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

[RavenOne]

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?

When VMFA-211 Wake Island Avengers turned up at RAF Marham 3 years ago, part of work up as they be joining 617 (B) Squadron as a first joint embarking on HMS Qe, the boss's a/c had wee bit of colour so here are my photos below from September 2020 as they taxiied past us.





cheers

 

[TomS]

It depends on the paint, I won't be surprised if it's a special formulation to minis any change's to the F-35's RCS.

I wonder if they might be vinyl decals that can be removed when full RCS reduction is required.

 

[helmutkohl]

can't wait to see the 35C in Jolly Roger service.
The closest thing so far has been this 35-like model used for antenna testing

 

[NMaude]

I wonder if they might be vinyl decals that can be removed when full RCS reduction is required.

Interesting point, I hadn't thought of that.

 

[WatcherZero]

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?

The UK tail marking is supposed to be only temporary, promotional livery.

 

[timmymagic]

The UK tail marking is supposed to be only temporary, promotional livery.

I think the Danish roundels are the most permanent colour we've seen to date in Europe.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

If you have stealth, you can get within Paveway range to drop 1000lbs of hate and discontent on a target.

See also the F-117. And B-2, and B-21.

 

[RavenOne]

More from Belgian Air Component FB page



Cheers

 

[helmutkohl]

finally more pics.
looks like its largely the same as the other F-35s except for the high viz flag and roundel.
think these are temporary like the UK one, or more permanent like the Danish ones?

 

[timmymagic]

If you have stealth, you can get within Paveway range to drop 1000lbs of hate and discontent on a target.

See also the F-117. And B-2, and B-21.

Thats true...but only after the AD has been degraded, destroyed and rolled back....

Only you're not going to be doing that with F-35....you'll be relying on '4th Gen' platforms firing other, longer ranged, munitions or cruise missiles. You're not going to fly an F-35 within 25 miles of an S-400 battery in the hope that you get to weapons release of your JDAM, GBU-12 or PWIV before they get a clear lock on you...

It needs to be repeated that we're 8.5 years past IOC, 12 years past the delivery of the first combat capable jet, with c1,000 aircraft in service, the biggest testing fleet ever seen on a programme....and we're still limited to a limited number of comparatively simple freefall munitions for surface attack....no external tanks....and likely to be several years away from the position changing, and even then on a small level.

To kick open the door F-35 will need AARGM-ER, SiAW, JASSM, SDBII, SPEAR etc....and we're 5 years away from that point (I'd bet my house on more delays to that as well...). And even then, for a lot of users needing to fund and schedule upgrades to Block IV (with engine upgrades as well) for the bulk of their fleets, its closer to 10 years in reality...

For the avoidance of any doubt I like F-35, for the UK its a no brainer for some applications, and for a lot of users it makes sense. But everyone is far too patient over the delays and the glacial pace of development of capability...

 

[Deltafan]

L’industrie belge obtient de nouveaux accords dans le cadre du contrat F-35

La sortie d’usine, au Texas (sud des Etats-Unis), du premier avion de combat F-35 destiné à la Belgique a été l’occasion pour l’industrie aéronautique belge de signer dimanche des accords de partenariat avec deux sociétés américaines, l’avionneur Locheed Martin et le motoriste Pratt & Whitney...

www.sudinfo.be

(...)
The exit from the factory, in Texas (southern United States), of the first F-35 combat aircraft intended for Belgium was an opportunity for the Belgian aeronautical industry to sign partnership agreements on Sunday with two American companies , the aircraft manufacturer Locheed Martin and the engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, we noted on site.

The resulting contracts have a value of around 1.5 billion euros, according to data provided by the companies involved, Sabca, Safran Aero Boosters and BMT Aerospace.

And “there will be more” economic benefits for Belgian industry following the purchase in 2018 of 34 of these fighter-bombers, assured Prime Minister Alexander De Croo. “Belgian industry has a lot to offer,” he told Lockheed Martin executives.
(...)

https://www.lecho.be/entreprises/defense-aeronautique/pres-de-2-milliards-d-euros-de-retours-pour-l-industrie-belge-sur-le-f-35/10512316.html

The new contracts signed with Lockheed and Pratt & Witney increase the overall amount of returns from the F-35 contract to almost 2 billion euros for Belgian industry.
(The rest of the text is reserved for subscribers)

 

[ST21]

More from Belgian Air Component FB page

Here is the official one from LM:

 

[red admiral]

It needs to be repeated that we're 8.5 years past IOC, 12 years past the delivery of the first combat capable jet, with c1,000 aircraft in service, the biggest testing fleet ever seen on a programme....and we're still limited to a limited number of comparatively simple freefall munitions for surface attack....no external tanks....and likely to be several years away from the position changing, and even then on a small level.

Apart from SDB and JSOW... Both of which give significant stand off

Otherwise you're mostly listing weapon types which are currently in development and aren't integrated in other platforms either.

It seems ridiculous to single out F-35 as being somehow "bad"; e.g. SDBII development beginning 2006 and yet finally getting integrated on the very mature F-15E in 2020, and an austere integration on the very mature F/A-18E in 2023...

 

[WatcherZero]

It does make you consider whether the approach to initial operating capability is worthwhile, you have Tranche 1 Typhoons and Batch 1-3 F-35's with only a basic operating capability being manufactured and delivered but having to wait a decade for the the first full operating capability airframe to be delivered. You get something in service earlier but the added cost and complexity of producing something thats already obsolete and often times cant be fully upgraded to the contracted standard. Is it worth instead adding 4-5 years intensive final development push and integration instead if you then get a FOC earlier and less money wasted on sub-standard airframes. It seems a lot of the time delivering IOC allows the manufacturer to take their foot of the pedal, cut the development team to the bone and just cruise selling more and more lots of 'pre-series' aircraft than initially planned, kicking their contractual obligations can down the road.

If It was just software and its a case of we just need to perform the drop tests and weapon integration trials that would be understandable, but oft case the IOC hardware and even airframe is a shadow of that the customer expects of the FOC.

 

[Josh_TN]

Actually my understanding is that Tranche 1 and Batch 1-3 simply cannot be upgraded at all, at least not cost effectively. F-18E/F Blk 1 also was relegated to training only rather than upgraded. Organizing these purchases around ever changing aircraft specifications seems like a fools errand to me.

 

[H_K]

More from Belgian Air Component FB page

Nice PR pictures but did they say anything about when it will fly?

If I’m not mistaken this is a TR-3 bird so will be added to the growing list of aircraft parked at Fort Worth waiting for software release… must be 50+ aircraft by now and heading towards >100 right? I would love to see a satellite or drone pic of the apron packed with grounded F-35s...

 

[GTX]

I'm not familiar with the debate.

There has been much on this forum already - see threads such as:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/queen-elizabeth-class-cvf-development.10673/

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/how-to-make-the-queen-elizabeth-class-carriers-the-best-in-the-world.39240/

 

[timmymagic]

Apart from SDB and JSOW... Both of which give significant stand off

Otherwise you're mostly listing weapon types which are currently in development and aren't integrated in other platforms either.

It seems ridiculous to single out F-35 as being somehow "bad"; e.g. SDBII development beginning 2006 and yet finally getting integrated on the very mature F-15E in 2020, and an austere integration on the very mature F/A-18E in 2023...

The point around weapon types being in development is fair enough...

But what about in service weapon types then....why no AARGM, why no JASSM...why no HARM...why no SLAM-ER....why no anything???

There's no two ways about it, having to wait (at least) over 12 years past IOC to get external tanks or a powered air to surface weapon on a tiny fraction of the (by then) 1,600 in service F-35 is appalling...in practice for the bulk of the fleet to receive Block IV upgrades and the ability to use them it will be another 5 years....17 years from IOC....there will be F-35 pilots who weren't even born when it first flew who will start their careers without a powered air to surface munition...

It does make you consider whether the approach to initial operating capability is worthwhile, you have Tranche 1 Typhoons and Batch 1-3 F-35's with only a basic operating capability being manufactured and delivered but having to wait a decade for the the first full operating capability airframe to be delivered.

To be perfectly fair to Tranche 1 Typhoon it wasn't the aircrafts fault. It was the political games in the 1990's to get the German's to commit and fund that led to the austere AD only version that arrived. F-35 has never had to deal with the German's messing the programme around....

 

[TomcatViP]

Guys, F-35 is designed to plink S-400 with glide bombs. I don't understand the polemics with it needing 4th Gen to lob weapons for it. This is not how it goes.

LM didn't include the Typhies EK in their submittal!

 

[Scott Kenny]

Thats true...but only after the AD has been degraded, destroyed and rolled back....

Only you're not going to be doing that with F-35....you'll be relying on '4th Gen' platforms firing other, longer ranged, munitions or cruise missiles. You're not going to fly an F-35 within 25 miles of an S-400 battery in the hope that you get to weapons release of your JDAM, GBU-12 or PWIV before they get a clear lock on you...

Funny, that's literally the mission brief.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think that the F-35 program is exhibit A on how not to organize a major weapons program. That said, I think it has a capability that is unique, especially outside the USA, and that it will likely be judged a successful program despite the mismanagement and waste of its upbringing. While the current aircraft seem a little limited in weapons (all free fall or glide, outside AIM-120 or external AIM-9), the blk4 seems like practically a different aircraft in terms of sensors, electronic warfare, and weapon integration. I think it is a horribly run program that still will yield great results, particularly for the organizations that are not the US who did not have to pay for all the ballooning development costs.

It was a program run in an absolutely bad way that has taught the USAF at least to avoid vendor lock. But as an export product, when the US is paying for the upgrades, it doesn't strike me as a bad deal. I'm just hoping NGAD and CCA contracts are written with the F-35 ballooning costs in mind, and the relative success of the B-21 by having more accessible goals is taken into account as well.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

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.

If you read The Drive article on 809 standing up you will notice that even the US is raising concerns about F-35 sustainment. As others here already noted - F-35 is being protected since everyone has their eggs in that basket and are ignoring the sustainment costs which make up the majority of an types lifetime cost. (Would love to see Gripen E sustainment costs as a point of comparison.) That or are hiding behind your argument of that is just what it costs. The truth Probably is Lockheed are making a balls-up here but are protected. Back in JSF demonstrator phase they went way over budget so is it really a surprise they are cocking-up and not solving the production issues too?

A couple of journalists have already pointed out the predicted operating costs cited by new customers and actual operating costs reported by users often don't match. Even things like less training flights due to sims turn out te be false claims looking at the numbers. Norway on particular reported on this I recall.

While F-35 is by no means a failed product and highly capable, it comes at huge cost and everyone pointing that out either get ignored or overridden/silenced which is never a good thing.

 

[red admiral]

But what about in service weapon types then....why no AARGM, why no JASSM...why no HARM...why no SLAM-ER....why no anything???

Because the customer has not prioritised those weapons? They are all external carriage and already integrated onto the thousands of F-16s/15s/18s. Early integration onto F-35 doesn't gain you that much (apart from for the smaller single type air forces)

The primary air to surface weapons are SDB for USAF and JSOW for USN, which give you both stand off and a wide target set. At some point you need to decide on a "good enough" point and then start to prioritise other areas e.g. production numbers, tech refresh, further capability development. Its a hard balancing act for any programme. Even harder when you have so many different customers with their own priorities.

 

[flateric]

why no SLAM-ER....

Where you gonna get 'em? Look when last ones were produced (and why they never seen on Poseidons after all that fancy early renderings).

 

[timmymagic]

Where you gonna get 'em? Look when last ones were produced (and why they never seen on Poseidons after all that fancy early renderings).

Same place all the rest of the cancelled weapons are....from the 'Baseline Threshold'....

https://imgur.com/DErJ27L

View: https://imgur.com/DErJ27L

 

[timmymagic]

Because the customer has not prioritised those weapons? They are all external carriage and already integrated onto the thousands of F-16s/15s/18s. Early integration onto F-35 doesn't gain you that much (apart from for the smaller single type air forces)

The primary air to surface weapons are SDB for USAF and JSOW for USN, which give you both stand off and a wide target set. At some point you need to decide on a "good enough" point and then start to prioritise other areas e.g. production numbers, tech refresh, further capability development. Its a hard balancing act for any programme. Even harder when you have so many different customers with their own priorities.

See above for how the customers once viewed things.....I don't think I need to explain what the red crosses represent....

They were removed because of huge delays in the programme.....on the promise of better things tomorrow....how did that turn out?

Weird isn't it? The customers themselves were convinced that F-35 needed a wide range of powered, longer range munitions 15+ years ago....obviously the world must have changed and those sorts of weapons aren't required now....

 

[TomcatViP]

It will great to have that image available with a better resolution that we can discuss around it.
For example, I can see cluster munition or AGM65...

 

[CiTrus90]

Same place all the rest of the cancelled weapons are....from the 'Baseline Threshold'....

https://imgur.com/DErJ27L

View: https://imgur.com/DErJ27L

Just at a glance, I can see that some of the weapons crossed out are:
- Aim-132 ASRAAM
- AGM-158 JASSM
- AIM-120D

How correct can that graphic be when a 5 minute check shows that the ASRAAM has been integrated already, the AIM-120D are or will be integrated soon and the same will happen for the JASSM and other weapons?

Some other things elencated in there make no sense, like the LAU rocket pods for example or the Harpoon. Why would one integrate the Harpoon when you can carry the LRASM, which has better capabilites?

 

[TomcatViP]

Nice PR pictures but did they say anything about when it will fly?

If I’m not mistaken this is a TR-3 bird so will be added to the growing list of aircraft parked at Fort Worth waiting for software release… must be 50+ aircraft by now and heading towards >100 right? I would love to see a satellite or drone pic of the apron packed with grounded F-35s...

OH yeah, that's huge. I totally agree. 5 to 10 years of Dassault manufacturing outputs...

 

[FighterJock]

It must be an old graphic CiTrus90, that is the only thing that I can think of regarding the ASRAAM being intergrated already. You can quite clearly see ASRAAMs being carried on recent photo's about the 617 Dambusters F-35s whenever they are on the carriers.

 

[Hood]

Foot off the gas?
Maybe so but given the sheer scale of the F-35 programme I suspect that long-termism has crept in. The F-15 and F-16 are still going strong in terms of new production and upgrades 50 years later and by the time the last of them retire the Eagle and Fighting Falcon family will easily clock up at least 80 years of use (even the F-4 and F-5 aren't totally dead yet, would be like somebody still flying EE Lightnings today). There is no doubt that the F-35 is the only stealth 5th Gen in town and thus will have a long, long life, probably for the rest of the century (Tempest, SCAF and NGAD are still at least 15-25 years away even in IOC form, probably be 2050-55 before their full combat systems are fully operational). How far all these early F-35 airframes and systems can be patched and upgraded is open to question but its not impossible.

 

[red admiral]

See above for how the customers once viewed things.....I don't think I need to explain what the red crosses represent....

They were removed because of huge delays in the programme.....on the promise of better things tomorrow....how did that turn out?

Weird isn't it? The customers themselves were convinced that F-35 needed a wide range of powered, longer range munitions 15+ years ago....obviously the world must have changed and those sorts of weapons aren't required now....

But that's just a standard wish list before any sort of programme reality and prioritisation comes in. Everyone would like every type of weapon to be integrated IOC but that's not a realistic ask for any programme. You prioritise.

For reference it took ~22 years from first flight and ~16 years from IOC for Typhoon to get powered air to surface weapons integrated.

 

[timmymagic]

Just at a glance, I can see that some of the weapons crossed out are:
- Aim-132 ASRAAM
- AGM-158 JASSM
- AIM-120D

How correct can that graphic be when a 5 minute check shows that the ASRAAM has been integrated already, the AIM-120D are or will be integrated soon and the same will happen for the JASSM and other weapons?

Some other things elencated in there make no sense, like the LAU rocket pods for example or the Harpoon. Why would one integrate the Harpoon when you can carry the LRASM, which has better capabilites?

I'd suggest looking at it again then....

JASSM is not integrated and won't be until 2027/28 (and may slip further)
Asraam relates to internal carriage....which was dropped to help the programme....
Amraam relates to external carriage....seen any on a pylon yet?

When this list was drawn up LRASM didn't exist as a concept...but the users clearly wanted an AShM as a 'Baseline' weapon....which has not happened yet....see my point around IOC now??

 

[timmymagic]

It must be an old graphic CiTrus90, that is the only thing that I can think of regarding the ASRAAM being intergrated already. You can quite clearly see ASRAAMs being carried on recent photo's about the 617 Dambusters F-35s whenever they are on the carriers.

The graphic shows Asraam internal carriage...which was on the list originally, dropped to give the programme breathing space....which it has then singularly failed to use to catch up...

 

[FighterJock]

I wonder why the ASRAAM was never modified for internal carriage in the F-35s weapons bay, especially when the Meteor is getting modified for the exactly the same purpose. It seems strange.

 

[red admiral]

Anyone seen air to surface weapons on J-20?

 

[CiTrus90]

I'd suggest looking at it again then....

JASSM is not integrated and won't be until 2027/28 (and may slip further)

Yes, but you explicitly stated that those weapons were "cancelled", not that you were concerned about the time frame of their integration.
So I don't think I'm the one that needs to read again what was written.

Asraam relates to internal carriage....which was dropped to help the programme....

Because having internal carriage of ASRAAMs makes no sense on the F-35.
It's a short range missile.
It's a nice capability to have in peace time or during non-peer conflicts, when stealth is a relaxed requirement.

It's fine if the Brits want their aircraft capable of carrying a weapon that they developed on their own, but unless they pay the R&D with their own money, nobody has any interest at all in integrating such a weapon for internal carriage.
And that's because in a conflict the F-35s would not be going to get close on their adversaries and use ASRAAMs, they are going to lob AMRAAMs (and Meteors) carried internally to preserve stealth as much as possible, while staying out of harm's way.

And it's exactly the same reason for which...

Amraam relates to external carriage....seen any on a pylon yet?

Because it's not a capability that's needed or that makes sense.
You want to carry them internally, not on pylons under the wings, otherwise why did you build a stealth jet?

Some things "might" be added in the future, but priority (and thus money, which is a finite quantity) is being given to other things that make way more sense.

Moreover, most of the weapons in that graphic have overlapping effects and capabilities with already integrated weapons or with weapons that will be integrated in the next few years.

 

[timmymagic]

Yes, but you explicitly stated that those weapons were "cancelled", not that you were concerned about the time frame of their integration.
So I don't think I'm the one that needs to read again what was written.

The slide clearly delineates between external and internal carriage....theres a big line....

But....if you really want me to be picky I could point out that Asraam Block V and earlier are reaching end of life and Block VI Asraam, that entered service on Typhoon earlier this year, will not be integrated on F-35 until 2027/28, so in effect it will be de-integrated from the vast majority of the UK's F-35 fleet that will take until at least 2032 to be upgraded....the UK's Asraam Block V and earlier stockpile will be out of life years before that....

Because having internal carriage of ASRAAMs makes no sense on the F-35.

Oddly the user, who you think would know, had this as a key capability...the US had AIM-9X as an internal carriage item as well...presumably internal carriage on F-22 makes no sense either...

And that's because in a conflict the F-35s would not be going to get close on their adversaries and use ASRAAMs, they are going to lob AMRAAMs (and Meteors) carried internally to preserve stealth as much as possible, while staying out of harm's way.

That must be why the US are looking to re-introduce AIM-9X internal carriage again.... and why the air superiority oriented F-22 has dedicated AIM-9X carriage....

You want to carry them internally, not on pylons under the wings, otherwise why did you build a stealth jet?

You might want to ask the users who originally specced this, or the manufacturer who regularly pumps out material labelling it 'Beast Mode'....

Moreover, most of the weapons in that graphic have overlapping effects and capabilities with already integrated weapons or with weapons that will be integrated in the next few years.

Those weapons in the graphic were supposed to be integrated before 2015...

 

[Scott Kenny]

The slide clearly delineates between external and internal carriage....theres a big line....

But....if you really want me to be picky I could point out that Asraam Block V and earlier are reaching end of life and Block VI Asraam, that entered service on Typhoon earlier this year, will not be integrated on F-35 until 2027/28, so in effect it will be de-integrated from the vast majority of the UK's F-35 fleet that will take until at least 2032 to be upgraded....the UK's Asraam Block V and earlier stockpile will be out of life years before that....

Oh, look. A schedule slip occurred. The sky is falling.

Oddly the user, who you think would know, had this as a key capability...the US had AIM-9X as an internal carriage item as well...presumably internal carriage on F-22 makes no sense either...


That must be why the US are looking to re-introduce AIM-9X internal carriage again.... and why the air superiority oriented F-22 has dedicated AIM-9X carriage....

Maybe you missed the memo that the F-35 should really have a A-for-Attack number series, as it's basically a stealthy, fast A-7?

The major development I'd want to see on the F-35 is some flavor of ARM in place of the AMRAAMs. So you could carry one AMRAAM, one ARM, and a pair of 2000lb JDAMs. Or a hybrid AAM/ARM to replace the AMRAAM.

Those weapons in the graphic were supposed to be integrated before 2015...

Yes, the whole damn plane is a good 10 years behind schedule.

No aircraft is ever introduced with the full planned capabilities. Not even the F-117 had all the bells and whistles originally planned when it entered service, and it was only ever intended to be a Paveway dropper (or B61 nuke dropper).

 

[Josh_TN]

The major development I'd want to see on the F-35 is some flavor of ARM in place of the AMRAAMs. So you could carry one AMRAAM, one ARM, and a pair of 2000lb JDAMs. Or a hybrid AAM/ARM to replace the AMRAAM.

It seems likely that AARGM-ER is small enough for an AIM-120 to also be carried in each bay. As for bombs va ARMs, some F-16CJ units did indeed carry both, split between aircraft pairs, in 2003 (source: the book Vioer Pilot, an excellent read for anyone interested in SEAD). The lead aircraft carried guided weapons, typically CBU-87 WCMs, and later the brand new (at the time) IIR Maverick (AGM-65F?). Lead ship was the killer; wingman suppressed as called for. I believe the use of other guided weapons rather than AGM-88B/C was adopted after the rather dismal performance of the latter over Serbia, though the author never mentions it. They certainly had little faith in ARMs and mainly used them to distract, along with copious false MAGNUM calls on clear channels.

SBD II paired with an AARGM-ER wingman would give a pretty deep magazine with some stand off and a wealth of engagement modes while still retaining a high speed emergency option.