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

NCQ said:
I'm unsure what the USMC's plans are
Click to expand...

USMC wants to upgrade all aircraft to Block 4 Lot 17 standard. I suspect that means that they will have some of the earlier aircraft left at 3F due to cost. This is probably good news for the RAF/FAA as the USMC will go first and 'prove' the upgrade path for F-35B, for the UK to deviate from that plan would bring in a lot of risk and expense. Essentially the USMC going for a high standard forces the UK MoD down that path as well, there appears to be only 1 UK F-35B that is in the 'really expensive' category for upgrades, and by the time this all happens it will have been in service for 20 years so will probably be left for tests, training or ground instructional.

bring_it_on said:
The two largest buyers - USAF and International partners - would disagree. The former wants the upgraded performance and weapons that are promised with block 4, and the latter wants its own weapons integrated on the platform
Click to expand...

With the demise of Turkey and the SOM-J missile the only international partner interested in weapons integration is the UK with Spear, Meteor, Asraam Block VI and Paveway Penetrator (and eventually FCASW and other Spear variants). JSM is US/Norwegian with Raytheon's involvement. There are rumours that Israel will look to integrate Spice 1000 and 2000, but they'll do that themselves (there are no other Israeli munitions that make sense to integrate at present).

No-one else has any stated plans whatsoever.
 
bring_it_on said:
TomcatViP said:
I am not sure that there is such urgency for the upgrade. I am pretty sure that current F-35 match the current threat.

I would be pretty satisfied if assets get focused mainly into increasing manufacturing outputs. Then, they probably have a decade for the move.
Click to expand...
The two largest buyers - USAF and International partners - would disagree. The former wants the upgraded performance and weapons that are promised with block 4, and the latter wants its own weapons integrated on the platform. All customers want to avoid having to buy TR-2 hardware and then pay millions down the road in upgrade costs. The urgency to upgrade is partly because of the want for to avoid having to integrate weapons badly needed now and in the near term with the older hardware. LRASM/JASSM comes with Block 4 but imagine if you also had to integrate this with TR-2 hardware.
Click to expand...
The USAF, USMC and US Navy are all short of F-35 qualified maintenance personnels. Upgrades (retrofit) can only be fielded on that level of airframe number by the private sector. That would raise the hourly cost of F-35 qualified technicians, accelerate turnovers and compete with available assets, ultimately raising cost and delaying manufacturing for the military.

It's what anyone get outstretching a finite ressource.
 
F-2 said:
Japan wants to integrate AAM-5 and JNAAM.
Click to expand...
JNAAM is a joint UK-Japan project and the difficulty of integrating AAM-5 really depends on the level of integration/funcrionality they want to achieve. Besides, as seen by their purchase of AMRAAMs, they'll going to buy Sidewinders if US doesn't approve AAM-5 integration.
 
Josh_TN said:
They've been back and forth on this buy so many times I won't believe it until I see an F-35 pulled up at a Tim Hortons being fueled with maple syrup.
Click to expand...
That back-and-forth is standard on major Canadian defense contracts. See how Sea King helicopters served 50 years before replacement S-92s arrived, S-92 design started with a suggestion by Canadian aircrew circa 1983. Even then, the S-92s lacked all the software needed to chase submarines.
Entire generations of Canadian servicemen come and go while hearing the same promises from Ottawa. Back during the mid-1980s, the standard jokes amongst infanteers were: I love you, I will respect you in the morning and the new rifles will arrive in time for fall-ex.
 
VTOLicious said:
Josh_TN said:
VTOLicious said:
fightingirish said:
Looks like, that the F-35 for the RCAF will get the same housing for the brake chute on the top fuselage, just like as on the F-35 for the Royal Norwegian Air Force.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it would be useful / feasible to attach a weapon pod with a trapeze launcher for a SRAAM in place of the drag chute pod.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t it just be wing mounted? RCAF rarely needs to run dark.
Click to expand...

I was not specifically referring to RCAF. Rather as an optional feature, like the drag chute.
Click to expand...
Drag chutes are needed to stop on icy runways in Norway and the Canadian arctic.
 
riggerrob said:
VTOLicious said:
Josh_TN said:
VTOLicious said:
fightingirish said:
Looks like, that the F-35 for the RCAF will get the same housing for the brake chute on the top fuselage, just like as on the F-35 for the Royal Norwegian Air Force.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it would be useful / feasible to attach a weapon pod with a trapeze launcher for a SRAAM in place of the drag chute pod.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t it just be wing mounted? RCAF rarely needs to run dark.
Click to expand...

I was not specifically referring to RCAF. Rather as an optional feature, like the drag chute.
Click to expand...
Drag chutes are needed to stop on icy runways in Norway and the Canadian arctic.
Click to expand...
Who could have guessed that :)
 
timmymagic said:
With the demise of Turkey and the SOM-J missile the only international partner interested in weapons integration is the UK with Spear, Meteor, Asraam Block VI and Paveway Penetrator (and eventually FCASW and other Spear variants). JSM is US/Norwegian with Raytheon's involvement. There are rumours that Israel will look to integrate Spice 1000 and 2000, but they'll do that themselves (there are no other Israeli munitions that make sense to integrate at present).
Click to expand...
UK and Norway are both partners who had their weapon requests for FoM in during the SDD phase itself. Add to that customers who have bought the F-35 with JASSM and/or LRASM, and others who have committed to that combination. And a service that regards the block 4 F-35 with SiAW for its late 2020's early 2030s SEAD capability (and is committing to buying 3000 such missiles for the F-35). Not to mention the USAF and Navy's AMRAAM replacement which is probably rolled into block 4 since the claimed weapons being integrated in block 4 exceeds the list of weapons announced. Add Japan to this since it is buying JSM, and possibly developing/co-developing a Meteor variant. In short, this is an important aspect of this program hence why all the customers together have rolled in more than a dozen new weapons into the block 4 with the list gradually expanding over time including thanks to Congressional support.
 
riggerrob said:
Josh_TN said:
They've been back and forth on this buy so many times I won't believe it until I see an F-35 pulled up at a Tim Hortons being fueled with maple syrup.
Click to expand...
That back-and-forth is standard on major Canadian defense contracts. See how Sea King helicopters served 50 years before replacement S-92s arrived, S-92 design started with a suggestion by Canadian aircrew circa 1983. Even then, the S-92s lacked all the software needed to chase submarines.
Entire generations of Canadian servicemen come and go while hearing the same promises from Ottawa. Back during the mid-1980s, the standard jokes amongst infanteers were: I love you, I will respect you in the morning and the new rifles will arrive in time for fall-ex.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Canada has no possible enemies, only commitments. I don't begrudge them skimping on defense. Honestly I'm surprised they don't just go the way of Iceland and only have a coast guard. The US would be annoyed, but what are they going to do to, invade? Plus if they were just willing to divest their bases to the US, I doubt there would even be push back. The weird thing to me is that Canada even attempts to have first line equipment in the first place.
 
riggerrob said:
Drag chutes are needed to stop on icy runways in Norway and the Canadian arctic.
Click to expand...

Oh....I was misinformed. I'd assumed that was just what Drag Queens called their money maker; didn't realize that's how you slow down a plane in an arctic environment....
 
As a reminder:

world-map-with-north-pole-pdf.jpg
 
TomcatViP said:
As a reminder:

world-map-with-north-pole-pdf.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the proximity. But at the same time, I don't think the Russians are going to start landing troops in Canada. The US would defend the Northwest Passage even if Canada didn't, and in fact both countries have a disagreement about how much of that counts as "international waters". Never the less, I certainly welcome the Canadian buy of F-35's; honestly I think it is more plane for the money than you can get from anyone else.
 
Does the Finnish specification also have requirenent of the brake parachute fairing ?
I was assuming it had due to potentially similar operating conditions ?
 
TsrJoe said:
Does the Finnish specification also have requirenent of the brake parachute fairing ?
I was assuming it had due to potentially similar operating conditions ?
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if it didn't, but I've never seen a public specification of requirements. But we know the Norwegians have it, so I'd bet an arm that the Finns will as well. Similar conditions and concerns.
 
TomcatViP said:
I am not sure that there is such urgency for the upgrade. I am pretty sure that current F-35 match the current threat.
Click to expand...

I believe the reason for the upgrade is to save on costs. TR-3 is not just about improving performance, but also fixing minor issues found in the design that make it harder and more expensive to maintain. They especially want to bring all the computer systems to the same standard and run the same software.
 
Tuna said:
TomcatViP said:
I am not sure that there is such urgency for the upgrade. I am pretty sure that current F-35 match the current threat.
Click to expand...

I believe the reason for the upgrade is to save on costs. TR-3 is not just about improving performance, but also fixing minor issues found in the design that make it harder and more expensive to maintain. They especially want to bring all the computer systems to the same standard and run the same software.
Click to expand...

Sort of, part of the reason for the upgrade is actually cost. But specifically that they want to keep the F-35's Integrated Core Processor a processor that's still being used widely commercially, so that they don't end up having to be the only ones paying to keep a production line going. However, the main reason for the upgrade is just the massively increased computing power which allows more capabilities.
 
Avimimus said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
And please don't pretend like that 90/10 split is unique to Canada --the Majority of F-35 operators (even the US) are going to spend more time training and patrolling at home, or in small overseas locations, or over an aircraft carrier. than they will in combat ops. Air campaigns have rarely exceeded 2 months the last 25 years.
Click to expand...

Of course such home-defence patrols are not unique to any country.
However, this is not an argument for ignoring the interception/patrol requirement entirely (and only focussing on the 10%).
Nor is it an argument that Canada geography doesn't have unique requirements...
Click to expand...
Canadian geography resembles Russian geography, Australian geography and Chinese geography in that all 4 nations contain large deserts. Most of their populations live in narrow, arable strips. The only difference is that Canadian and Russian deserts are frozen for most of the year. Chinese deserts vary between blistering hot and bone-chilling cold depending upon the time of day and the season.
 
news.northropgrumman.com

Northrop Grumman Developing the Next Generation Radar for the F-35 Lightning II

BALTIMORE – Jan. 11, 2023 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) is developing AN/APG-85, an advanced Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar for the F-35 Lightning II. Northrop Grumman currently manufactures the AN/APG-81 active...
news.northropgrumman.com news.northropgrumman.com

Press release from Northrop Grumman that confirms that they are the ones making the new AN/APG-85 radar for the F-35.
 
Josh_TN said:
To be fair, Canada has no possible enemies, only commitments. I don't begrudge them skimping on defense. Honestly I'm surprised they don't just go the way of Iceland and only have a coast guard. The US would be annoyed, but what are they going to do to, invade? Plus if they were just willing to divest their bases to the US, I doubt there would even be push back. The weird thing to me is that Canada even attempts to have first line equipment in the first place.
Click to expand...
Being the first line of defence on the NA continent against the Russian Air Force surely means something... Besides with global warming and melting arctic sea, new artic sea routes and maritime resources, etc means their own conflicting interests to the Russians, which I'm certain the US will provide a helping hand if things go dire, but it's still going to be their own problem nonetheless.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Josh_TN said:
To be fair, Canada has no possible enemies, only commitments. I don't begrudge them skimping on defense. Honestly I'm surprised they don't just go the way of Iceland and only have a coast guard. The US would be annoyed, but what are they going to do to, invade? Plus if they were just willing to divest their bases to the US, I doubt there would even be push back. The weird thing to me is that Canada even attempts to have first line equipment in the first place.
Click to expand...
Being the first line of defence on the NA continent against the Russian Air Force surely means something... Besides with global warming and melting arctic sea, new artic sea routes and maritime resources, etc means their own conflicting interests to the Russians, which I'm certain the US will provide a helping hand if things go dire, but it's still going to be their own problem nonetheless.
Click to expand...
You left out covid and meteor collisions
 
Josh_TN said:
TsrJoe said:
Does the Finnish specification also have requirenent of the brake parachute fairing ?
I was assuming it had due to potentially similar operating conditions ?
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if it didn't, but I've never seen a public specification of requirements. But we know the Norwegians have it, so I'd bet an arm that the Finns will as well. Similar conditions and concerns.
Click to expand...
Finnish F/A-18 does not have a chute. They do practice landings using the hook (not as drastic deceleration as with carrier landings). Is the F-35A hook up to occasional use?
 
perttime said:
Josh_TN said:
TsrJoe said:
Does the Finnish specification also have requirenent of the brake parachute fairing ?
I was assuming it had due to potentially similar operating conditions ?
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if it didn't, but I've never seen a public specification of requirements. But we know the Norwegians have it, so I'd bet an arm that the Finns will as well. Similar conditions and concerns.
Click to expand...
Finnish F/A-18 does not have a chute. They do practice landings using the hook (not as drastic deceleration as with carrier landings). Is the F-35A hook up to occasional use?
Click to expand...
Does the A version retain the hook?
 
Josh_TN said:
perttime said:
Josh_TN said:
TsrJoe said:
Does the Finnish specification also have requirenent of the brake parachute fairing ?
I was assuming it had due to potentially similar operating conditions ?
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if it didn't, but I've never seen a public specification of requirements. But we know the Norwegians have it, so I'd bet an arm that the Finns will as well. Similar conditions and concerns.
Click to expand...
Finnish F/A-18 does not have a chute. They do practice landings using the hook (not as drastic deceleration as with carrier landings). Is the F-35A hook up to occasional use?
Click to expand...
Does the A version retain the hook?
Click to expand...

It has a different, much less robust, tail hook for emergency arrested landings on land. It seems to be a one-time-only device, so it needs to be replaced after use.

theaviationist.com

The F-35A has started tailhook testing at Edwards AFB

Even the conventional variant of the Joint Strike Fighter must be prepared to use the tailhook to face directional control issues or braking failures.
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com
 
Last edited:
For the F-35A it’s a feature common with the F-15 and F-16 (and other US airforce fighters).
It’s not a proper naval tail hook and is not intended for regular use. Both it and the airframe aren’t stressed for regular use (indeed using it once is likely to damage the airframe to some extent), it’s for emergency use with an airfield arrester wire, and only when the alternative is even worse.
 
helmutkohl said:
what are the repercussions for Canada for leaving the F-35 program, then re-joining it?
For one, they will receive their planes much later than had they stayed, but any others? such as costs, etc?
Click to expand...
They lost of a lot, I mean a lot of good pilots and maintainers while playing politics and could not fully fulfill their defense obligations (still can’t)

This above video interview while long, gives some excellent insights into the process.
 
kaiserd said:
For the F-35A it’s a feature common with the F-15 and F-16 (and other US airforce fighters).
It’s not a proper naval tail hook and is not intended for regular use. Both it and the airframe aren’t stressed for regular use (indeed using it once is likely to damage the airframe to some extent), it’s for emergency use with an airfield arrester wire, and only when the alternative is even worse.
Click to expand...
Like with this RAAF F-111 emergency arrested landing - the landing gear failed to deploy correctly, so they retracted it and went for an arrested belly landing to minimize the damage to the airframe by controlling and shortening the slide:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAIHr8pClao
 
perttime said:
So, this is not going to happen regularly with an F-35A:
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Any of the modern fighters fitted with hooks (and there are quite a few incl the F-35 ) could use their hooks to engage Airfield Arrestor systems if so required. The F-35 is nothing special in this case.
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
perttime said:
So, this is not going to happen regularly with an F-35A:
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Any of the modern fighters fitted with hooks (and there are quite a few incl the F-35 ) could use their hooks to engage Airfield Arrestor systems if so required. The F-35 is nothing special int his case.
Click to expand...
The Airfield Arrestor systems also normally have a much longer pull-out than an aircraft carrier's arresting gear, meaning much lower stress on the hook and fuselage structure around the attachment point.
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
perttime said:
So, this is not going to happen regularly with an F-35A:
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Any of the modern fighters fitted with hooks (and there are quite a few incl the F-35 ) could use their hooks to engage Airfield Arrestor systems if so required. The F-35 is nothing special in this case.
Click to expand...
In previous posts, people were saying that the hooks on land based fighters would have to be replaced after use, and there could even be airframe damage.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom