F-35 Lightning II: News thread

Development of F-35 fighter behind schedule by two years
27.07.2009

Development of multipurpose fighter F-35 Lightning II is behind schedule by two years, which could lead to an increase in its cost. CQpolitics reported with reference to sources in Congress. The MPs insist that the military provided more information about the program because they felt during the debate over the fate of the other fifth-generation fighter F-22, these figures hide the Pentagon.

Commission United States military authorities concluded that the production of new aircraft will begin no earlier than 2016, as originally planned, which will produce a series of fighter aircraft in 2014. In doing so, according to the Accounting Chamber United States (Government Accountability Office, GAO), this delay may lead to the rise of another 7.4 billion dollars.

As reported in an interview with the publication of the Director of Defense Studies, American Enterprise Institute of Social Policy Studies (The American Enterprise Institute) Tom Donnelly (Tom Donnelly), delays the supply of F-35 may affect the entire fleet Pentagon. That fighter, according to an analyst in the future should take the place of many other aircraft, including F-15, F-16 and F-18.

Backlog of developing a new fighter aircraft may also have international implications, as it is delivered, many expect the allies of Washington. According to the Association of Air Force United States (The Air Force Association) Tags Douglas (Douglas Birkey), these aircraft is awaiting United Kingdom, the National Guard and Marine Corps United States, as well as many other buyers, which rapidly aging fleet.

Recall that a fighter F-35 is positioned as an alternative to the Pentagon's more expensive aircraft F-22 Raptor. Production of the latter, on the initiative of the White House and the U.S. military must stop, though, object to it, many Congressmen.
24.07.2009

http://www.lenta.ru/

2016 WTF!!! That means we won't get ours until when, 2018?!?!

Turk1 wrote:2016 WTF!!! That means we won't get ours until when, 2018?!?!

Oh yeah, PAKFA is going to beat your azz!!

Air Force F-35 completes first test flight


4/22/2010 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The Air Force version of the F-35A flew for an hour April 20 from Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base, Texas, becoming the seventh F-35 Lightning II to fly.

AF-2, the conventional takeoff and landing aircraft, is the Air Force's version of the Joint Strike Fighter. This fifth-generation fighter is the first one to carry an internal GAU-22/A 25-millimeter Gatling gun weapon system.

"The first flight of AF-2 is a significant achievement for the F-35 program, the U.S. Air Force and our international partners who will operate the F-35A," said James "Sandy" Sandstrom, Lockheed Martin's F-35 U.S. Air Force program manager. "This aircraft is configured to test and verify the multiple weapons loads that will deliver fifth generation combat capability to the warfighter.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2010/04/mil-100422-afns04.htm

http://www.defencetalk.com/northrop-says-f-35-s-das-tracks-ballistic-missiles-at-800-km-28618/

BALTIMORE: Northrop Grumman Corporation's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter successfully detected and tracked a two-stage rocket launch at a distance exceeding 800 miles during a routine flight test conducted aboard the company's BAC 1-11 test bed aircraft.

Can some one explain how DAS on JSF can be used to guide AAM missile ?

As far as I know any IR/TI system still needs ranging to the target which is done by laser range finder or radar , but DAS does not have any ranging system still it claims to guide WVR missile.

Here is a video on das and shows how it works

I'm completely new to the DAS, but as I see it, I think it's just multiple IRSTs bundled into one to provide said all around coverage.

Although, I'm probably wrong.

Austin wrote:Can some one explain how DAS on JSF can be used to guide AAM missile ?

As far as I know any IR/TI system still needs ranging to the target which is done by laser range finder or radar , but DAS does not have any ranging system still it claims to guide WVR missile.

I don't think you need laser range finders to launch an AIM-9X. It is not a BVRAAM like MICA IR where Rafale has to laze the target to triangulate distance, bearing and altitude. It is WVRAAM that just needs a general direction where to go. Once the seeker picks up the target it should take care of itself. DAS would not be usable with AMRAAM or even an IR AMRAAM if they develop one.

The IRST on the Mig-29 and Su-27 are directly linked to the radar, so in theory an IRST lock means you can slew the radar directly at the target without scanning. A short ranging pulse of a fraction of a second will give ranging data.

With multiple sensors you could simply use triangulation, and even with one sensor over time if you keep taking readings you can determine the location of the target the same way submarines do passively with sonar.

Direction of travel could be estimated from signal brightness and estimated distance, but there would not be much chance of determining range by counting propeller rotation...

Networking several IRSTs together will give a vector which can be used to triangulate position too.

BTW the video is a little strange in that it shows an attack by an SA-4 battery, whose missiles seem to be defeated by flares. The battery is then defeated by destruction of a launch vehicle instead of the radar vehicles the launch vehicles use to target aircraft.

The video however simply shows the use of lock on after launch short range AAM in the over the shoulder launch mode that can only effectively be used against very very close targets... ie targets that have just flown by.
This is similar to the R-73 with IRST except these missiles have a datalink with the aircraft so they can get a lock on after they are launched.

As Vlad mentions no use for very long range missiles... and actually something Python 5 is doing already.

New Russian AAMs will have the same capability because they will be launched from a missile bay so they can't be locked on before launch either.

GarryB , my question was with respect to DAS ability to get a 360 * LOAL capability and that too in all passive mode , a great capability in dog fight if that works as advertised.

No aircraft till date has such capability more so in all passive mode.

The PAK-FA will have a 360 * capability due to side and wing radar but its an all active approach which can warn the target early on.

I think they need to develop DAS like all passive capability for PAK-FA , a mini ols on the body of aircraft with wide IIR capability will be good to have on PAK-FA

GarryB wrote:
BTW the video is a little strange in that it shows an attack by an SA-4 battery, whose missiles seem to be defeated by flares. The battery is then defeated by destruction of a launch vehicle instead of the radar vehicles the launch vehicles use to target aircraft.

Flares around here are seen by the public as that thing in Hollywood that makes missiles go crazy. As for the destruction of the TEL, apparently, DAS can see where the missile is coming from, persumeably from the missile's heat trail, which would allow them to fire a weapon at it. Although, chances are that the missile fired in the video was a SEAD weapon and thus, ARM, it appears to be GPS/TV guided.

GarryB , my question was with respect to DAS ability to get a 360 * LOAL capability and that too in all passive mode , a great capability in dog fight if that works as advertised.

The lock on after launch capability is a necessity because of the internal carriage of weapons. When the new IR guided AAM is ready for the T-50 the Mig-35 and Su-35s will get it too and it will have LOAL capability, so with the Mig-35s 360 degree air to air and air to ground optical complex it will have the same capacity... that is also passive optical/IR too.

BTW the idea of dog fighting is not to position your enemy on your tail before you fire... simply because if he is on your tail and fires too there is a really good chance his missile will hit you before your missile hits him because his missile hasn't had to pull a 180 degree turn on launch during its high energy boost phase of its rocket motor.
The result is that he can fire at you from 20km and you can fire back at him when he is 5km or less away from you... not an advantage... more an emergency measure in case you get jumped... and if that happens you are in the sh!t.

No aircraft till date has such capability more so in all passive mode.

Mig-35. Only minus the lock on after launch capability... which is over rated because it means your missile is manouvering hard at a time when it should be accelerating to flight speed. This means instead of a mach 3 missile your missile might be closing your target at mach 1.
With Thrust vector control engine nozzles a Mig-35 pilot could rack the nose of the aircraft over 180 degrees and centre the target on the aircrafts nose and launch a missile directly at the target... before he loses too much forward airspeed he can then rack the nose back to forward again and accelerate with a nose down angle to increase energy gain. If the other guy fires a missile then accelerating away might be the best way to outrun the missile.

The PAK-FA will have a 360 * capability due to side and wing radar but its an all active approach which can warn the target early on.

As posted by you PAK-FA will have a satellite link giving it data on aircraft in near airspace and it will spend 90 percent of its time listening with its radars rather than emitting energy.

We haven't seen the optical setup for the PAK-FA but as Mig are subcontractors I would suspect something even better than that fitted to Mig-35 would be on the cards.

I think they need to develop DAS like all passive capability for PAK-FA , a mini ols on the body of aircraft with wide IIR capability will be good to have on PAK-FA

Every new Soviet and Russian fighter since the late model Mig-23s have had IRSTs, including the Mig-31, Mig-29 and all its variants, Su-27 and all its variants. The only time a new aircraft got a less capable system than a previous model was the export Mig-29s were exported with IRSTs from early model Mig-23s.

Flares around here are seen by the public as that thing in Hollywood that makes missiles go crazy. As for the destruction of the TEL, apparently, DAS can see where the missile is coming from, persumeably from the missile's heat trail, which would allow them to fire a weapon at it. Although, chances are that the missile fired in the video was a SEAD weapon and thus, ARM, it appears to be GPS/TV guided.

Yes, I agree, but this video is marketing... it should be aimed at military professionals. I noticed the shot at Europe with Flankers taking down a Typhoon, but what world power operates SA-4s?

The Russians phased them out in 2007 according to the information I can find.

I think they need to develop DAS like all passive capability for PAK-FA , a mini ols on the body of aircraft with wide IIR capability will be good to have on PAK-FA

Every new Soviet and Russian fighter since the late model Mig-23s have had IRSTs, including the Mig-31, Mig-29 and all its variants, Su-27 and all its variants. The only time a new aircraft got a less capable system than a previous model was the export Mig-29s were exported with IRSTs from early model Mig-23s.

If what you say about the MiG-35's IRST is true and that it does have 360 degree capability, then all they need to do is beef it up because it's maximum range is 45 km for a non afterburning target as compared to 90 km for the OLS-35. If an all-around awesome IRST like the OLS-35 can't be made, then they could do it just like the DAS and put a bunch of mediocre IRSTs all around the airframe for 360 capabilities.

Flares around here are seen by the public as that thing in Hollywood that makes missiles go crazy. As for the destruction of the TEL, apparently, DAS can see where the missile is coming from, persumeably from the missile's heat trail, which would allow them to fire a weapon at it. Although, chances are that the missile fired in the video was a SEAD weapon and thus, ARM, it appears to be GPS/TV guided.

Yes, I agree, but this video is marketing... it should be aimed at military professionals. I noticed the shot at Europe with Flankers taking down a Typhoon, but what world power operates SA-4s?

The Russians phased them out in 2007 according to the information I can find.

The North Koreans apparently. And you know us and Mr. Il,

I think at the end of the day, this F-35 video probably confirms Mr Kopps opinion that the F-35 is not a dog fighter and will likely fire missiles and run than try and enter a turning fight even with a 4++ generation fighter.

I can see how Americas european allies might become a little alarmed at this suggestion because they don't have an F-22 they can use as a primary fighter so for many of them the F-35 will not be the bomb truck. The F-35 and F-22 is like the F-16 and F-15C in US service. Both are technically fighters but the F-15C is a dedicated fighter while the F-16 is a light fighter bomber. The F-16 is the numbers aircraft so when there are only F-16s available you can use them both as fighters and as strike aircraft, whereas if you have some F-15Cs then they can only really be used as fighters.

Problem is that the F-35 is really only a fighter against a second rate enemy and it needs its F-22 fighter big brother to look like a serious partner when facing Su-35s and T-50s...

Major F-35 Component Cracks



The cracks have appeared in the STA 496 bulkhead, located just aft of the main landing gear, of the F-35B static test airframe. (Alcoa illustration)

PARIS --- The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has encountered a new, serious problem as a bulkhead on an F-35B fatigue test airframe developed cracks after only 1,500 hours of tests that are due to last 16,000 hours.

“The aft bulkhead of the F-35B BH-1 fatigue-test specimen has developed cracks after 1,500 hours of durability testing,” Aviation Week’s Ares blog reported yesterday. “This is less than one-tenth of the planned fatigue test program, which is designed to prove an 8,000-hour airframe life with a safety factor of two.”

This incident again raises questions about the technical viability of Lockheed Martin’s redesign of the aircraft, especially for the F-35B STOVL version, and about the company’s claims that its simulation systems are so good that flight testing can safely and drastically be cut back to lower costs.

Lockheed Martin issued the following statement on the issue:

"During a recent durability ground test, fatigue cracks were discovered in the aft bulkhead of BH-1, an F-35B ground test aircraft. The cracks were discovered during a special inspection when a test engineer discovered an anomaly; the aircraft has logged approximately 1500 hours of durability testing. Precautionary inspections were conducted on all flight test aircraft and the CTOL ground test aircraft. No additional cracks were found and flight testing has not been impacted.

“The root cause investigation is underway and will determine if the cracks were caused by a test anomaly that is not indicative of flight conditions, an engineering issue or a material failure. Durability testing is conducted early in the development of a new aircraft program to avoid costly sustainment issues later in the life of the aircraft."

A knowledgeable source confirmed to defense-aerospace.com that the frame in question is the STA 496 bulkhead, and added that “by all accounts, so far, the undercarriage loads are in the mix, which brings into focus a debate that was had some time ago about whether or not the full spectrum of the [Conventional Take-Off and Landing] loads should be used as well as those for the STOVL scenarios ([Vertical Landing] and, possibly, Ski-Jump)” for the fatigue test program.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/120126/cracks-on-f_35b-test-airframe-highlight-risk-of-reduced-testing.html

...& Canada buying this immature warplane??

F-35B aircraft: Is it worth the cost?

PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL AIR STATION, Md. — The F-35B is a supersonic stealth fighter jet with an unprecedented new twist: It can take off and land like a helicopter.

That’s what makes the airplane a crucial part of the strategy to modernize the Marine Corps as it reverts to its traditional mission as America’s go-anywhere, quick-reaction force after 10 years of ground combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s also what makes the airplane a vastly more expensive option and has caused the technical problems and development delays that led to the program being put on probation earlier this year by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Marine Corps officials demonstrated the F-35B for reporters on Friday, hoping to at least raise the question of whether the plane is worth the cost and effort when budget-cutters are looking hard at Pentagon programs that might not make the grade.

“Is the juice worth the squeeze? We’ve got to have that discussion at the most senior level of our country,” said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, who calls himself “a realistic cheerleader” for the program.

The Marines want to buy 340 of the planes to replace the AV-8B Harriers that first went into service 25 years ago. Each F-35B costs $150 million, compared with $24 million for a Harrier.

The F-35B’s test pilots said it’s worth it — and then some.

“It’s really quite a leap in technology,” said Lt. Col. Matt Taylor. “It flies like an airplane on a perfect day, every day.”

“The airplane hands down is much more stable than the Harrier was,” added Lt. Col. Fred Schenk, a former Harrier pilot who flew Friday’s demonstration, which included a short takeoff, a low-speed pass at 60 knots and a vertical landing.

But the co-chairmen of the debt commission appointed by President Barack Obama — Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson — concluded late last year that the F-35B wasn’t worth the cost and recommended the Pentagon cancel it, saving $41 billion on an estimated purchase of 311 planes.

Aside from the technical problems and cost overruns, they noted that the plane’s sophisticated capabilities were not as relevant in current combat conditions. Also, development of the Marine version of the F-35 was a drag on the rest of the Joint Strike Fighter program, they said.

The Pentagon plans to buy more than 2,400 F-35s for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps for about $380 billion. But estimated total operating costs of up to $1 trillion have outraged lawmakers and put the entire JSF program on the list of possible targets for budget cuts.

“Be assured, the cost of the jets are coming down,” Lockheed Martin chief executive Bob Stevens said in response to congressional critics. He noted that the $1 trillion estimate was comparable to any other major replacement of an entire category of equipment.

Meanwhile, the problems that led Gates to put the F-35B on probation are directly related to what makes it so special: a unique lift system that diverts jet exhaust, allowing it to take off and land vertically while still flying at supersonic speeds and maintaining a stealthy profile to enemy radar systems.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60605.html#ixzz1VIvgnUYS

The F-35 is supposed to replace a whole range of NATO aircraft including F-16s and AV-8s and Tornados etc etc.

Compared with the current performance of the F-16 I would say the improvement is not really warranted right now because the F-16 can do the job and is much much cheaper if less capable.

For those with AV-8s however the vertical take off F-35B is their only choice as the bog standard F-35 conventional takeoff model simply wont take off from the same ships a VSTOL aircraft can and the cost of enlarging the ships and modifying them to take STOBAL (short take off but arrested landing... like the Mig-29K and Su-33) will limit the loads the F-35 can carry perhaps to the point where it is pointless carrying it.

A lot of air forces will have to make some very expensive choices in the next few years.

$41 billion for 311 planes is a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere in the military.

The F-35B: Keep It or Kill It?

http://xbradtc.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/the-f-35b-keep-it-or-kill-it/

the problem with using the F-35B as a ground attack unit is that it simply doesn't have the loiter time. With the STOVL configuration, it sacrifices the fuel which is needed to sustain vertical thrust or even fly a few extra circles around the combat zone.

a helicopter gunship with extra fuel stores could easily provide top cover for ground troops.

Cancellation of the F-35B (and switch to F-35C by the USMC) could eventually see the replacement of the Wasps with additional evolved CVNs operating in a hybrid strike / air assault role as proposed for the RNs Queen Elisabeth Class. Alternatively removal of the need to operate STO/VL could see the merging of a number of LPD, LSD etc. into perhaps classes of small and medium LHDs.


the other problem with the JSF is that its target customer group is the group of countries which wanted to buy the F-22 but couldn't because of the Military-Secret trade ban. Primarily, Japan, Australia, and Israel. I guess they're worried about getting a bastardized version of F-22 tech and F-16 combat role.

Correction, a helicopter could provide direct fire support, but not top cover.

There is no helicopter in service that has the air to air capability of a WWII fighter let alone a modern fighter.

Even a LIFT like a Yak-130 or L-39 is far superior to a helicopter in air to air combat.

In the past flying low or hovering or waiting for the plane to come in on an attack run and turning towards the incoming aircraft to spoil his angle is simply pointless because any modern fighter with AMRAAM or WVR AAM will take you out easily from stand off distances... with modern radar and modern missiles a helicopter is a sitting duck.

The Marines would need a full carrier to provide air cover, though their might be some potential with the tilt rotor for a gunship with a higher payload than a helo.

The money they are spending on the F-35B could be spent on AV-8 upgrades to allow them to be used for another 30 years and still have several billion in change.

Apache can circle around the target and provide precise support with it's MG, while the F-35 can fly in, drop bombs, and speed away.

the A-10 seems like a more sensible choice than the F-35 for an asymmetrical combat role

If there are no airfields near the "beach assault" area then if the F-35B is not developed as a replacement for the AV-8 (Harrier) and you try to perform the attack with just helos (when the AV-8s are retired... they were going to be replaced by F-35Bs) then your air control centres on Cobra attack helos.

In fact the late model Cobras are better armed for air to air use than the Apaches because the gun on the Cobra is half a vulcan. (ie take a Vulcan cannon used in most current US fighters and remove every second barrel so it goes from a 6 barrel gun to a 3 barrel gun) This halves the rate of fire but also reduces weight and recoil force. The rate of fire is still plenty for aerial targets (rate of fire is not important against most ground targets) and the high velocity rounds make shooting fast moving aerial targets easier than the slow firing low velocity 30mm cannon on the Apache.

The simple fact of the matter however is that any cheap 4th gen fighter or even most 3 gen fighters would be very unlucky to lose an air fight with a helo. The fighters radar and missiles and speed means it can dictate combat and most of the time the helo wont even see what hit it.

Cobras and Apaches can carry sidewinders, but fired at low speed and low altitude where helos operate the range of the weapons is a small fraction of the range when the same weapon is fired from a fighter at 600km/h at medium altitude... let alone a BVR missile shot with an R-77 from 20km or so.

My general opinion on F 35

You have to look at at from three perspectives. One is from American Industry perspective, second is American Forces perspective, third is American Allie's forces perspective. I am not including American Allie's Industry perspective because very success of F 35 is against their interests in the long term.

As far as US forces are concerned they can easily afford delays in F35, any version of it. They have numerical superiority that is un-matched in the world. Maybe China will field equivalent number of fighters as US in 15 years time or so. Followed by Russia and India but its US and China which will have numerical superiority. USAF is quite capable currently with F 22 as its flagship, although it is quite draining on resources as per its maintainence reports. Add to that, hordes of f15 and f16 fighters, which will easily be competent enough for next 10-15 years. USN, is also sitting pretty currently with F18 C and E models. US marines look like are going to loose most as F-35B does look in a bit of trouble. GarryB, I dont think Harrier can hold its own against any decent adversary with capable SAM network. Ok they can manage with AV-8B because their AF will pave the way for them. But they are far from ideal.

As far as other US Allies are concerned, they very much need a "capable" f-35, especially countries like Japan, Australia, Turkey, South Korea, Israel, some Europeans including U.K. etc. maybe even Saudi Arabia. These countries are seriously counting on F35 to deliver as US Empire influence will reduce in future. Many of these air forces would have liked to have F22 instead. they wont like any more delays either as that will make them order more f teens and that will likely reduce their order of F35. And they have to operate f-teens against PakFa and J20 etc when they would have liked an all f35 force 20 years down the road.

As far as US industry is concerned, a capable and non delayed F 35 is important. Although Boeing can make some quick profits by selling some silent F-15s. But US industry wont like any of their non-US traditional customers buying something else (example is scenario where some will get something like PakFa because F 35 is not good enough and cant hold its own against big J-20s who will also be in superior numbers in PLAAF for example Japan or S Korea.) US armed industry doesnt have much to worry about delays in F 35 as far as their US customers are concerned. Even if it is not capable enough they will still sell over 1000 f 35 to US Armed Forces. But then F35 will be short lived and another (possibly 6th gen) fighter will be developed and they will again have another project(s) to work at. Not much to loose there for US manufacturers as far as US Armed Forces are concerned IMHO.

Apache can circle around the target and provide precise support with it's MG, while the F-35 can fly in, drop bombs, and speed away.

the A-10 seems like a more sensible choice than the F-35 for an asymmetrical combat role

Oops now I understand... when I said top cover, I didn't mean helos can't provide top cover for troops on the ground, I meant that without fixed wing fast aircraft with decent radars and dedicated air to air weapons there is no top cover to protect the helos because helos can't fight aircraft... it is not what they are designed for. They carry missiles that can be used against aircraft but that is only a last ditch self defence thing... you wont see any helo deployed as an interceptor except in very extreme situations.

As far as US forces are concerned they can easily afford delays in F35, any version of it. They have numerical superiority that is un-matched in the world. Maybe China will field equivalent number of fighters as US in 15 years time or so.

Actually they have the problems of an ageing air fleet and an entire empire to manage, and their plans called for the F-35 to be in service and mass production by 2014-2015 so when we hit that date if they are not in mass production then there will start to be problems.

GarryB, I dont think Harrier can hold its own against any decent adversary with capable SAM network. Ok they can manage with AV-8B because their AF will pave the way for them. But they are far from ideal.

The Sea Harrier is a very capable aircraft with an excellent radar and now with AMRAAM is it in many ways as good as an F-16 except for dash speed. The AV-8 II doesn't have the excellent radar of the Sea Harrier however and is oriented to a CAS/strike role.

It would be fairly unlikely for a Harrier to ever take on SAM positions as these would more likely be taken on by a naval force of subs and ships with land attack cruise missiles to minimise risk.

The Marines are the primary reason for the more expensive VSTOL F-35B model however.

http://www.russiatoday.com/usa/pentagon-f35-report-combat-012/http://www.russiatoday.com/usa/pentagon-f35-report-combat-012/


Iam very happy to post this topic, hoping the end of JSF 35. Several hundreds billions dollars's program is going to agonize. What a good news in this monday morning.
I know that Canada gave up this expensive program, it stays now Japan, I know Netherland is very reluctant. Germany is no longer in the program.

Very good news, very good news.