Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[NMaude]

I also forgot that the B version can not do mk84 sized loads anyway.

It can't carry a Mk-84 size payload in it its' weapons bays but I do believe it carry carry them external on wing pylons.

 

[BlackBat242]

There is no way that's real. One give away is the shape of the nose. Another is the speed and range of motion of the upper door over the lift fan. But mostly it's just because it makes no sense. VIFFing on the Harrier didn't do much as far as adding airframe drag. On the F-35 you're opening a giant airbrake, right at your six, when someone is behind you. And that door almost certainly has relatively low airspeed limits.

Max allowable airspeed with the main lift door open is 250 knots* - there is an airshow document for the F-35B that has normal speed for a STOVL door conversion pass - which is 200 knots calibrated airspeed (see the bottom of page 9 in the link below):

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/initiatives/airshow/F-35B_Airshow_Flight_Profile.pdf

* https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=110 1 December 2012

The test team at Pax is also exploring the maximum speed end of the STOVL portion of the flight envelope, which is 250 knots. “The buffet and noise is significant when we have the upper lift fan door all the way open, which is an angle of sixty-five degrees, at that speed,” Faidley said. “That’s a flight condition that we can’t evaluate accurately in a simulator. It’s another reason why we do flight testing.”

 

[TomS]

Why would he do it, on a big runway and short of fuel?

Hard to say.

I'm not sure if this was an actual emergency, or just training. They had the RAF F-35Bs flying out of that airport during the exercise anyway. Possibly they decided to demonstrate an STO landing, which could be operationally useful even on shore (e.g., for landing on a damaged runway, or a stretch of roadway).

 

[perttime]

Hard to say.

I'm not sure if this was an actual emergency, or just training. They had the RAF F-35Bs flying out of that airport during the exercise anyway. Possibly they decided to demonstrate an STO landing, which could be operationally useful even on shore (e.g., for landing on a damaged runway, or a stretch of roadway).

I have understood that the RAF F-35Bs were flying from a carrier off Norway, supported by a tanker. Before landing, the pilot reported that he had fuel for 9 minutes.

 

[TomS]

I have understood that the RAF F-35Bs were flying from a carrier off Norway, supported by a tanker. Before landing, the pilot reported that he had fuel for 9 minutes.

Seems there were AAR issues and some of the F-35s were refuelling there.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cx3Cn37MUCW/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading

 

[Scott Kenny]

What is the advantage of a rolling landing vice a vertical one? Less erosion of the landing surface?

That is one of the advantages, yes. Was at an air show years ago with a Harrier. Announcer apologized for the Harrier not doing the full vertical takeoff because it was too hot and they'd shred the asphalt runway. So we got a super STOL demonstration, IIRC 250ft takeoff and 50ft landing.

 

[perttime]

Seems there were AAR issues and some of the F-35s were refuelling there.

...

How did I miss that piece of news....
I live pretty much under a "usual approach path", and got to see lots of Hornets and Gripens returning to base. I also heard some fast jets taking a shorter approach.

 

[eagle]

I doubt that the payload is limiting the envelope. I’m going to stick with my original guess and say a roll stop on asphalt or concrete involves a lot less landscaping.

Sure on a less prepared surface, a rolling landing might be the only option in any case.
But weight is an issue. Margins are very tight. Plus on land, there' also the issue of air density (think Afghanistan... hot and high).

Here's a report that details the F-35Bs weight issues: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/326/326.pdf
Best read at the source, but here from page 27ff:

Weight
102. The Times also suggested that the US documents have revealed that the initial F-35Bs
purchased by the UK are too heavy to perform the vertical take-off and landing function
safely:100
… when early versions were upgraded, they would be over the weight
permitted for a safe landing. Britain bought four of the 14 aircraft affected,
records suggest. The report estimates further upgrades, to bring the aircraft
up to its full potential, would push it over an even stricter “structural limit”.
Without the upgrade the aircraft will miss out on future software and
hardware updates.101
103. The DOT&E report cited by The Times states that modifications to the 14 Lot 2 F35-
Bs, required to bring those aircraft to the Block 3F configuration, “are expected to bring
those aircraft to potentially an additional 350 pounds [in weight]”. This would push those
aircraft “above the objective not-to-exceed weight” to meet the vertical landing bring-back
(VLBB) key performance parameters.
104. According to the DOT&E report, estimates for the additional weight accrued from
follow-on-modernisation (FoM) to the Lot 2 F-35Bs include an extra 250lbs “which will
exceed the vertical landing structural limit not-to-exceed weight of 33,029 pounds for
the Lot 2 through Lot 4 aircraft”. As mentioned in The Times, the report suggested that
“this additional weight may prevent these aircraft from being upgraded to the Block 4
configuration”.102
105. In response to The Times’s investigation, the MoD dismissed their claims as
“nonsense”, arguing that a specific technique had been developed “to ensure that a heavy
aircraft can land on the deck”. This technique (Ship-borne Rolling Vertical Landing) “will
be tested on the Flight Trials of HMS Queen Elizabeth over the next couple of years”.
106. We asked Alexi Mostrous and Deborah Haynes about their claims that the F-35 was
too heavy. Mr Mostrous made clear that these claims were specifically confined to the
F-35s purchased by the UK from the Lot 2 and Lot 4 production rounds, rather than those
built more recently.103 Both witnesses repeated the claim that those earlier aircraft were
“potentially” too heavy to land vertically.
107. Ms Haynes also questioned the shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique
that the MoD will employ for the F-35Bs, noting that the language used in the MoD’s
response implied that the technique “has not actually been tested and categorically verified
that it will work”.104
108. Justin Bronk suggested to us that the weight issue with the F-35s was “very significant
in terms of upgrade or retrofit growth potential, as well as bring-back of weapons” and
also, potentially, in relation to resolving vibration issues with the aircraft. According to
Mr Bronk, where vibration issues have emerged in the past the usual solution would be to
investigate and locate the source and to then add cross-braces. As the F-35 B was “already
very close to its weight target, for a lot of the vibration issues the traditional solution is
likely to be weight sensitive”.105
109. We also asked Mr Bronk about the SRVL technique. He took the view that the question
was not whether the F-35 was capable of performing such a manoeuvre, but rather “when
the software will be developed to conduct such a landing”.106 He explained that the SRVL
technique would be a largely automatic process and, as such, the development of the
software required to perform this landing would take “some time”.107
110. Lockheed Martin’s Peter Ruddock conceded to us that three F-35Bs procured by the
UK were above the specified weight. However, he insisted that this did not mean that
those aircraft were too heavy to land on the aircraft carriers and noted that they “can land
and have landed vertically”.108 Indeed, he suggested that while these aircraft were unlikely
to be deployed, “they would be able to land and to bring back the entire weapon load
internally” in the event that they had to be used in operations.109
111. On the general weight of the aircraft, Mr Ruddock told us that, aside from the first
two lots of aircraft procured by the UK, the rest of the aircraft “are actually within weight”
and went on to suggest that “remarkably, on the B model, there has been no weight growth
whatever in the past seven years”.110 Insisting that he had “no concerns about the weight”
of the F-35, Mr Ruddock pointed both to the SRVL technique being pioneered by the UK,
which, he suggested, would enable F-35Bs to land with an additional 2,000 pounds of
ordnance, and also to the level of capability already built-in to the F-35.111 According to
Mr Ruddock, this level of built-in capability “future-proofs” the aircraft and meant that
“the risk of weight growth to the programme is much less than on legacy programmes”.112
112. In supplementary evidence to the Committee, Lockheed Martin clarified these
remarks, suggesting that “since October 2010, there has been zero weight growth in
the F-35B that was not driven by the addition of customer requirements”. According
to Lockheed Martin, there has been an additional weight growth of 300 pounds in the
weight of the aircraft over this period “to accommodate additional requirements and new
capabilities requested by customers”.113
113. Mr Ruddock’s confidence in the weight capacity of both the three over-specification
F-35s and the rest of the fleet was echoed by Harriett Baldwin and Air Commodore
Taylor.114 The latter explained that the three aircraft procured from Lots 3 and 4 which
were overweight were test aeroplanes based at Edwards Air Force Base. He said that while
“they are slightly heavier than baselines weight” they would still be able to land vertically
on the Queen Elizabeth carriers if required.115 He insisted that this would be the case even
“with estimated weights of follow-on modernisation”, although they might not be able to
have “the standard loadout” of weapons and fuel.116 He added that UK aircraft carried
only 500 pound bombs, as opposed to the 2,000 pound bombs mentioned in the weight
specification, thus providing additional weight capacity for the UK’s fleet.117
114. Overall, Air Commodore Taylor was enthusiastic about the “simply exceptional”
performance of the F-35:
We are bringing back and vertically landing on to the carrier full stores
loadout, with enough fuel to land or, if you cannot land the first time, to
go round and have another go and still land vertically with the aeroplane.118

 

[NMaude]

After seeing it in the latest AW&ST issue in the library (It's from September as American magazines take about a month to arrive in New Zealand) there was an article mentioning the F-35B the RN lost off one of their aircraft-carriers in the Mediterranean, here's the sonar image:

I wonder if the wreck has been raised yet? The last thing one wants is for the Russians or the Chinese to salvage it for examination.

 

[TomS]

After seeing it in the latest AW&ST issue in the library (It's from September as American magazines take about a month to arrive in New Zealand) there was an article mentioning the F-35B the RN lost off one of their aircraft-carriers in the Mediterranean, here's the sonar image:

I wonder if the wreck has been raised yet? The last thing one wants is for the Russians or the Chinese to salvage it for examination.

It was recovered about three weeks after it went in.

Wreckage Of The British F-35B Ditched In the Mediterranean Sea Has Been Recovered

The remains of the aircraft are now being transported to an allied port so it can then be airlifted back to the UK. The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence

theaviationist.com

 

[FighterJock]

How much damage was done to the ditched F-35B? Any ideas? Could it be repaired or not.

 

[NMaude]

How much damage was done to the ditched F-35B? Any ideas? Could it be repaired or not.

That's what I was thinking. At the very best it would have be sent back to the factory, be completely dismantled and any damaged component discarded. IMO I wouldn't be surprised it the hulk is used for battle damage repair training for example.

 

[Arjen]

How much damage was done to the ditched F-35B? Any ideas? Could it be repaired or not.

Seriously? An F-35 is stuffed with electronic components - radar, sensors, FCS, etc - immersion in salt water will play havoc with them, not to mention what happens to fuel lines, hydraulics and the engine, rendering the lot usable only for forensic purposes. This is a complete write-off. The only reason a salvage operation was conducted was to keep the remains from prying eyes.

 

[NMaude]

This is a complete write-off. The only reason a salvage operation was conducted was to keep the remains from prying eyes.

I could the hulk after it was inspected being kept for something like battle-damage repair training otherwise it could be cleaned up and put on display in a museum in the UK or the US.

 

[FighterJock]

I would like the F-35B to go to a UK museum preferably the RAF museum Cosford once all the classified stealth coatings have been removed.

 

[NMaude]

I would like the F-35B to go to a UK museum preferably the RAF museum Cosford once all the classified stealth coatings have been removed.

That would be a good idea, perhaps put it on display once the Block 4 variant is in production.

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712348754332754418

View: https://twitter.com/svfmf21/status/1712348754332754418

 

[Scott Kenny]

Forgot if I mentioned it here.

Had an airshow locally back in September, with Thunderbirds and the F-35A demo team. It was amazing how much more basso profundo rumble the one F35 had, even over the 4-ship of F16s of the Thunderbirds.

Now, back to an old argument about low flight hours and time in the simulator:

I absolutely do agree. But they simply can't fly testing the full stealth capability of the aircraft during peace time if not in a very controlled and isolated airspace. Hence training has to be done via simulation. This is similar with training for supersonic fight.

Then, time can not be stretched. A mission is flown with planing time, debrief etc... Even on a simulator, it's a considerable amount of time spent. Pilots and services can not duplicate themselves and their ressources to devoid double the time as if simulation counts for nothing.

I understand that up to 55% is done that way as per the various quote reported here and there.

RAF F-35s were getting some ~80 hours a year, and only ~65hrs/year per pilot. If they're doing 55% of their "flight" time in simulators, that's ~120 hours a year per pilot, well under the NATO minimums of 150, and even further under the US standards of about 200hrs/yr.

 

[NMaude]

RAF F-35s were getting some ~80 hours a year, and only ~65hrs/year per pilot. If they're doing 55% of their "flight" time in simulators, that's ~120 hours a year per pilot, well under the NATO minimums of 150, and even further under the US standards of about 200hrs/yr.

Why are their flight hours so low?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why are their flight hours so low?

Believe it was maintenance availability, but I'm not sure.

 

[H_K]

USAF and USMC flight hours aren’t so hot either… roughly half as much as legacy fleets like F-15s and F/A-18s. The USN seems to be doing better with its F-35Cs but also has a much younger fleet.

(See CBO report and discussion from earlier this year:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-martin-f-35-thread.17732/post-581456)

 

[Jeb]

Believe its real with everyone I've posted it feel its real as well plus...

Eyeah the F35 wasnt even model in DCS yet and its only planned on being the A and not the B.

I'm skeptical, because I've never seen the top door go that vertical. And it seems like the induced drag would absolutely crush its forward velocity but in the clip it doesn't appear to slow hardly at all relative to the camera ship.

 

[timmymagic]

I would like the F-35B to go to a UK museum preferably the RAF museum Cosford once all the classified stealth coatings have been removed.

I suspect the ITF aircraft will be the ones to be retired first. Once the fleet in upgraded to Lot 19 standard in the late 2020's you have to wonder if they will retain their utility.

The recovered aircraft is at Marham I believe. Probably be a BDA/training hulk, after the salt water immersion effects are studied.

Here's a report that details the F-35Bs weight issues: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/326/326.pdf
Best read at the source, but here from page 27ff:

The good news for the UK there is that the aircraft with potential weight issues are the first 2 ITF test aircraft...so will be retired once testing is complete and will never be 'operational'. There is one 'combat capable' a/c from Lot 4 (then called LRIP 4), BK-03. This is the only UK aircraft that is potentially in the 'too expensive to bother' upgrading category. By the time the full Block IV upgrade kits are released BK-03 will be over 15 years old so they might just retire or move it to a test role. The next UK combat capable aircraft were from LRIP 8, 5 years later...

 

[siegecrossbow]

Why are their flight hours so low?

This is why you need advanced trainers. While advanced simulators can alleviate the issue somewhat I don’t think it is substitute for the real thing.

 

[NMaude]

I suspect the ITF aircraft will be the ones to be retired first.

Very likely but they'd probably still have their uses as test-aircraft.

Probably be a BDA/training hulk, after the salt water immersion effects are studied.

I can see it being used for that plus Lockheed-Martin will be interested to see what prolonged saltwater immersion does to an F-35 airframe.

By the time the full Block IV upgrade kits are released BK-03 will be over 15 years old so they might just retire or move it to a test role.

Some I could see being used as test-aircraft, some being used as instructional airframes and some being retired to an aviation museum.

This is why you need advanced trainers.

No doubt the USAF is champing at the bit to get the T-7 into production.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

Podcast: Inside The Tradeoffs That Created The F-35 | Aviation Week Network

Tom Burbage, the former EVP of the F-35 program during its first decade of development, discusses what it took to get the fighter program off and running.

aviationweek.com

Good podcast with Tom Burbage, former F-35 VP, on the design tradeoffs.

 

[TomcatViP]

Interesting point on Turkey participation valued very high.
On overall, a must to go through the entire podcast.

 

[NMaude]

Interesting point on Turkey participation valued very high.

I'm sure that turkey will get its' F-35s once it has disposed of its SA-21 Growler batteries (In which case will hopefully be given to Ukraine).

 

[timmymagic]

I doubt that’s a major consideration for internal stores. It would have advantages recovering with a lot of fuel, but I would not think ~5000 lbs is breaking the bank bring back wise, and that would be the heaviest possible internal configuration.

With the cancellation of Storm Shadow integration the real urgent need for SRVL dropped away....

Maximum loadout for UK F-35B is at present is around 4,130lbs, with pylons added its probably c4,500lbs (6 Paveway IV, 2 Amraam and 2 Asraam + pylons). Even when the Block IV weapons arrive it won't increase by a vast amount, only reaching a c5,500lbs (2 Meteor, 4 Paveway IV, 8 Spear and 2 Asraam + pylons/BRU).

Basically until FCASW and External Tanks arrive (or someone wakes up and buys some JSM or GBU-32 JDAM for external carriage) payload weights aren't going to be a huge issue for UK F-35B, and FCASW won't be here any time before 2035...and you can always dump fuel.......*

*No Gun pods have been ordered or are likely to be...

 

[FighterJock]

If the RAF/RN F-35Bs will not now get the Storm Shadow intergrated into the fleet why not purchase some JASSMs then, it is a lighter missile than Storm Shadow if it was the weight issue that they were worried about.

 

[timmymagic]

I'm sure that turkey will get its' F-35s once it has disposed of its SA-21 Growler batteries (In which case will hopefully be given to Ukraine).

Problem is all the industrial benefits have walked away in the meantime...

If the RAF/RN F-35Bs will not now get the Storm Shadow intergrated into the fleet why not purchase some JASSMs then, it is a lighter missile than Storm Shadow if it was the weight issue that they were worried about.

Storm Shadow integration was cancelled about 10 years ago, it was around that time that a lot of weapons were ditched from the integration timeline as it became clear there were huge delays with the programme. By the time Storm Shadow would have been integrated it would have been close to its planned Out of Service date...Brimstone was ditched at the same time, although Spear will replace that functionality. FCASW will be procured as the Storm Shadow replacement and should be integrated in the 2030's. By the time the UK's fleet have all been upgraded to Block IV Lot 19 standard it will be 2032 so there may only be a short period to wait...

There is also little desire to purchase US air weapons unless its absolutely unavoidable...like Amraam D-3, purchased due to the fact that Meteor won't be on F-35 until 2027/28...

This is a slide from the time listing 'Baseline Threshold Weapons'....the crosses indicate weapons yet to be integrated or ones that will not now be integrated...its an incredibly depressing view....we should all remember that 8 years after F-35 reached IOC there are still zero powered air to surface munitions integrated...and unlikely to be so for at least 2 more years....10 years since IOC with a comparatively huge test fleet available....

https://imgur.com/DErJ27L

View: https://imgur.com/DErJ27L

 

[FighterJock]

Highly surprised that the Meteor won't be ready for RAF/RN F-35Bs until 2027/28 period, I would have thought that it would be a top priority weapon for the the British F-35B fleet timmymagic.

 

[TomcatViP]

But why?
F-35 relies on rcs and emcon. Why is that a long range missile would be needed when they would force to engage with a radar lock for a considerable amount of time from a distance where, yet, no enemy can detect the F-35?

Just like walking into sniper alley with a beacon on your head...

It is even probable that when that paradigm will change, the meteor would be outdated.

Meteor and F-35 obey to 2 different engagement philosophy. Just like an Hypersonic missiles and the O-1 Birdog.

 

[FighterJock]

First look, First shot, First kill TomcatViP. Stealth and EMCON only aid and delay detection. Better sooting first before eventual detection.

 

[TomcatViP]

Well stealth and emcon give you first shot and at close range. That means you spend less time in sterile engagement, regain SA faster and rebuild you tactical advantage by getting out of the way of radar detection.
Meteor belongs to another era.: 4th Gen.

 

[timmymagic]

Highly surprised that the Meteor won't be ready for RAF/RN F-35Bs until 2027/28 period, I would have thought that it would be a top priority weapon for the the British F-35B fleet timmymagic.

Part and parcel of the delays for Block IV I'm afraid...JASSM and LRASM won't be available until then either.

Thing to remember is...even when its integrated the vast majority of air forces fleets won't be able to use the munitions. For most air forces it will take several years to cycle their aircraft through the Block IV upgrade process. Until aircraft have received the upgrades they'll remain in 3F configuration.

 

[FighterJock]

Certainly is annoying that LM are taking their time over the Block 4 upgrades for the F-35 timmymagic. I had read from somewhere online that it is all down to software codes or something like that.

 

[publiusr]

^ they already produced like 900? air frames and its still not in full production?

Shh SLS bashing only. F-35 is sacrosanct.
Sort of like a kid being chewed out for opening a new bottle of ketchup by his dad who drives to work in an Escalade.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Certainly is annoying that LM are taking their time over the Block 4 upgrades for the F-35 timmymagic. I had read from somewhere online that it is all down to software codes or something like that.

I've written short programs. It still took about a week to debug ~1k lines. How many millions of lines in the F-35 code?

remember, "99 bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code/
take one down, patch it around/
128 bugs in the code!"

 

[NMaude]

I've written short programs. It still took about a week to debug ~1k lines. How many millions of lines in the F-35 code?

remember, "99 bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code/
take one down, patch it around/
128 bugs in the code!"

Back in the 90s when I was at engineering school the rule thumb I was taught is that it takes nine times as long to debug software code as to write it.