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

Then again there are some languages that are effectively write-only. Such as APL. (mic-drop)

There are also some in the profession who can make code written in any language write-only. Run away from any project on which they are employed.
 
timmymagic said:
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...
Click to expand...
But the UK purchased those for the Typhoon fleet, not Lightning?

Weapon integration takes time on any aircraft and there are finite numbers of people, facilities (e.g. wind tunnels, bench test labs) and test aircraft. So any programme has to prioritise.

Not having powered weapons yet doesn't seem that surprising; there's still medium range strike options like SDBII and JSOW, and all the big long range stand off weapons are already integrated onto the 4th Gen fighters that'll be spending most of their time standing off launching those weapons..

If the UK wants MBDA weapons higher up the integration list then it needs to buy a lot more Lightnings to increase its vote share, or get other Lightning users to actually want MBDA wepons so that they vote too
 
red admiral said:
But the UK purchased those for the Typhoon fleet, not Lightning?
Click to expand...
They're for both. The stockpiles of Amraam B and C-5 both end of life without expensive re-lifing (conveniently we can give them to Ukraine for NASAMS use). So the MoD decided to purchase AIM-120D-3 to cover the gap. But Typhoon Tranche 1 and F-35 need a BVR AAM. Realistically the Meteor won't be on all UK F-35 until 2032, with a slow roll out from 2027/28 on current plans....if there are no further delays on Block IV I'll be amazed...

red admiral said:
If the UK wants MBDA weapons higher up the integration list then it needs to buy a lot more Lightnings to increase its vote share, or get other Lightning users to actually want MBDA wepons so that they vote too
Click to expand...

Number of users doesn't really matter. It's all dependent on Block IV arrival. The equivalent US weapons are also delayed. Remember the Asraam and Paveway IV are the only non-US weapons integrated to date. In the future the US/Norwegian JSM will arrive. But apart from that its all UK and US, no-one else is getting a look in....(the Turkish/US SOM-J is long forgotten about now...). If (and its a big if...) the Israeli's integrate any weapons it will be purely for the F-35I, and to be honest I can't see any of their munitions that would be worth integrating. There is near zero possibility of foreign sales to F-35 users, and in the main Israel already operates the US equivalent (i.e. 9X instead of Python 5, Amraam rather than Derby, JDAM, SDB1 etc.).

As for the UK in many ways given our very small numbers delivered to date (34) against a worldwide total of 965 to date....we're not doing bad...

- 1 of the 3 air to air weapons is a UK missile (Asraam)
- Apart from the 3 A2A weapons there are no other powered weapons integrated yet.
- All Air to Surface munitions to date are unpowered.
- 1 of 5 Air to Surface munitions integrated to date is a UK weapon (Paveway IV). The others are JDAM series, SDB1, GBU-12 and JSOW. Given the demand from users this is unsurprising.

And with Meteor, Asraam Block VI, Spear (and potentially Spear variants simulteneously) and Paveway IV Penetrator arriving in 2027/28 we're set well. It's likely that by 2030 the only non UK and US munition will be JSM, and Raytheon have a big stake in that...

But as ever with F-35...its the pace that it all happens...and the inevitable delays. Plus the question that no-one is asking...if the Block V and earlier Asraam are near end of life...what are we doing for a WVR towards the latter part of the decade on F-35.....suspect MoD will have to relife a number of Asraam Block V to cover the gap...yet more unnecessary expense...
 
I think you are mixing up a few things:

Initial UK weapons integration of PWIV, ASRAAM was in SDD and delivered for IOC, and laid for by UK SDD funding as Tier 1 partner at that point.

Further weapon integrations come in through life development and are dependent on fleet numbers as vote share (not fleet number at that instant in time) to sort priorities. USAF generally gets priority as they have by far the largest fleet.

I don't see Block IV delays as having any particular impact on integration timelines. Other aircraft programmes also take many years, even when they take massive shortcuts to get austere integrations.
 
Good to see the first RSVL landing on the Prince of Wales, at least that will mean that the British F-35Bs will be able to come back with much heavier weapon loads than dropping them off to save weight before doing a vertical landing.
 
FighterJock said:
Good to see the first RSVL landing on the Prince of Wales, at least that will mean that the British F-35Bs will be able to come back with much heavier weapon loads than dropping them off to save weight before doing a vertical landing.
Click to expand...

Thing is at present, and in the near future there is zero need for SRVL...

Max Uk weapons load is well within VL limits.
 
LMFS said:
About the F-35 and why it may not be a 100% applicable example when estimating the chances of creating a stealth light fighter, I think the STOVL requirement is the key aspect to consider: it forced the engine forward, then the bays had to be moved at the sides of the engine. (BTW, the lift fan is also incompatible with ventral, central bays).
Click to expand...

Scott Kenny said:
Kinda makes me wonder if it would be possible to make an F-35 variant with a centerline weapons bay where the liftfan/fuel tank is. I mean, there's structure there to support what's basically an open volume already, the question is "what are the usable dimensions of that space and could you stuff a couple more AMRAAMs or even a 2000lb bomb or two in there?"
Click to expand...
 
timmymagic said:
Thing is at present, and in the near future there is zero need for SRVL...

Max Uk weapons load is well within VL limits.
Click to expand...
Amusing how they devoted the so much effort to perfect vertical landings and take-offs only to discover that F-35 can carry 30 or 40 percent more with rolling take-offs and landings.
…. Similar to helicopters that can carry 40 percent more with rolling take-offs. Translational lift kicks in above 40 knots. With translational lift, rotors quit acting like individual blades operating in loose formation. Faster than 40 knots, all those blades cooperate and act like a disc.
 
riggerrob said:
Amusing how they devoted the so much effort to perfect vertical landings and take-offs only to discover that F-35 can carry 30 or 40 percent more with rolling take-offs and landings.
Click to expand...

To be fair SRVL is only really safe on the QE Class large deck. The main user, the USMC, will not be doing it on Amphibs. Nor will the Italian, Spanish or Turkish (as they once were) navies on thier smaller decks. The Japanese could, but I suspect they will go VL only.
 
FighterJock said:
Remember that with the ramjets the Meteor is a large missile so I would think that six internal missiles would never fit inside the bays, even with four missiles in each bay. Unless they are planning on a redesign for the Meteor.
Click to expand...
But the ramjet ducts are not any wider than the fins. So it depends on how exactly they pack into that "box". If the fins have to overlap to fit 2x Meteors into the volume of a 2000lb bomb, then there may be packing issues.
 
Overlapping the fins on the Meteor could work in the weapon bays to fit two missiles per bay, I could see that working Scott Kenny. It all depends on where the attachment points are.
 
I finally got a chance to track down something I heard in a Mitchell Institute Aerospace Advantage podcast episode a while back. I'm aware that currently the F-35 can't carry the AIM-9X internally. I'm also aware of the work being done with Sidekick to increase the number of AIM-120s that can be carried, at least on the A & C variants.

In the Aerospace Advantage podcast Episode 137 "Fighter Modernization", one of the guests asserts that Block 4 will include not only the ability to carry more AIM-120s (presumably via Sidekick), but also internal carriage of the AIM-9X. The relevant section is at ~24:20 and the statement is made by the guest Lt Col Eric "Gunz" Gunzinger, USAF (Ret.), Former Instructor Weapons Systems Operator.

Has anyone else heard this from another source and what do others think the chance is that this is actually in the works? I was wondering the other day if perhaps the relative dearth of info on sidekick might be due to this capability and/or ability to use the JATM.
Thoughts?
 
Unless it's fitted with folding tail-fins wouldn't the internal carriage of an AIM-9X require structural modifications to the weapons bays?
 
I had thought the main problem with AIM-9 was that it is rail launched? I think to be internally carried, it would need modifications to be drop fired and an ability to lock on after launch. The latter might require a datalink.
 
Josh_TN said:
I had thought the main problem with AIM-9 was that it is rail launched? I think to be internally carried, it would need modifications to be drop fired and an ability to lock on after launch. The latter might require a datalink.
Click to expand...
That's my understanding as well.
 
on the subject of missile integration in the internal weapons bay

has ASRAAM and IRIS-T been cleared? I remember seeing some mock-ups for ASRAAM, but not sure if it was ever fully integrated for the IWB.

im also wondering why Australia ditched ASRAAM for the 9X
 
what_is_that said:
Has anyone else heard this from another source and what do others think the chance is that this is actually in the works? I was wondering the other day if perhaps the relative dearth of info on sidekick might be due to this capability and/or ability to use the JATM.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
So if you see the MRAAM mount of the F-35 weapons bay door MEL, it is mounted where the door actuator joints are. So I think it is theoretically possible to design an actuating rail launcher like that of F-22's LAU-141 in place of where the current MEL is located in, so that the missile tilts diagonally downwards and outwards when the bay opens and AIM-9 is selected. Else, they'll have to integrate the Sidewinder to current MEL, eject-launch the missile like they do with AIM-120 and use LOAL. Both seems plausible to me.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Unless it's fitted with folding tail-fins wouldn't the internal carriage of an AIM-9X require structural modifications to the weapons bays?
Click to expand...
Not really. If you see the picture of an AMRAAM mounted on the F-35 weapons bay door MEL, you'll see that the wing will interupt with the weapons bay door, should it free fall. So the MEL ejects the missile diagonally, downwards and outwards, clearing the fins from touching the aircraft fuselage.
 
helmutkohl said:
^ they already produced like 900? air frames and its still not in full production?
Click to expand...
FighterJock said:
So the million dollar question. When will F-35 low rate initial production end and full rate production begin?
Click to expand...
We've already had this discussion months ago so that might help. ↓

Maro.Kyo said:
As others have pointed out Milestone C is required before going FRP and currently JSE is the biggest issue. Besides, some on Capito Hill are pitching the idea of waiting for the Block 4. As for the rate of production itself, FRP is aiming for over 200 aircrafts a year. Currently it's sitting on mid 100s
Click to expand...
bring_it_on said:
M-C and approval to proceed into the next phase is unlikely to effect the production rate in the short to medium term. Lockheed said as much last year. The current rate is a function of its supply chain constraints, DOD budgets and the ongoing modernization. What M-C will allow is the first DOD MYP but that will probably also have to wait for block 4 to fully mature so towards the latter half of the decade (my guess).
Click to expand...
Maro.Kyo said:
Yup. Under revised plans Block 4 wouldn't be ready at least until 2029 so I think it's a reasonable development. The numbers I've mentioned (over 200 a year) is purely a mid- to long-term goal by the JPO and LM.
Click to expand...
Maro.Kyo said:
To further clarify a bit more about F-35 M-C to those who are still a bit puzzled, it is because the current phase of the JSF program, the IOT&E is technically a part of SDD phase (an EMD equivalent from the ATF program), although the program itself transited from SDD to IOT&E phase back in 2018.

Due to the complexity of F-35 and its underlying systems, some of its capabilities are to be verified/certified on a virtual, highly sophisticated computed environment called the JSE. Development and construction of the JSE itself as well as integrating the F-35 model to the JSE have been delayed up until now for various reasons, some discussed on this thread earlier. In short, JSE is a critical component of the JSF IOT&E campaign so a delay in JSE means delay in IOT&E and a delay in IOT&E means delay in conclusion of SDD (development of F-35). Without a conclusion of SDD, JPO cannot declare M-C for the JSF program and without M-C it cannot enter FRP.

Apart from that, as I've mentioned before, both the Capitol Hill and the AF are more keen on waiting for Block 4 (no one want to pay extra dollars to pay for retrofitting brand new aircrafts) as well as further observing F-35 procurement and sustainment cost trend (LM says it will go down, it is going down but no one knows if it'll go down enough. Also recently they've hinted that the numbers will temporarily go up due to supply chain disruption and reduced procurement by USAF). We'll get a better picture once we reach the mid 2020s, the point on which LM claimed the F-35 will reach the short-term sustainment cost reduction goals. Don't be surprised if USAF again touts the idea of MR-F in a few years if LM cannot.
Click to expand...
NCQ said:
But the last of the hardware changes for Block 4 are coming with Lot 17 in two or so years, after that it's just continual software updates for Block 4. If you ask me it makes the most sense to increase production rates as soon as Lot 17 or later is available. Because there won't need to be any retrofits, the aircraft will be full Block 4 hardware standard off the line. They'll have Block 4 software too (I believe every aircraft starting with the TR-3 jets this summer will off the line), just not the final versions of the software.
Click to expand...
Maro.Kyo said:
Yup. TR-3 will be implemented starting lot 15. Problem is that C2D2 software implementation is, imo, at least half or more the entire Block 4 program. I'm not sure if the plans to get all Block 4 hardware implementation by lot 17 is still the plan, for which I cannot comment upon, but even if that's the case I'd think that the AF/JPO and CH will all want to know which direction the AETP will proceed since it is also integral in providing Block 4 capabilities their required power and cooling.
Click to expand...
NCQ said:
Sure, the Block 4 software from C2D2 is a core part of the Block 4 program. It's what makes it all work. But software is basically free to retrofit on to existing airframes. As a result I personally don't see a reason to hold off on airframe orders once last of the hardware changes are in for Block 4 (i.e. Lot 17 and after). And as far as I can tell Lot 17 is still planned to be the last of the Block 4 hardware changes. Even the new AN/APG-85 radar we didn't even know about until just now is supposedly planned for Lot 17 aircraft.
Click to expand...

TomS said:
It probably doesn't really matter. It's only technically in LRIP now because it hasn't fulfilled all the Milestone C criteria, but the actual construction rate is already near the 150-per-year target for full-rate production anyway.
Click to expand...
No, the FRP target by LM and JPO was always something like 220 aircraft per year. It's just that, as bring_it_on has pointed out, 150-ish aircrafts per year is the current limit considering various factors like the supply chain constraints, political and intra-service (Air Force) confidence in the program sustainment cost trend and budget. If anything, declaring Milestone C will remove the biggest bureaucratic roadblock in the way of ramping up the production to the JPO goal.
 
Apart from if LM can meet their sustainment cost reduction goals by 2026, I think the biggest hurdle lying ahead is the PTMS upgrade/EPACS. The Defense Daily article sums it up very nicely.

www.defensedaily.com

Separation Established Between F135 ECU and Future F-35 PTMS, Pratt & Whitney Says - Defense Daily

RTX's engine subsidiary Pratt & Whitney said that it has established firewalls between its F135 Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) for the Lockheed Martin F-35
www.defensedaily.com www.defensedaily.com

Collins Aerospace said that EPACS will provide “more than twice the current cooling capability to support additional growth beyond Block 4 and is expected to provide enough cooling capacity for the life of the aircraft.”

[...]
Jill Albertelli, president of Pratt & Whitney’s military engine business, has said that “the F135 ECU paired with an upgraded PTMS can provide 80KW [kilowatts] or more of cooling power for the F-35, which will exceed all power and cooling needs for the F-35 through the life of the program.”
Click to expand...
Honeywell said that it has been working with Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office to lend up to 17 kilowatts more of cooling for the F-35 for a total of 47 kilowatts of cooling on the Block 4 F-35.

The addition of 17 kilowatts of cooling includes two kilowatts to be fielded in PTMS next year under the F-35 Continuous Capability Development and Delivery effort. The two kilowatt improvements include “optimizing the cold liquid loop architecture and increasing the ability to use the jet’s heat sinks via the thermodynamic cycle,” Honeywell said.

From Honeywell’s standpoint, the 17 extra kilowatts may be enough extra cooling for the sensors and weapons on F-35 Block 4, while Block 5 after 2030 will likely require additional incremental changes like additive or other advanced heat exchangers to give the fighter 60 kilowatts to 80 kilowatts of cooling. The requirements for Block 4 and Block 5 thus far are not firm.
Click to expand...
So firstly, P&W (through Collins) wants a brand new EPACS in place of Honeywell PTMS. Honeywell says they can provide adequate upgrade programme for Block 4 needs and are arguing that the EPACS will cost a lot. They want a bigger upgrade to come later, for Block 5 and onwards.

Then there's the differing positions between Pratt and Honeywell. Pratt originally wanted to group PTMS replacement programme (ie. their EPACS offer) with ECU, but as the title of the article I've linked above mentions, now there's a degree of separation between the Pratt and Collins programmes :
“We are treating the ECU and PTMS as a single development program. They must be integrated to ensure we are providing the power and cooling requirements of the Warfighter,” JPO spokesperson Russ Goemaere said. (from June)
Click to expand...
RTX‘s [RTX] engine subsidiary Pratt & Whitney said that it has established firewalls between its F135 Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) for the Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35 fighter and the Enhanced Power and Cooling System (EPACS) design effort by another RTX subsidiary, Collins Aerospace, for a new Power and Thermal Management System (PTMS) for the F-35. (from August)
Click to expand...

Both Honeywell and Pratt are blaming each other for the current F135 reliability issues as well as the lack of communication regarding current PTMS upgrade programme :
Honeywell has lamented the lack of collaboration it has had with Pratt & Whitney to improve Honeywell’s existing F-35 PTMS.

“We haven’t talked to Pratt & Whitney at all,” Matt Milas, president of Honeywell’s defense and space business, said in an Aug. 14 virtual interview. “I’ve been reaching out to them to try and get some sort of connection going. We don’t have any contractual relationship so there’s not really anything that we can work with them on, but I’ve been engaging with the JPO to try and get access to the F135 data so that we can look at what else we can do.”

[...]

“The thing with the [May] GAO report is that it put all the blame on bleed [air],” he said. “But there’s a lot of things that can cause engines to have reliability issues, and I think the report was too far biased towards just focusing on bleed but not on the other things. There have been a number of quality concerns over the years.”

“There are things that we can do to reduce the amount of bleed air required by the PTMS, and it would be nice if Pratt & Whitney would reach out and ask to collaborate and work together on some of those solutions that could help improve the reliability of the engine, but I think that largely it’s been, ‘Blame the PTMS. The engine’s fine,’ ” Milas said. “You’d think that if I had a teammate that was causing my components to have issues, I’d be reaching out to them, saying, ‘Hey, this bleed air is a real problem for my engine. What else can you do?’ But we haven’t had any of that sort of conversation.”
Click to expand...
Latka wrote in the Aug. 15 email that Honeywell has not approached Pratt & Whitney on an upgrade to the existing F-35 PTMS.

“Honeywell has not approached Pratt & Whitney asking for help with their PTMS upgrade plans,” per Latka. “This makes sense because there is no direct contractual relationship between Pratt & Honeywell, and we therefore cannot collaborate without explicit JPO direction, which has not been given. Honeywell is a subcontractor to Lockheed Martin on the Air Vehicle prime contract with the JPO, and all PTMS activities including propulsion integration fall under the Lockheed contract.”
Click to expand...

I think the most important question is if the GAO report is indeed as biased as Honeywell is arguing, and if a 50% increase in cooling capacity is achieveable with what Honeywell is pitching. If Honeywell is lying/overselling, then I think EPACS is a far better investment, both short term and long term. Also, I'm curious what the PTMS upgrade programme will cost, considering how they are arguing that EPACS is overly expensive for the short term. They also argue that the established supply chain and global sustainment infrastructure for PTMS is a major upside against EPACS, and I'm convinced about it considering all the supply chain and sustainment woes concerning the F-35. So there's arguments for both sides. Also EPACS is only set for TRL 6 by this year and EMD will only start next year at the earliest, so in terms of development timeline, PTMS might have an upperhand since it's just an upgrade to an existing architecture. Though I really want to know how much an upgraded PTMS will differ from the current PTMS.

Since GAO blames the PTMS consuming too much bleed air for the F135 reliability issue, which is one of the core F-35 sustainment issue right now, PTMS and F135 ECU seems to be the key to a lot of future developments, especially since other problems like TR-3, Block 4 avionics and JSE are getting back on track.
 
red admiral said:
I don't see Block IV delays as having any particular impact on integration timelines. Other aircraft programmes also take many years, even when they take massive shortcuts to get austere integrations.
Click to expand...

The Block IV delays have already had a colossal effect on weapon integration...you only have to go back a few years to see what was predicted to be integrated now....

FighterJock said:
Remember that with the ramjets the Meteor is a large missile so I would think that six internal missiles would never fit inside the bays, even with four missiles in each bay. Unless they are planning on a redesign for the Meteor.
Click to expand...

Meteor is roughly the same size as Amraam. It was designed that way so that aircraft with Amraam capability could switch out to Meteor, especially in semi-conformal, conformal or internal carriage.

Dimensionally in length and width (of the body) its exactly the same. However the issues with nesting 6 together come across an immovable object...the intakes. You can clip the wings of Amraam, or Meteor all you like to save space (and indeed both have for internal carriage). But you can't mess with the intakes....as far as I know no-one has tried to model it for Sidekick, it would probably be an afternoons work at most for the basic work in CAD. I suspect it can't be done...

But why bother? 4 BVR missiles and 2 WVR missiles is plenty....the idea that having an additional 2 Amraam will make a huge difference is one I just don't get...

helmutkohl said:
on the subject of missile integration in the internal weapons bay

has ASRAAM and IRIS-T been cleared? I remember seeing some mock-ups for ASRAAM, but not sure if it was ever fully integrated for the IWB.

im also wondering why Australia ditched ASRAAM for the 9X
Click to expand...

Internal integration of Asraam was cancelled at the same time as Brimstone and Storm Shadow integration, in an effort to save time/show some progress on, what was then, a failing programme. Lots of US weapons got canned as well due to the realisation that the weapons would have left service/been replaced by the time F-35 actually arrived....

IRIS-T has never on the list for integration. None of the users has shown any inclination to pay for integration, or indeed wait for it. Norway for example has procured 9X and retired its (objectively superior) fairly new IRIS-T to ground mounts as an improvised SAM...some of which will soon turn up in Ukraine.

Initially the cross-over between F-35 users and IRIS-T users was small....but it has grown. But zero have shown interest in integration...and to be fair as the German's were not in F-35 until very recently I don't think the US would have given Diehl permission to integrate. The German FMS request for F-35 included small quantities of AIM-9X. Italy is the odd one out as a large F-35 customer and IRIS-T customer, but they do have a very small industrial interest in 9X....

The Australian's originally purchased Asraam as it was superior to 9X (not really a surprise, they used the same seeker head and Asraam didn't re-use an old rocket motor). Reportedly they were very happy with it. They then paid for integration to their Legacy Hornet fleet. However, the small purchase of the SuperHornet and Growler to tide them over until F-35 arrival was not worth the effort, time and crucially cost, of a further integration effort for such a small fleet, so they purchased a small number (c100) of 9X specifically for that fleet. With the arrival of F-35 they have increased their 9X order as I suspect (despite never seeing it in writing) that although Asraam has been integrated with F-35B no test shots or flight testing has been conducted with F-35A. Their Asraam stockpile should still have some life in it so they could save as a warstock for emergencies (I'm sure they could probably stick it on F-35 in extremis with a software update and fire it...). But all new Asraam production is Block VI and won't be integrated until 2027/28 with Block IV so unlikely they could get it on the bulk of their fleet until 2032.

There's nothing written though about what the Australian's intend to do with that stockpile....I suspect they will turn up in Ukraine for use on the HMT600/Asraam system.

Australia has been pretty much buying exclusively from the US since the 1960's, makes sense for their strategic position, and thats not going to change. The only exceptions have been a brief dalliance with joint European projects in the late 90's/early 2000's that went disastrously wrong...(NH-90, Tiger and MU-90)...they probably won't want to repeat that. Or where an Australian requirement has had no competitive US equipment available that could meet it (Mirage III, Type 26, Collins Class, Redback IFV, AS9 SPG, RBS-70, Spike ER2, Boxer, NSM). So in general Australian procurement policy is...buy Australian if possible...and if not buy from the US.

Australia is actually a good way of seeing where the US has strengths...for example in the Naval sphere the Australian's don't tend to touch US ships with a bargepole...(see Subs, LHD's, destroyers, replenishment ships, frigates, OPV's...you name it) as the US has serious issues with designing ships at present.....but they will buy US systems and weapons....if the US could actually design and build a ship the Australian's would probably buy it...

When it comes to aircraft and missiles it will pretty much be US only for the foreseeable...the only thing that could change that is if the US equipment becomes so expensive or exquisite that the Australian's can't get it. There could for an example be an opportunity for GCAP or SCAF in the future to replace the SuperHornet fleet as NGAD will likely be US only/too expensive.
 
Last edited:
Maro.Kyo said:
No, the FRP target by LM and JPO was always something like 220 aircraft per year. It's just that, as bring_it_on has pointed out, 150-ish aircrafts per year is the current limit considering various factors like the supply chain constraints, political and intra-service (Air Force) confidence in the program sustainment cost trend and budget. If anything, declaring Milestone C will remove the biggest bureaucratic roadblock in the way of ramping up the production to the JPO goal.
Click to expand...

The PEO says that the FRP milestone is not going to have a major impact on the delivery rate.

www.airandspaceforces.com

F-35 Full-Rate Decision Now Expected in Early 2024

The F-35 full-rate production decision could come in early 2024, but may be moot as the jet is already near maximum production rate.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
 
Josh_TN said:
I had thought the main problem with AIM-9 was that it is rail launched? I think to be internally carried, it would need modifications to be drop fired and an ability to lock on after launch. The latter might require a datalink.
Click to expand...

What about adding a rail on the inside of the bay cover? There are already hard points there.
 
TomS said:
The PEO says that the FRP milestone is not going to have a major impact on the delivery rate.

www.airandspaceforces.com

F-35 Full-Rate Decision Now Expected in Early 2024

The F-35 full-rate production decision could come in early 2024, but may be moot as the jet is already near maximum production rate.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
Yeah, that doesn't contradict what I'm saying. I'm talking about FRP target. You're talking about curent situations and limits, which I've also mentioned.

You've said that 150 aircrafts per year is the target, which is wrong. I've corrected you that the long-term target was always 220.
www.airandspaceforces.com

F-35 Full-Rate Still Months Away, But Won’t Signal Production Surge | Air & Space Forces Magazine

There won’t be a big jump in the number of F-35s coming off the production line, even once it reaches full-rate production, the program office reported.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Lockheed F-35 Vice President Gregory M. Ulmer told reporters in February that the next three lots of F-35 production—15, 16, and 17—will collectively have “on the order of 100” fewer aircraft than the Lot 12, 13, and 14 deal. He didn’t say why production would slide, but original plans called for overall F-35 production—for U.S., partner, and foreign military sales customers—to continue ramping up to about 220 a year and plateauing there until the bulk of the jets going to the U.S. services were delivered.
Click to expand...

Also, the physical capacity of Fort Worth plant can support further CAPEX to 220.
www.airandspaceforces.com

F-35 Production Challenged to Keep Up with Demand | Air & Space Forces Magazine

More international orders raise the question of whether the U.S. should increase F-35 production capacity, planned to reach 156 per year.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Lockheed has said that it could, with additional resources, push production above 220 aircraft per year
Click to expand...
 
Maro.Kyo said:
You've said that 150 aircrafts per year is the target, which is wrong. I've corrected you that the long-term target was always 220.
Click to expand...
The 156 a year “until the foreseeable future” goal is the current program position / aim and was jointly agreed upon between JPO (acting on behalf of the customers) and Lockheed (and suppliers). Any deviation and upward move from that entails some investments and lead time.
 
Looks kind of like it NMaude. I had initially thought that the F-35 had reached full scale production, looks like I was wrong.
 
FighterJock said:
Remember that with the ramjets the Meteor is a large missile so I would think that six internal missiles would never fit inside the bays, even with four missiles in each bay. Unless they are planning on a redesign for the Meteor.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there talk of cooperating with Japan for a combined Meteor and AAM-5 successor that would be more optimized for use in internal weapons bays?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't there talk of cooperating with Japan for a combined Meteor and AAM-5 successor that would be more optimized for use in internal weapons bays?
Click to expand...

I think this forum has an entire thread for that project and I believe it died; will post again when I’m near a laptop if someone else doesn’t link it.
 
NMaude said:
So the F-35 has still yet to reach the FRP stage?
Click to expand...
FRP is a milestone rather than necessarily a number. The program can be in full rate production and actually produce less as happens towards the end of production. With enough investment in SC, LM can totally deliver more irrespective of the program status.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't there talk of cooperating with Japan for a combined Meteor and AAM-5 AAM-4 successor that would be more optimized for use in internal weapons bays?
Click to expand...

Maro.Kyo said:
JNAAM budget was not reflected in Japanese FY2023 budget, meaning that it's probably scrapped. If the programme is officially cancelled, and when it is, the reason behind it, is not provided.
Click to expand...
Maro.Kyo said:
According to Japanese sources (no hard evidence in document), the biggest reason JNAAM was shelved was due to the French opposition, since Meteor missile seeker is a joint programme between Thales and MBDA's seeker division. They feared that they would lose workshare to the Japanese since the JNAAM seeker was essentially a Japanese design and product. There are also other problems mentioned as well, but also unconfirmed. Anyways, if true, it will mean that joint Japan-Britain AAM for GCAP will be developed from scratch. I'm not sure if the British counterpart would be willing to fund a new missile so soon after Meteor. They probably would utilize seeker technology Japan transferred during the JNAAM programme. Same for Japan.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom