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.

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.

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,

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

$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.

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

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.

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.