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

AARGM-ER for Polish F-35:

The Polish Ministry of National Defence has signed a deal to buy more than 200 AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) from the United States, becoming the region’s first ally to secure an advanced capability to destroy enemy radar emitters associated with air defense systems.
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

Poland buys radar-homing missiles for its future F-35 fleet

The $745 million deal will give Poland the ability to destroy enemy radar emitters associated with air defense systems.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
www.twz.com

Escalating Trade War Raises Questions Over Canada’s F-35 Future

Canada’s place in the F-35 program is under scrutiny once again, this time due to tit-for-tat tariffs with the United States. Once again, Canada’s place in the F-35 program is under scrutiny, this time due to a growing trade war with the United States.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
snne said:
The USMC released their new AVPLAN today, under which they plan to more than double their F-35C acquisition objective (from 67 to 140) while cutting the F-35B acquisition objective from 353 to 280.
Click to expand...
(Yes, I know you didn't say that, but the forum software is being a pain in the butt)

I'm really surprised that the USMC wanted any -Cs, let alone that they're trading 73 airframes from -Bs to -Cs!
 
NMaude said:
They'd certainly be fixer-uppers that would definitely need a fair bit of restoration to get back to flying condition, perhaps they could retain the services of Carlo Kopp as an advisor and implement his Pigs Forever rebuild;):D.
Click to expand...
Man, that was a trip of a read. Mister Kopp has been reading the hell out of Dale Brown stories for sure!

Sticking F119s into F-111Cs, basically completely rebuilding and frankensteining from USAF bits, AESAs and a stealthy radome, and designing a new "canoe" unit to stick into the bomb bay to hold conformal AMRAAMs and fuel...
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm really surprised that the USMC wanted any -Cs, let alone that they're trading 73 airframes from -Bs to -Cs!
Click to expand...
They don't necessarily. The Marines are mandated to supply VMFA squadrons supplement Navy squadrons on CV deployments. Supply/Support and mission commonality forces F-35Cs.
 
aim9xray said:
They don't necessarily. The Marines are mandated to supply VMFA squadrons supplement Navy squadrons on CV deployments. Supply/Support and mission commonality forces F-35Cs.
Click to expand...
I'm just remembering from ~20 years ago or more when the Marines were saying all F-35Bs, so that any Marine fighter squadron could be assigned to the gator freighters.
 
NMaude said:
Didn't the USAF indicate at one point it would be ordering small numbers of the F-35B?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. There may have been some talk about that as a possible solution to the "smashed airbases" problem, but IIRC that was enthusiasts saying it, not USAF brass.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't think so. There may have been some talk about that as a possible solution to the "smashed airbases" problem, but IIRC that was enthusiasts saying it, not USAF brass.
Click to expand...
Agree, I've never seen that suggestion from the USAF themselves. It would have been factored into the SAR and initial assessments if that was an option.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm really surprised that the USMC wanted any -Cs, let alone that they're trading 73 airframes from -Bs to -Cs!
Click to expand...

aim9xray said:
They don't necessarily. The Marines are mandated to supply VMFA squadrons supplement Navy squadrons on CV deployments. Supply/Support and mission commonality forces F-35Cs.
Click to expand...

Scott Kenny said:
I'm just remembering from ~20 years ago or more when the Marines were saying all F-35Bs, so that any Marine fighter squadron could be assigned to the gator freighters.
Click to expand...

Yes - sometime in the 1990s NavAir decided to task the USMC with providing four Hornet squadrons for carrier air wings (so the USN could cut squadron numbers while still having full wings).

The USMC was hoping they could shed that tasking with an all-F-35B force, but in the late 2000s they were told "no dice, you're still on the hook for four CV-compatible squadrons".

The current leadership decided to trade two active -B squadrons for -C ones (the final two active squadrons in the chart) as detailed in a report to the TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE on 16 April 2024 (see below).
The claimed reason is increased payload & range when operated from land.

With this last release they have switched the two Reserve squadrons from -Bs to -Cs as well!

Of additional interest is the 10-aircraft F-35C detachment for FRS (Fleet Replacement Squadron).
The USMC has two FRS squadrons which will train all new F-35B pilots - but no F-35C FRS squadron. The allocation of a -C FRS detachment appears to reflect that number of USMC aircraft being assigned to one of the USN's F-35C FRS squadrons to meet USMC training needs (this will also make training the -C pilots for carrier qualification easier).
 

Attachments

  • F-35 presentation to Congress 16 April 2024 HHRG-118-AS25-Wstate-GeringB-20240416.pdf
    217.6 KB · Views: 9
I wonder how could a F-35 fell from the sky like that: free falling like a meteorit or the proverbial Looney Tunes anvil. Must have been a severe flight controls bug. Time will tell...
 
Ronny said:
I wonder how powerful is this test equipment
Click to expand...
It's enough to light up a lightbulb or two. ;)

The one at Pax River was two mated 3MV generators (so 6MV). Field strength can be dialed these days, and they can vary the output to match different pulse forms. Peak field strength was about 75 kV/m from 25 m away. There are probably newer ones out there.
 
BlackBat242 said:
The USMC was hoping they could shed that tasking with an all-F-35B force, but in the late 2000s they were told "no dice, you're still on the hook for four CV-compatible squadrons".
Click to expand...
As I remember, part of that push from the navy was also to secure a "second" customer for the C model. This was in the same time frame there was a full court press to secure a RN contract for the C-model for QE-class (which eventually appeared to succeed in 2010-- and then fell apart two years later).
 
Is the change can re-open AETP for F-35 if the F-35b buying is stop ? Only the A and the C can receive it ?
 
dark sidius said:
Is the change can re-open AETP for F-35 if the F-35b buying is stop ? Only the A and the C can receive it ?
Click to expand...
They could always change the decision but that seems unlikely right now. The issue has always been about funding, if USAF funding increases and AETP is seen as a worthwhile investment then it will happen irrespective of the Bee.
 
Ozair said:
Agree, I've never seen that suggestion from the USAF themselves. It would have been factored into the SAR and initial assessments if that was an option.
Click to expand...
Suggestions, but never part of the program of record.

Scoping Out the New Strike Fighter | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Joint Strike Fighter is moving from concept studies and designs toward real hardware.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

Paul G. Kaminski, the former undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology, and Gen. Ronald R. Fogleman, retired USAF Chief of Staff, both suggested that the Air Force may buy some examples of the STOVL version for Air Expeditionary Force operations out of austere fields.

However, Kenne said, no one up to this point has altered USAF’s part of the program in order to accommodate this proposal, and she gave little indication that it would happen anytime soon. “The Air Force is studying that,” she said, but has made no decisions to proceed. She added, “In all honesty, there’s no sense of urgency” about an Air Force STOVL buy. “If they want to opt for a STOVL version … it will be available.”
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom