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

phil gollin said:
.

For a weight critical aircraft why have a built in set of steps complete with stealth shaped cover - they are WEIGHT.

I know the pilot has to get in and be strapped in and things checked, but a ladder on wheels would be cheaper (and make the aircraft lighter). This aircraft is not going to be "forward based" like the Harrier and wheeled ladders are cheap and could be put in every US and allied base in the world for the cost of the design required for those steps alone.
Click to expand...

I take it you have never served an extended period aboard a vessel in heavy sea states. Wheeled ladder. That's hilarious. These planes will be launching day and night into some seriously hairy weather systemsunny and you want a Wheeled ladder?
Bless ya little cotton socks.
 
Ian33 said:
I take it you have never served an extended period aboard a vessel in heavy sea states. Wheeled ladder. That's hilarious. These planes will be launching day and night into some seriously hairy weather systemsunny and you want a Wheeled ladder?
Bless ya little cotton socks.
Click to expand...

+ if you have to fly out of austere locations then you want to minimize the gear that has to be flow in to support missions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qqFy1TBaoU
 
F-35Bs are most certainly going to be forward deployed as the Harriers they replace were.

A tall aircraft without it's own way for a pilot to get in or out of it isn't going to be very pilot accessible if a ladder or built in steps aren't there to allow him to get into or out of his aircraft without having to have a piece of ground equipment brought over. I think most single and twin seat modern Navy and Marine aircraft have built in ladders or steps.

In a forward deployment, how many ladders would have to be kept on hand if aircraft were built without ladders?

The A-10 has a built in ladder and steps.
 
We should probably go back to "News ONLY" before a mod swings by and slaps us around. :-[
 
We know. It was someone complaining about the weight of that ladder that kicked off this whole argument.
 
https://warisboring.com/u-s-marines-stealth-fighters-could-guide-far-flying-missiles-25e13879bb29#.n3b7zx53i
 
South Korea Mulling Bigger F-35 Buy

9/13/2016

​South Korea is considering purchasing 20 more F-35 strike fighters because of concerns about the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, the South Korean Yonhap News Agency reported. The country agreed to buy 40 of the jets in 2013. “As North Korea appears to have enhanced its nuclear and missile capabilities in recent years, we are mending our existing wartime strike programs against the North,” a military official told the agency. North Korea has been aggressively testing ballistic missiles and nuclear devices, including last week’s purported test of a nuclear warhead.
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/09/06/pilots-say-f-35-fighter-is-a-winner-so-wheres-the-media-coverage/#471b41c84984

An Air Force pilot quoted in one of the service’s local outlets at Eglin Air Force Base reported that flying against the F-35 in training exercises is like being blindfolded because the plane is invisible to radar: “We turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw [the F-35].”
Click to expand...
 
Interesting piece on the UK's plans - http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/f-35-and-carrier-enabled-power.html
 
While this next article isn't news, it also ties into your article marauder:

https://news.vice.com/article/us-defense-secretary-announces-navy-can-blow-up-anything-it-wants-any-time-it-wants

The US has already run tests with the SM[-6] missile and the F-35 fighter-bomber, in which an SM[-6] missile has been fired from a ship but with no target identified. An F-35 in flight took control of the missile in midair, and then as the missile proceeded downrange, handed control of that missile to another F-35.
Click to expand...

So theoretically it can go from

F-35 <- MADL -> AEGIS -> SM-6

to

F-35 <-> SM-6

for mid-flight guidance.
 
Dragon029 said:
While this next article isn't news, it also ties into your article marauder:

https://news.vice.com/article/us-defense-secretary-announces-navy-can-blow-up-anything-it-wants-any-time-it-wants

The US has already run tests with the SM[-6] missile and the F-35 fighter-bomber, in which an SM[-6] missile has been fired from a ship but with no target identified. An F-35 in flight took control of the missile in midair, and then as the missile proceeded downrange, handed control of that missile to another F-35.
Click to expand...

So theoretically it can go from

F-35 <- MADL -> AEGIS -> SM-6

to

F-35 <-> SM-6

for mid-flight guidance.
Click to expand...

From Raytheon:

During this capability demonstration, the SM-6 received continuous updates from the network, including the fighter aircraft, leading to the successful intercept of the target.
Click to expand...

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-09-14-U-S-Navy-links-Standard-Missile-6-with-F-35-Joint-Strike-Fighter-in-first-of-a-kind-flight-test
 
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/09/16/lack-of-perfection-does-not-mean-disaster-how-i-read-test-reports-as-a-pilot/

"Kampflybloggen (The Combat Aircraft Blog) is the official blog of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office within the Norwegian Ministry of Defence. The author of this post, Major Morten «Dolby» Hanche, has more than 2200 hours behind him in the F-16, he is a U.S. Navy Test Pilot School graduate, and on 10 November 2015 he became the first Norwegian to fly the F-35. He now serves as an instructor and as the Assistant Weapons Officer with the 62nd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.

Yet again, information from the «Director Operational Test & Evaluation» (DOT&E) has stirred critics into a frenzy over the F-35. The fact that the information was leaked seems to have agitated people even more. (We have our hands on classified documents! Now we know it all!) Yet again, the leaked memo described aspects of the F-35 which need improvement. Yet again, the report resulted in press articles which painted a pretty sinister picture of the F-35. The article featured in POGO («F-35 May Never Be Ready for Combat») serves as one such example."

...

"When asked about my first flight in the F-35, I compared it to flying a Hornet (F/A-18), but with a turbo charged engine. I now can quote a USMC F/A-18 Weapons School Graduate after his first flight in the F-35: «It was like flying a Hornet with four engines!» (His point being that the F-35 can afford to operate at high Angle-of-Attack and low airspeed, but that it will regain the airspeed quickly when needed). Another unintended, but illustrating example on performance came a few weeks back, when a student pilot failed to recognize that he had climbed through our temporary altitude restriction at 40,000´. The F-35 will happily climb past that altitude."
 
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/09/17/0510257/air-force-grounds-400-billion-f-35s-because-of-peeling-and-crumbling-insulation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/09/16/air-force-grounds-15-f-35-joint-strike-fighters-because-of-peeling-and-crumbling-insulation/
 
I imagine they wouldn't have a choice but to work with the supplier for now (unless someone else has the spare capacity ready to go right now), but when their supply contract expires you can bet they'll have tarnished chances of having it renewed.

In the mean time I'd expect the supplier to pay for the cost of replacement parts, though I'm not sure if they would be responsible for the labour costs associated with replacing the existing faulty lines; instead that might fall to Lockheed; it won't however fall to the customers, as that contract has already been negotiated and signed.
 
JeffB said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fuel-line-glitch-hits-57-f-35as-429451/

Appears to have been a contractor cutting corners. Interesting approach. What happens with these sorts of incidents? Do they have a long sit down with the supplier and chat or do they send him the equivalent of a 'don't come Monday' letter?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say that. it may have been a innocent mistake or something supplied to the supplier that appeared ok when first used - I have seen this occur a number of times. Typically they will have contacted the supplier and there would be an investigation (at multiple levels) going on. It will be high priority but will be done in a structured manner. It may well turn out that the issue lies multiple steps down the 'food line'.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFZ_AHFRV2Q

Airshow vs. Go To War configuration
 
GTX said:
JeffB said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fuel-line-glitch-hits-57-f-35as-429451/

Appears to have been a contractor cutting corners. Interesting approach. What happens with these sorts of incidents? Do they have a long sit down with the supplier and chat or do they send him the equivalent of a 'don't come Monday' letter?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say that. it may have been a innocent mistake or something supplied to the supplier that appeared ok when first used - I have seen this occur a number of times. Typically they will have contacted the supplier and there would be an investigation (at multiple levels) going on. It will be high priority but will be done in a structured manner. It may well turn out that the issue lies multiple steps down the 'food line'.
Click to expand...

Same experience here. To elaborate:

A supplier is allowed to ship nonconforming parts as long as non-destructive or other testing identifies the part as such and
the part can be reworked or repaired by the either the integrator or the supplier's onsite personnel.

I've seen parts that were predominantly "Rework <number> applied" sticker by weight.
 
GTX said:
JeffB said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fuel-line-glitch-hits-57-f-35as-429451/

Appears to have been a contractor cutting corners. Interesting approach. What happens with these sorts of incidents? Do they have a long sit down with the supplier and chat or do they send him the equivalent of a 'don't come Monday' letter?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say that. it may have been a innocent mistake or something supplied to the supplier that appeared ok when first used - I have seen this occur a number of times. Typically they will have contacted the supplier and there would be an investigation (at multiple levels) going on. It will be high priority but will be done in a structured manner. It may well turn out that the issue lies multiple steps down the 'food line'.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're probably right. The supplier still has a responsibility, at the end of the day, to ensure that any 'improvements' in materials or methods of manufacture produce a part that meets the specification and it's hard to imagine they'd deliberately screw up such a lucrative job.
 
Navy Selects First Squadron for F-35C Transition

By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy has selected the first operational strike fighter (VFA) squadron that will fly the F-35C Lightning II strike fighter.

VFA-147, based at Naval Air Station Lemoore, Calif., is slated to become the first carrier-based squadron to operate the F-35C. The squadron currently operates the F/A-18E Super Hornet strike fighter.

The announcement was made Sept. 10 during an aviation panel at the annual Tailhook Association convention in Reno, Nev., by Cmdr. Timothy F. “Bo” Locke, the F-35 requirements officer for the director of Air Warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

VFA-147, known as the Argonauts, will make the transition in 2018, with the goal of entering the deployment cycle in 2020.

The initial operational capability for the F-35C is scheduled for August 2018.

The Navy’s F-35C fleet replacement squadron, VFA-101 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., has established a detachment to lay the groundwork for F-35C training at Lemoore, Locke said. In January, a new fleet replacement squadron, VFA-125, will be reactivated at Lemoore, to train squadrons for transition at Lemoore.

Also in 2017, VFA-101 will train four classes of pilots. The Block 3F software, which will give the F-35 full warfighting capability, is scheduled to be introduced to the F-35 during the third quarter of 2017. The F-35C also is scheduled for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation in 2017.

The Argonauts were the first operational squadron to operate the A-7A Corsair II attack aircraft, introducing the aircraft to the Vietnam War in 1December 1967.

The second squadron to make the F-35C transition at Lemoore will be Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 314 in 2019. That squadron currently operates the F/A-18 Hornet.
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/bogdan-f-35-coolant-line-fix-coming-in-weeks

The tl;dr:

All 15 of the flying jets will be fixed before the end of the year.

The coolant lines that were affected run through the tanks near the wingtips and were insulated to keep coolant colder than the fuel out there; they plan to either cut into the wing or use certain access panels to access the coolant line and its insulation. Floating insulation debris will naturally also be cleaned out.

Lockheed is paying for all of the engineering and modification for all 52 [42?] of the jets affected [that are still in production? There's 42 in production, 15 flying affected; 42 + 15 = 57 =/= 52].

The 42 production-line jets include 2 jets for Israel (that are meant to be delivered in December) as well as jets for Italy, Japan and Norway.

They're also still analysing the actual risk associated of continuing to fly with the crumbling insulation; it's possible the jets may start flying again before the fixes are in.
 
https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/f-35a-damaged-in-fire-at-air-force-base
 
Hi! Meat ball is gray!!
http://www.janes.com/article/62957/jasdf-releases-images-of-first-f-35
 
Fuel line problem may get fixed without fuel line replacement and be back up by the end of the year.

Engineers at Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) are addressing the issue alongside Hill AFB Airmen, the team has currently conducted inspections of at least eight aircraft. Engineers are currently developing procedures that will allow them to resolve the issue without having to replace the maintenance lines. This will hopefully get the aircraft ready for flight prior to the release of affected production aircraft to the field, and return affected operational aircraft back to the field before the end of the year.

“We won’t need to replace the cooling lines; our engineers are working on a solution and they have it,” said Johnson. “They are starting on the first test article at Fort Worth early next week. When that test article is done to the specification of the U.S. Government, JPO, etc., then eight teams from Lockheed will go into the field to provide the necessary maintenance on the aircraft in the field.
Click to expand...

more at the jump

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/88713.html?hq_e=el&hq_m=3287962&hq_l=1&hq_v=1c766e3241
 
Dragon029 said:
The rollout ceremony video: http://www.sldinfo.com/rollout-of-the-first-japanese-f-35/
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot. Excellent video for us Japanese!!
Perhaps we will see F-35B at Iwakuni base near Hiroshima in 2017!!!. Recent Koku-fan magazine said so. :D
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-engines-for-f-35-mid-2020s-likely-says-bogdan
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/f-35s-become-eyes-ears-the-fleet-17920
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/norway-wants-12-more-f-35s-plans-block-buy-2019
 
"Discussion: Do Joint Fighters Save Money?" by Stanley A. Horowitz, Institue for Defense Analysis, June 2016.

* Turns out that RAND study had some flaws
 

Attachments

  • file-page8.jpg
    file-page8.jpg
    370.6 KB · Views: 150
  • file-page9.jpg
    file-page9.jpg
    282.7 KB · Views: 143
  • file-page10.jpg
    file-page10.jpg
    398.1 KB · Views: 139
Hi!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_gQwaQlHBw
 
Little known Factoid.. thecarries at least 4 ALE-70 towed decoys Operationally since Block 2B.


It looks like the USN did put a contract out in April 2014 that has caused some confusion.

BAE Systems Electronic Solutions, Nashua, N.H., is being awarded a $47,352,248 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity delivery order contract for the manufacture of the transmitter countermeasures T-1687A/ALE-70 (V) in support of theprogram. Work will be performed at Nashua, N.H., and work is expected to be completed by April 2017. Fiscal 2014 procurement of ammunition Navy and Marine Corps, and fiscal 2012 Air Force aircraft funding in the amount of $14,314,816 will be obligated at the time of award. The Air Force funds in the amount of $6,308,224 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(l). The NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support, Mechanicsburg, Pa., is the contracting activity (N00104-14-D-K054).
Click to expand...
http://archive.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=5255

These two Budget docs provide a lot of clues... still digging

http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2017/Navy/U_P40_0182_BSA-1_BA-1_APP-1508N_PB_2017.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2017/AirForce/U_P40_76_BSA-4_BA-7_APP-3010F_PB_2017.pdf

DESCRIPTION:
The ALE-70 Towed Decoy is a countermeasures dispenser system designed to fit into the () aircraft. The ALE-70 provides aircraft self-protection against radar guided missiles.
Funds procure all system components: decoys, canisters, and explosive cartridges to deploy the decoys.
Click to expand...

COUNTERMEASURES: Includes all unique countermeasures that provide self-protection for the() aircraft, specifically ALE-70, MJU-68, MJU-69 and CCU-168. In addition tounique countermeasures, MJU-61 and MJU-64 are also used forself-protection.
Click to expand...

ALE-70 = Towed Decoy ($50k each)
MJU-68/69 = Flares http://www.chemring.co.uk/~/media/Files/C/Chemring-V2/PDFs/introduction-to-chemring-for-investors-oct2014.pdf
CCU-168 = Impulse cartridge for the flares https://govtribe.com/project/13-pn-8385852-2-ccu-168b-impulse-cartridge/activity
MJU-61/64 = also flares (4 differenc kinds?)

Absence of chaff info is odd.... But then again, if chaff would decoy the missile then the VLO airframe itself should be good enough, especially with the decoys.

This tidbit from the FY2017 budget (looks like the ALE-70 is in Block 2B/3i already:
(14) ALE-70 FY 2015 quantities increased from PB 2016 to accommodateIOC. FY 2017 quantity change from PB 2016 due to reviseddelivery schedule.
Click to expand...

tM53GfQ.png


Here are the doors (A=ALE, F = Flares)

LVdVKia.png


garrya over at F-16.net got a hold of a nice hires image

KppxXz7.jpg



Here is the PDF from BAE that got me started....

ub9gQAN.jpg


http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/download-en-us/20160718215911/1434583878736.pdf
 
DoD awards $743 million contract linked to ninth lot of F-35s

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dod-awards-743-million-contract-linked-to-ninth-lot-430453/
 
CHESAPEAKE BAY, Md. (Oct. 17, 2016) Aircraft CF-02, an F-35 Lightning II Carrier Variant attached to the F-35 Pax River Integrated Test Force (ITF) assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 completes a flyover of the guided-missile destroyer USS Zumwalt (DDG1000). (U.S. Navy photo by Andy Wolfe/Released)
 

Attachments

  • VX23F35CDDG1000A.jpg
    VX23F35CDDG1000A.jpg
    508.7 KB · Views: 957
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/report-f-35-now-training-f-15s-10-warthogs-navy-seals-18080
 
Video summary:
Yoshihiko Fukuda, mayor of Iwakuni City, Japan, observes an F-35B Lightning II at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona, Oct. 24, 2016. The demonstration of the F-35B gave Fukuda a better understanding of the aircraft and its capabilities. This event helped Fukuda better understand the capabilities of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121. The VMFA-121 F-35Bs will be the first deployment outside of the United States soil to Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Iwakuni, Japan in January, 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I611-Cs1pzM
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom