F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Air Force Brat]

So the testing of F-35 continues apace. The most recent info relates to continuing weapons pit drop testing.

Some interesting pics released in recent days are attached.

I see:

Photo 1: BLU-109 (2000lbs penetrating weapon) warhead equipped JDAM with AIM-120C AMRAAM on the other station.

Photo 2: Mk 84 warhead equipped JDAM.

Photo 3: Twin internal carriage capability of AIM-120C AMRAAM, confirming F-35's ability to carry 4x AMRAAM's internally at the present time, despite some people's opinion to the contrary on this matter...

Funny how real information on the program continues to dispel so many nonsensical internet myths. Fancy that...

(Pics courtesy of Lockheed Martin).

Thanks for posting those, they are of AF-1 pit testing at Edwards, which apparently has concluded and I suppose will soon lead to the real deal. To those critical of F-35 capacity and design, let me just say, its primary mission is Joint "Strike" Fighter, and as we should all remember, the F-35 has been designed to operate alongside the F-22, "politics" now dictates otherwise. ATF and JSF were a "matched set", to deny that is an attempt to rewrite history. The F-35 will do what it was designed to do, and likely do it very well thank you! Cheers Brat

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I had a few more thoughts about GD's AIM-152:

I’ve had similar thoughts for the utility of the two stage GD A3M (AIM-152) missile. For surface launching the missile as is would have a similar range to the ESSM despite being 2/3s the weight (thanks to the two stage design). You could also ‘eight pack’ them into the same sized canister that you can quad pack the ESSM. Such a canister would provide twice the shots (each with dual mode seeker and powered terminal interception) for only a 20% increase in weight.

Of course the A3M’s boat has long since sailed but if the Next Generation Missile (NGM), the missile formerly known as Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM), can survive the FY13 budget process (and it’s off to a bad start) then this is the sort of thing that can be looked at in the future.

 

[swerve]

I've wondered about how Meteor would perform as a SAM, & (with a suitable seeker) for DEAD. It would seem to have potential in both applications.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Operational JSF outnumber test aircraft.....

Cheers Gentlemen, hope you all are enjoying the cool southern climes.Four new F-35s have been delivered to the school house at Eglin, since June 29, 2012. There are three As and a B all coded operational rather than test. The question of how many operational as opposed to test aircraft are in the US DOD was asked on Sino D and according to the AFM Daily Report, dated 7/11/12, LockMart reports that number as 16 operational as opposed to 14, I know one of you bright lads is keeping track of foreign sales and I understand GB received several new Bs recently. So my question is how many have been delivered to which partners, and how many might be operational as opposed to test aircraft? LockMarts info would show the US owning 30 F-35s to date, I hope that would encourage you, and the fact that 16 of that number are operational is almost like Christmas to me. Cheers Gentlemen, and I'm very happy to see our little bird seems to be back on track, sorry you guys had to meet me last winter when I was having a "meltdown" about my poor little Raptor, and yes I still want it back, but I am exstatic about the F-35 and I have to give you guys a lot of credit for giving me a little education and showing a little patience as well. Cheers guys. Brat

 

[Haavarla]

You are aware of the risk at employing high figure of F-35 at an operational status, while the test phase are still very much ongoing..

 

[Air Force Brat]

You are aware of the risk at employing high figure of F-35 at an operational status, while the test phase are still very much ongoing..

I am just quoting LochMart figures, gentlemen who know, but I do hear what you're saying, but these are "official" numbers, quoted from the AFM Daily Report, not quite the Bible, but close! Thanks for the response and I almost always find your posts informed and occasionally a little provocative, I am very confident in these figures. Now, as to what does that mean, I would suppose at least basic mission capability? Software and Hardware with upgrades to follow on as proposed, I did note they are stationed at the schoolhouse, so they will be at least initially dedicated to training pilots and maintainers. Cheers Brat

 

[jack412]

I think it's more that they need training aircraft now, they have cut back a lot on production numbers till after testing. If you want to have trained personel for when the f-35 goes IOC, you need to have training planes in sufficent numbers to train with.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think it's more that they need training aircraft now, they have cut back a lot on production numbers till after testing. If you want to have trained personel for when the f-35 goes IOC, you need to have training planes in sufficent numbers to train with.

a lot of JSF training will be simmed - its pretty spectacular what can be done with sims now - in fact the drop off in dedicated trainers is due to advances in sims.

all major airforces have been regearing for greater sim involvement at core levels

 

[Air Force Brat]

a lot of JSF training will be simmed - its pretty spectacular what can be done with sims now - in fact the drop off in dedicated trainers is due to advances in sims.

all major airforces have been regearing for greater sim involvement at core levels

That is most certainly correct, but there remain many tasks such as carrier landings, where the nuances will have to be worked out on the real deal. The US DOD burns a lot of JP on training, and puts a lot of wear and tear on airframes that will cause the more conservative among us to cringe, but thats why they do well, they know their equipment, and they break quite a lot of it in the process of learning to operate it to its potential.

 

[the road runner]

A bit of eye candy from the UK perspective on the JSF STOVL

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUzJW71m6pw&feature=g-all-u"]5th Generation STOVL Capability for the UK - YouTube[/nomedia]

Being able to"plug in" to a coalition network sounds like a good capability to be had.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Bk-1

The first foreign delivery of an F-35 occured 7/19/12 as Great Britain accepted BK-1 from LockMart in Ft. Worth..BK-1 is assigned to the F-35 shcool house at Eglin, it is of course a B model. This from the 7/20/12 AFM Daily Report. Cheers Brat

Oh, and thanks for posting this link road runner, it is indeed timely and a great intro to the UKs new toy, I have a new found optimism for the F-35, the USAF incoming Chief of Staff, Gen Mark Welch reports he will be engaged with keeping the F-35 on schedule daily, as he realizes how important this aircraft is, that also from todays AFM Daily report

 

[StobieWan]

Can't believe we got one, let alone first off the line for foreign users. I've dropped Mr Hammond a quick mail to let me know when I take it for a spin

Rumours of 48 to follow as an initial buy, although it's all subject to confirmation in 2015. I do wonder if we'd end up following the Italian model and buying the A model for the RAF instead of a homogeneous fleet of B's.

I'm just thinking there was originally talk of about 138 or so, really, to keep the RAF and the carriers in business, we'd need something like 100 ish.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Can't believe we got one, let alone first off the line for foreign users. I've dropped Mr Hammond a quick mail to let me know when I take it for a spin

Rumours of 48 to follow as an initial buy, although it's all subject to confirmation in 2015. I do wonder if we'd end up following the Italian model and buying the A model for the RAF instead of a homogeneous fleet of B's.

I'm just thinking there was originally talk of about 138 or so, really, to keep the RAF and the carriers in business, we'd need something like 100 ish.

I think that is entirely intentional Stobie as the UK was/is the first partner, and the early on player, along with Aus a very commited partner in JSF. I am very encouraged that you guys have fully commited to the B, that will in fact ensure her survival in these tight budget times. I think you might agree that the B was developed primarily with the UK and Marines in mind, and while I really like the C and might favor that, the B is a very unique aircraft that promises to dovetail nicely with previous Harrier ops. Anyway congratualations on your first bird, and like you I hope things improve to the point that after you fully outfit those new carriers, that you will have the resources to purchase several of the other variants. Let me say that I fully appreciate the efforts and support of all the partners, and am anxiously awaiting the delivery of the first Oz A model, I know we will all celebrate that as well, but for now go BK-1! More fun ahead gents as the F-35 is on track to step in to the Ops world as testing is going well! Cheers Brat ----- Oh and Stobie, put in a ps on your note, I'd like to be next up!

Congrats to Briton, Bradley Wiggins on a TDF victory, and to Aus Cadel, maybe next year. You guys are on a roll.

 

[FirstSpear]

Now that Cassidian has announced that Stealth aircraft can be detected, well before F35 IOC, should we have spent those dozens of billions on improved, cheaper designs equipped with ECM software and countermeasures (which could have been frequently upgraded?!).

The cash for the two UK carriers would have been a breeze with the savings and legacy aircraft like the early F15s, F16s, Tornadoes would have been fully replaced by now with highly maneuverable aircraft like Typhoon (incl. a naval variant), Rafale for some, Gripen for others.... A few F22s for the US and, for example, a lot of Super Hornets....

Can we continually lengthen the development cycles of weapons like F35? And end up with increasingly aged platforms in service and an IOU on a future aircraft whose big defensive feature is now possibly, already outdated?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Now that Cassidian has announced that Stealth aircraft can be detected, well before F35 IOC, should we have spent those dozens of billions on improved, cheaper designs equipped with ECM software and countermeasures (which could have been frequently upgraded?!).

and what a load of abject nonsense that is...

glad to see that the urban populist misunderstanding of LO still has legs.

another eye bleeding moment to start the day

 

[RobWilliams]

Now that Cassidian has announced that Stealth aircraft can be detected, well before F35 IOC, should we have spent those dozens of billions on improved, cheaper designs equipped with ECM software and countermeasures (which could have been frequently upgraded?!).

The cash for the two UK carriers would have been a breeze with the savings and legacy aircraft like the early F15s, F16s, Tornadoes would have been fully replaced by now with highly maneuverable aircraft like Typhoon (incl. a naval variant), Rafale for some, Gripen for others.... A few F22s for the US and, for example, a lot of Super Hornets....

Can we continually lengthen the development cycles of weapons like F35? And end up with increasingly aged platforms in service and an IOU on a future aircraft whose big defensive feature is now possibly, already outdated?

*Facepalm*

Anyway, you seem to be under a misapprehension that the F-35 is designed to be 'undetectable' and then by that token, to be utterly worthless it appears?

If this is so, then I'm afraid you don't understand what the F-35 is meant to be; a VLO multi-role platform - in a very crude sense - so not some sort of invisible super secret death machine.

It also boggles my mind how you seem to suggest that because the F-35 can be detected, that nations other than the US buy older 4.5+ gen aircraft and that this will somehow be of better value to those nations in comparison (Not to mention that even mentioning a Sea Typhoon makes me ill).

 

[Grand Danois]

Now that Cassidian has announced that Stealth aircraft can be detected, well before F35 IOC, should we have spent those dozens of billions on improved, cheaper designs equipped with ECM software and countermeasures (which could have been frequently upgraded?!).

Congratulations to Cassidian on achieving what Lockheed Martin put in the marketplace a decade ago - a passive radar.

Check out the export-cleared Silent Sentry: http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/mil/radar/sentry.pdf

Lockmart is now marketing the Silent Sentry 3, iirc.

And, once more, that was Lockheed Martin - the very same company which builds the JSF, an aircraft which defeats or disrupts several items in the kill-chain.

 

[FirstSpear]

are you going to boke? here's a bag

*Facepalm*

Anyway, you seem to be under a misapprehension that the F-35 is designed to be 'undetectable' and then by that token, to be utterly worthless it appears?

If this is so, then I'm afraid you don't understand what the F-35 is meant to be; a VLO multi-role platform - in a very crude sense - so not some sort of invisible super secret death machine.

It also boggles my mind how you seem to suggest that because the F-35 can be detected, that nations other than the US buy older 4.5+ gen aircraft and that this will somehow be of better value to those nations in comparison (Not to mention that even mentioning a Sea Typhoon makes me ill).

thank you, I get the 'bit' about very low observability being quite different from invisibility. You (hmm) missed the point I was making about affordability. The delays incurred in the re-equipment of dozens of squadrons in Western forces for a set of physical features that are not easily upgradeable and the order of magnitude cost increase in the acquisition of the JSF program endangers capability and readiness.

You are, of course, absolutely right about the Sea Typhoon which was included for spice. I know there are many people on one side of that issue and still a few quite pertinent voices on the other side. I'll send you a script for dramamine...

Unaffordable systems are not better because a prototype can do tricks. They are unaffordable and therefore absent from the order of battle because no coalition of states, no matter how far reaching, can field them, let alone do so promptly.

Now, can you save you condescending tone and start over?

 

[FirstSpear]

Congratulations to Cassidian on achieving what Lockheed Martin put in the marketplace a decade ago - a passive radar.

Check out the export-cleared Silent Sentry: http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/mil/radar/sentry.pdf

Lockmart is now marketing the Silent Sentry 3, iirc.

And, once more, that was Lockheed Martin - the very same company which builds the JSF, an aircraft which defeats or disrupts several items in the kill-chain.

And no company or nation other than the US military industrial complex can produce proper system, right? How long before other states, ones which have access to technologies to negate the many benefit of LO can field numerous enough systems to make such an unaffordable project as JSF passe? My point was the physical features of JSF don't warrant the decades long cost of the program which will far outlast its presumed edge in the field (whenever it actually gets there in numbers sufficient to make a difference). Also, what was given up in terms of other capabilities to fund this pyramid? Software, detection systems and other less expensive denial of capability technologies can be developed faster than a project like JSF can be. My point was: we need to have more affordable projects which get into the field fast enough and then receive frequent upgrades.

RS,

 

[RobWilliams]

thank you, I get the 'bit' about very low observability being quite different from invisibility. You (hmm) missed the point I was making about affordability. The delays incurred in the re-equipment of dozens of squadrons in Western forces for a set of physical features that are not easily upgradeable and the order of magnitude cost increase in the acquisition of the JSF program endangers capability and readiness.

You are, of course, absolutely right about the Sea Typhoon which was included for spice. I know there are many people on one side of that issue and still a few quite pertinent voices on the other side. I'll send you a script for dramamine...

Unaffordable systems are not better because a prototype can do tricks. They are unaffordable and therefore absent from the order of battle because no coalition of states, no matter how far reaching, can field them, let alone do so promptly.

Now, can you save you condescending tone and start over?

Your overall argument about the F-35 being 'unaffordable' is fundamentally flawed.

The US is buying circa 2400 F-35 of various variants (I forget the exact figure, but it's around that magnitude), this does not show to me an 'unafforable' aircraft. Especially when you earlier suggest the US buys more F-22s instead of the F-35 (alongside the F-18 too).

I'm not sure how the F-22 therefore constitutes an aircraft which is more afforable than the F-35 considering the very few numbers (relatively) it is in, 187 i think in relation to what the projected F-35 figures are (I know these will change, but nowhere near enough to make the figures comparable) because it was such an expensive platform.

Not to mention the numerous companies who are purchasing many of these jets, these too, to me anyway, suggest an aircraft which is actually afforable.

Then in regards to your belief that the F-35 will roll of the production line and that will be the end of it's development cycle, that is ludicrous. The F-35 has severe upgrade potential, more so than many current aircraft not because it is "new", because it generally features the best software currently available. The baseline F-35 will be more potent in terms of avionics than many (if not all) of the current US fighter inventory, more so than dare I say the F-22?

As to the insinuation that no nation in the program will be able to field the jet is proposterous to the extreme, at least that is my interpretation of "no coalition of states, no matter how far reaching, can field them".

If I sound condesending, it is not my intention.