software lock at a capped speed. The issue is whether it's survivable by the pilot at that speed. I suspect not.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
I read this a while go:
1954 — Blue Angels pilot LCDR Hawkins experienced mechanical problems and became the first Navy pilot to survive a supersonic ejection,
Blue Angels History


I was interested so had a dig around a bit and found this:
NASA research in the 1950's
http://history.nasa.gov/afspbio/contents.htm
and the Martin Baker site was quite interesting there is a Ejection Tie Club where if you survive a ejection in a Martin Baker seat you get a tie, nice.
This is a interesting play by play of the Ejection process of a F-35:
US16E JSF

Interesting to learn that the F-35B will be fitted with an auto eject system, I suppose that is due to the prolonged duration of low altitude of air support.

Edit...
So I misread a previous post
Enjoy the miscellaneous post on ejection seats

To add a question How would a auto eject system work?
 
Last edited:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Aussie Digger:

The F-22's ejector has been designed to operate at high speed by punching out the missile at very high speed; I am aware of this. However, my concern was regarding how the F-35s missile ejection system would operate given its different principle of operation.
How is the principle of operation different? Can you show me? All the manufacturer has stated to date is that the ejector system is "under development".

There is NO rail system for missiles carried internally on the F-35. ALL launchers will be of the ejector variety.

Therefore, I wonder why you are concerned, as you must have MUCH greater insight into the F-35 missile ejector system than I have been able to find.

The only comment about it's ability to operate at supersonic speeds, is that the manufacture building the F-35 ejector system is the SAME manufacturer as the one which is used on the F-22. If anyone is going to know how to build a successful system for the F-35, one could infer that it will be them...

This sounds like you are defending an attack (which I am not doing) against the F-35 and then trying to Vs the F-22 against the F-35. The fact that the bays are deeper has no relevance to my comments because I was voicing concern over the door mounted launcher's effect on the F-35's handling and not how the carriage compares against the F-22. Also, if the bays are bigger but the carriage is limited, then the carriage is still limited.
It is indeed relevent. Both aircraft are being designed to carry the same weapons. One has the proven ability to carry 3x AMRAAM missiles per bay and the OTHER which has yet to demonstrate such an ability has greater clearances within longer, wider and deeper internal bays.

I wasn't intending to turn the argument into a Vs, but rather address the perception that because the F-35 isn't YET intended to carry 3x AAM's per bay, that this means it is incapable of doing so. The room is there, it's simply an engineering challenge.

As regards to comments about external carriage with relation to RCS, I am aware that the F-35 has an excellent external carriage ability but am concerned about the option of all internal WVR missile carriage being removed. Also, my concern about "the missile firing off the rail" has nothing to do with it being a launcher or rail or what have you; it was simply to do with the open door creating drag.
Sorry? Why would internal WVR carriage be removed? Where ANYWHERE in any L-M documents has this been contemplated? Does additional AMRAAM carriage, somehow preclude internal WVR carriage?

The AVEL launcher was designed to reduce the entire firing sequence of an internally mounted AMRAAM missile to be to under 1/10 of a second. I'm sure the F-35 won't be much different. I am sure that extensive firing trials will confirm the exact amount of "trouble" such a firing will cause to an F-35 aircraft.

You've said that the removal of WVR internal carriage is not a problem by arguing against the need for RCS to an extent and in doing so, have gone against any justification of encorporating any RCS reducing methods in the first place.
Er, I don't think I did...

I DO remember saying 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.
How this "argues" against LO seems a bit of a stretch to me. :confused:
 

Pingu

New Member
Aussie Digger and gf0012-aust:

I agree with both of you regarding the carriage of the JSF. I am aware that the JSF with combined internal and external carriage is in many ways, greater (purely in total weapon carriage terms) than many legacy fighters.

I also agree that the JSF has been designed from the outset as a fighter that has the "Day 1" ability and then continue unhindered by interal carriage when required in the latter stages of a campaign by using external stations.

I hope I am not regarded as one of the "less experienced posters" that you described as I am not claiming that legacy fighters have greater carriage than the F-22/F-35.

The point I am trying to make is that, when we consider the "Day 1" configuration where a pure internal config is deemed absolutely necessary, then a combination of BVR and WVR missiles is important for the sake of survivability.

I must make clear that I am not stating the omission of internal WVR missiles as a fact; but rather I have heard somewhere that ASRAAMS may be carried externally only. If this is not the case, then I would be glad to hear and do not want to give the impression that I am ignoring evidence; my posts have in many ways been an invite for people to suggest otherwise.

The ASRAAM is ideal for launch from the bays of the JSF due to its existing LOAL ability, which is why I was surprised to hear that it had only been cleared for external carriage.

To my knowledge, the A2G config for the JSF was to have to JDAMs attached to ejectors inside the bay and then the AMRAAMS would be attached to door mounted hardpoints. I assumed that the door mounted missiles simply dropped off rather than being launched/ejected from a launcher/ejector.

As I assumed that the missile dropped off the door, I was concerned about how this would operate during high speed flight and violent manoeuvering. If the door mounted hard point is an ejector, then this is not a concern.

Aussie Digger, The section you have quoted is not arguing against LO, so its not a stretch. Before that however, you suggested that there are not many situations where pure internal carriage is required. This is true but that does not mean to say that optimising internal carriage should be ignored. I am not saying that you are ignoring this personally, but suggesting concern that the relevant governments and manufacturers may ignore this.
 
Last edited:

guppy

New Member
Aussie Digger and gf0012-aust:

I agree with both of you regarding the carriage of the JSF. I am aware that the JSF with combined internal and external carriage is in many ways, greater (purely in total weapon carriage terms) than many legacy fighters.

I also agree that the JSF has been designed from the outset as a fighter that has the "Day 1" ability and then continue unhindered by interal carriage when required in the latter stages of a campaign by using external stations.

I hope I am not regarded as one of the "less experienced posters" that you described as I am not claiming that legacy fighters have greater carriage than the F-22/F-35.

The point I am trying to make is that, when we consider the "Day 1" configuration where a pure internal config is deemed absolutely necessary, then a combination of BVR and WVR missiles is important for the sake of survivability.

I must make clear that I am not stating the omission of internal WVR missiles as a fact; but rather I have heard somewhere that ASRAAMS may be carried externally only. If this is not the case, then I would be glad to hear and do not want to give the impression that I am ignoring evidence; my posts have in many ways been an invite for people to suggest otherwise.

The ASRAAM is ideal for launch from the bays of the JSF due to its existing LOAL ability, which is why I was surprised to hear that it had only been cleared for external carriage.

To my knowledge, the A2G config for the JSF was to have to JDAMs attached to ejectors inside the bay and then the AMRAAMS would be attached to door mounted hardpoints. I assumed that the door mounted missiles simply dropped off rather than being launched/ejected from a launcher/ejector.

As I assumed that the missile dropped off the door, I was concerned about how this would operate during high speed flight and violent manoeuvering. If the door mounted hard point is an ejector, then this is not a concern.

Aussie Digger, The section you have quoted is not arguing against LO, so its not a stretch. Before that however, you suggested that there are not many situations where pure internal carriage is required. This is true but that does not mean to say that optimising internal carriage should be ignored. I am not saying that you are ignoring this personally, but suggesting concern that the relevant governments and manufacturers may ignore this.
Pingui, check out this link. It states that the new plan is not to qualify the ASRAAMs on the air to ground racks but does not preclude their eventuality. So, you still would be able to carry 2 ASRAAMs internally. It also talks about external low observable air to air missile pylons for the that will be common across all 3 variants and this might tell you a little about what the USN/USMC wants too.

I personally won't worry too much launching the missiles under supersonic and maneuvering conditions ie operational conditions. The US has quite a good reputation of developing operationally effective and operator friendly weapon systems. If there is indeed a problem, you will see the USAF, USN, USMC and several other air forces banding together to ensure the problem is resolved.

In the world of internet annoynimity, only you know how much you have experience in these matters so don't take the message personally.

Cheers

Guppy
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Not that I consider Eric L Palmer (or even Janes for that matter) a quality source, but even they state in that link guppy that, "Janes.com is reporting that the original UK intention was to clear four MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAMs) for internal carriage but this has been revised where it will be two internal and two external weapons instead."

The ASRAAM according to the most recent "weapons chart" (October 2007 I believe) planned for the F-35 is STILL included for internal carriage.
 

mickk

New Member
Nice article in the Herald sun recently on this a/c.

58 million bucks a piece??? thats gotta be a misprint, its a steal.

Unless the yanks have a catch up there sleeve that we dont know about.



Ian McPhedran

June 13, 2008 12:00am

Deep in the heart of Texas, a $59 million jet fighter is being built that soon could be patrolling Australian skies.

THE private dining room on the 35th floor of the Petroleum Club in downtown Fort Worth, Texas, screams prosperity.

From its timber-panelled walls and impressive artworks to the waiters in crisp white jackets and bow ties, this is clearly a place where deals are done.

In days gone by it was oil and cattle, but today the focus is another of Fort Worth's famous exports -- military aircraft.

The accents might be Texan and the location post-modern wild west -- the locals boast that nearby Dallas is where the east ends and Fort Worth is where the west begins -- but the subject matter is stealth jet fighters.

And this means big money, even by Texas standards: they are $58.7 million apiece.

Lockheed Martin executives had spent a long day singing the praises of their F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter to a group of Australian journalists.

The legendary Texan hospitality and public relations patter was broken only by a tour of the impressive JSF production line and a long debate about how much the so-called fifth-generation fighter planes would cost Australian taxpayers.

Lockheed, which has 140,000 staff and annual sales of $40 billion, is reluctant to commit to a firm price for its wares.

So it was with some relief that by day's end the company had, for the first time, revealed a realistic figure on the fly-away price for Australia's new frontline air combat aircraft.

That $58.7 million will be for each of the first 368 foreign-bound fighters to roll off the line.

It was the price the Pentagon, which sells military gear to foreign countries, quoted to Norway as

it decides between the JSF and other options, including the European-built Eurofighter and SAAB Gripen.

According to those who know, it is a very competitive price.

Even allowing for inflation, the price, to be offered to the eight JSF consortium members (Australia, Britain, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada and Denmark) early next year, is up to $10 million a plane below what Australia had expected to pay.

Given the RAAF is due to sign up for 100 planes next year, that is a potential saving of $1 billion.

"That pays for an awful lot of flying hours and support systems," an Australian official said.

It also puts a cap on the project's cost, allows Australia to buy with an unprecedented degree of certainty -- and it virtually eliminates the incentive for the Government to delay its order.

George Standridge, the vice-president at Lockheed in charge of the JSF, said: "This is going to be the most affordable fighter out there for the future because we have such a large production base."

Lockheed's Fort Worth plant employs about 14,500 and has a long history of aircraft production under various owners.

This stretches back to the B-24 bombers that saw service during World War II, and the legendary F-111 still flying with the RAAF.

The production line is 1.3km long and after producing thousands of F-16 fighters for the global market, and hundreds of F-22 Raptors exclusively for the US Air Force, it is geared up to build 3173 JSF fighters, including 2500 for America.

The line uses cutting-edge technology, from the gigantic autoclaves that bake radar-absorbing composites on to metal components, to the precision tools that hone parts to tolerances measured in micro-millimetres.

In sealed rooms, production workers apply sheets of composite material to the curved surfaces of an F-22, setting them in place with a hair dryer.

This is labour-intensive stuff -- more than 100 people work in the composites shop alone.

Laser ultrasound machines survey each part of the plane, looking for flaws in the composite surface and creating a digital record for customers.

More than 14,200 holes were drilled in the first JSF and just 50 were found to be slightly imperfect.

Farther down the line, a finishing shop has been built where robots will apply special paint to the planes.

"It doesn't matter what colour you paint these airplanes because you can't see them anyway," Mr Standridge said.

Ultimately, 105 fighters will be in production at any one time with one a day rolling off the end of the Fort Worth line.

Lockheed said the JSF hits its straps with its ability to operate invisibly, or to appear the size of a fist on radar outside of visual range, where its pilot can choose which targets to pursue and when to engage them.

As the JSF production line cranks up, more than 20 firms across Australia are watching the project with bulging eyes and expectant order books.

Already about $150 million worth of work has come their way under production partnership deals and up to $10 billion more could follow to support the overall project worldwide.

The project has been plagued by predictable development problems, but it received a major boost with this week's successful first flight of the "short take-off, vertical landing" version.

If the Government signs up for the JSF, the RAAF will take delivery of four aircraft in 2014 for pilot training in the US, a further eight the same year, and 15 a year between 2015 and 2020.

Ian McPhedran travelled to the US courtesy of Lockheed Martin
 

ROCK45

New Member
As many as 230 fighters per year

I found this article and had no idea that LM was planning or even capable of producing so many jets per year. Sorry if this was posted before I didn't see it in the few pages I went through. I was just blown away by the scale and size of the production line and by how complex it is. It's a long articel so I'll only posts the link but well worth reading.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/July/F-35fact.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top