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

NMaude said:
Details, please.
Click to expand...
HN-468 was rebuild from F/A-18C (fuselage and one wing from ex Finnish Air Force HN-413), damaged in a midair incident, and CF-18B (nose from ex 188920).
In 2010, during a tail slide, which was part of the test flight program, a valve failed in the servo cylinder which controls the right hand stabilator movement. The flight control system reverted to mechanical backup mode. When positive control could not be reestablished, the chase aircraft gave the command to eject as airspeed in free fall was rapidly approaching critical values.
The pilots sustained permanent injuries to arms and legs during the ejection. The aircraft was destroyed.

Incident McDonnell Douglas F-18D Hornet HN-468,

The aircraft crashed after control was lost during a test flight. The two pilots ejected, sustaining non-lifethreatening injuries. The aircraft was a rebuild from the F/A-18C (fuselage a...
aviation-safety.net
 
www.thedrive.com

F-35C With Mirror-Like Coating Photographed Aboard Carrier

The mirror-like coatings have appeared on F-22s, F-35s, and F-117s, but this is the first time we have seen them in the carrier environment.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

F35C-coating-scaled.jpg
 
I wonder how an F-15 or F-16 would perform fitted with the F135? No doubt it would require some structural modification to the airframe to fit it in, the thing is a beast.
 
NMaude said:
I wonder how an F-15 or F-16 would perform fitted with the F135? No doubt it would require some structural modification to the airframe to fit it in, the thing is a beast.
Click to expand...
The F119 is considerably larger than the F100 or F110, and the F135 is even larger still, so the F119 and F135 absolutely do not fit in the F-15 or F-16 engine bay.
 
Josh_TN said:
More over, the A/B/C designations specify different flying environments. I suspect the F-35 series keeps the current letters throughout its entire run.
Click to expand...
I mean, there could be a significant enough change to warrant rolling to D/E/F for the land/VSTOL/carrier versions, respectively.

Probably more than just an adaptive engine and laser instead of the gun, though.


NMaude said:
I wonder how an F-15 or F-16 would perform fitted with the F135? No doubt it would require some structural modification to the airframe to fit it in, the thing is a beast.
Click to expand...
At the very least, it'd need an even bigger inlet than the F110 does, and that gets expensive.
 
The F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office (JPO) intends to solicit and negotiate multiple contract actions with Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation for Lot 6, 7, and 8 of the APG-85 Radar. The proposed contract actions will provide for two hundred forty nine (249) radars, or such other quantities as may be authorized and appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Contract actions will provide for long lead time materials, parts, components, initial spares, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS); Special Tooling and Test Equipment, Production Non-Recurring (PNR) activities to support the F-35 production ramp rate including production aids, production equipment, and support labor; technical, financial and administrative data; and proposal preparation.. The anticipated award date for the first contract action resulting from this synopsis is in the second quarter of calendar year 2024.
Click to expand...

SAM.gov

sam.gov sam.gov
 
I am pretty sure that this auditor report doesn't include the cost savings of having pilots surviving their mission to launch another day, the drastic reduction in mission package size, the high exchange ratio with enemy fighters that helps shortening a war (and a few billions every weeks), the high flow intelligence pipe feed that make the overall force structure more efficient, more resilient, more cost-effective, the reduction in training cost due to having a single airframe able to excel in all task, plus that of virtual training.

Once again, it's always the same story: nose tip limited analysis and not even wearing an helmet.
 
@TomcatViP That's Norway's National Audit Office you are dissing, an office set up in 1814 with the express purpose of monitoring government spending.
You may pass off its findings as inconsequential, because you find them inconvenient. Let's see how Norwegian officials react to them.
 
Arjen said:
@TomcatViP That's Norway's National Audit Office you are dissing, an office set up in 1814 with the express purpose of monitoring government spending.
You may pass off its findings as inconsequential, because you find them inconvenient. Let's see how Norwegian officials react to them.
Click to expand...
Still doesn't mean that they're applying the right modifiers to costs.

In fact, it makes it even more likely that they are NOT applying the right modifiers.
 
Scott Kenny said:
In fact, it makes it even more likely that they are NOT applying the right modifiers.
Click to expand...
For what value of likely, without having read the report?

From the summary report:
Forsvarsdepartementet har, i perioden 2012 til 2022, ikke budsjettert slik at Stortingets mål for kampflyanskaffelsen kan nås innen 2025.
  • Forsvarsdepartementet har vesentlig undervurdert behovet for bemanning i kampflyorganisasjonen. Andre land som også har anskaffet F-35, som Nederland og Storbritannia, har for eksempel budsjettert med dobbelt så mange teknikere per fly som Norge.
  • Departementet har ikke budsjettert med tilstrekkelige midler til kampflyrelatert eiendom, bygg og anlegg. Disse funksjonene er avgjørende for å kunne utnytte kampflyene fullt ut.
Forsvarsdepartementet etterlever ikke fullt ut Stortingets vedtak og forutsetninger for levetidskostnadene for F-35.
  • Nå er levetidskostnadene estimert til 349 milliarder kroner, men Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse viser at det blir enda dyrere.
  • Levetidskostnadene for kampflyanskaffelsen er undervurdert og estimatet er ikke beregnet i tråd med kravene i Anskaffelsesreglementet i Forsvaret.
  • Indirekte kostnader og kostnader til fremtidige investeringsbehov for eiendom, bygg og anlegg er ikke inkludert i estimatet.
Click to expand...
In the period 2012 to 2022, the Ministry of Defense has not budgeted so that the Storting's target for the acquisition of combat aircraft can be reached by 2025.
  • The Ministry of Defense has significantly underestimated the need for staffing in the combat aircraft organisation. Other countries that have also acquired the F-35, such as the Netherlands and Great Britain, for example, have budgeted for twice as many technicians per aircraft as Norway.
  • The ministry has not budgeted sufficient funds for fighter aircraft-related property, buildings and construction. These functions are essential to be able to fully utilize the combat aircraft.
The Ministry of Defense does not fully comply with the Storting's decision and assumptions for the lifetime costs for the F-35.
  • Lifetime costs are now estimated at NOK 349 billion, but the National Audit Office's investigation shows that it will be even more expensive.
  • The lifetime costs for the acquisition of combat aircraft are underestimated and the estimate is not calculated in line with the requirements of the Acquisition Regulations in the Norwegian Armed Forces.
  • Indirect costs and costs for future investment needs for property, building and construction are not included in the estimate.
Click to expand...

Full report, pdf, 106 pages: https://www.riksrevisjonen.no/globa...2024/innfasing-av-norges-nye-kampfly-f-35.pdf
You will probably need a translation.

From what I've read so far, the report deals with the support structure for the aircraft
- will it be adequate
- are funds sufficient

From what I've read so far, 'no' to both questions.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
The UK Government have quite clearly messed up on the F-35, it really makes me angry about the whole situation. :mad:
Click to expand...

With the ongoing difficulties the UK is having in fielding enough numbers of F-35s, not to mention the on-going pilot shortage (which is a problem everywhere)

I wonder in hindsight, the UK should have went with two smaller carriers.. or just one QE carrier, but used the save costs from building two, into building one CATOBAR version.

or is all off this just a temporary thing that is expected to pass?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20231210-000022_X.jpg
    Screenshot_20231210-000022_X.jpg
    98.8 KB · Views: 33
  • Screenshot_20231210-000055_X.jpg
    Screenshot_20231210-000055_X.jpg
    124.6 KB · Views: 32
  • Screenshot_20231210-000110_X.jpg
    Screenshot_20231210-000110_X.jpg
    172.1 KB · Views: 37
FighterJock said:
The UK Government have quite clearly messed up on the F-35, it really makes me angry about the whole situation. :mad:
Click to expand...

Its been implied by various contacts in the know be it whitehall or RAF, that possibility of getting the A models and the B goes ocmpletely to the Fleet Air Arm....

Also the same folk say that at the grand scheme of things, we in on this isle are slowly becoming not significant in the Lightning II world sadly.,

cheers
 
True RavenOne, I would have given the F-35Bs to the RAF bought the F-35A as well to replace the Tornado and then just given the F-35C to the fleet air arm for the carriers and made the carriers cat and trap only. None of this messing about with what type of carriers they would be.
 
FighterJock said:
The UK Government have quite clearly messed up on the F-35, it really makes me angry about the whole situation. :mad:
Click to expand...

How have they?

The UK seems to have made the best of a dire situation, often by accident but it still counts. Delay purchases to minimise upgrade costs and buy just enough for the carrier mission and then bail....and thats the right choice.

Think about it...

  1. F-35 is still comically late, everyone seems to forget this...and it continues to gather increasing delays...TR3 anyone??
  2. The Prime, Lockheed Martin, has singularly failed to get a grip of the programme in 15+ years of issues...does no-one else see this as a problem?? Anyone think they're suddenly going to get competent and on track anytime soon?
  3. We're close to 10 years since IOC and F-35B has the same weapons delivery capability as Tranche 1 Typhoon (that everyone slates as being inadequate..)....and at least 4 years to go until a tiny number exceed it...stealth isn't much use if you still have to get to within Paveway IV range to engage a target...
  4. The full UK F-35B fleet will not approach full combat capability until 2032....close to 20 years since the delivery of the first UK combat capable F-35B....by any standards that is appalling.
  5. Block IV? Everyone ready for the next delays to be announced? Because if you think the TR-3 delays haven't had a knock on effect I've got a bridge I can sell you...
  6. The whole 15% made in the UK bandied around by the manufacturers came apart in Defence Committee hearings. It was always nonsense and has removed any economic reason to continue....
  7. We'll get all 74 delivered and updated to full Block IV Lot 19 standard by 2032 at the earliest...Tempest arrives in 2035. No point purchasing any more beyond that point.
Part of The Drive article is based on some utter nonsense about the RAF wanting F-35A...spoiler alert: They don't. The same old rumours coming from the same sources every single time, and are never backed up by well connected reporters....in fact they're always disparaged.
 
Last edited:
RavenOne said:
Its been implied by various contacts in the know be it whitehall or RAF, that possibility of getting the A models and the B goes ocmpletely to the Fleet Air Arm....
Click to expand...

Anyone saying that is not in the know....i.e. Nicholas Drummond....the real Defence Aerospace correspondents have all been utterly baffled by his claims...

Ask anyone claiming it how it all works with the Combat Air Budget for the next 15 years, or how it relates to the Equipment Plan....you'll get nothing but silence in return....
 
NMaude said:
The UK should've bit the bullet and coughed up the money for both carriers to be able to launch the F-35C.
Click to expand...
This has been covered in depth before. Let's not rehash the HMS Queen Elizabeth class design debate please.
 
Spey_Phantom said:
First Belgian F-35A (AY01, BAF serial FL001) has just been rolled out moment ago.
note the full color markings on the tail and roundel on the intake.
Click to expand...

Is this the first F-35 with coloured insignia? Thank you Belgium!

Incidentally I do wonder if modern low-viz grey roundels meet the spirit of the duty to carry distinctive national markings.
 
some F-35Cs in the US Navy, and recently one of the British F-35s has colored insignias on the tail.
I wonder if it affects RCS any?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom