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

Belgian Gov looking to increase the number of F-35 with fresh orders ( qty still unspecified) :

Surtout en ce qui concerne l’équipement en particulier, les investissements vont s’accélérer et augmenter dans les années à venir, même si l’accord de gouvernement reste assez vague à ce sujet. Il est question “d’avions de combat supplémentaires”. Le nouveau gouvernement va donc acquérir des F-35 supplémentaires, en plus des 34 déjà commandés sous la Suédoise. Combien? On l’ignore pour l’instant. Les autres promesses (petits avions de transport, extension et armement de la flotte de drones, intégration des systèmes sans équipage et armés, capacités de guerre électronique) restent également peu concrètes.
-----//*---------//*---------

More F-35s, but no tanks?
Especially in terms of equipment in particular, investments will accelerate and increase in the coming years, even if the government agreement remains rather vague on this subject. It is a question of “additional combat aircraft”. The new government will therefore acquire additional F-35s, in addition to the 34 already ordered under the [previous] governments. How many? We do not know for the moment. The other promises (small transport aircraft, expansion and arming of the drone fleet, integration of unmanned and armed systems, electronic warfare capabilities) also remain rather vague.
Click to expand...

www.7sur7.be

Plus de F-35, une défense aérienne et une troisième frégate: l’accord de gouvernement prévoit beaucoup plus de moyens pour l’armée belge

Pour la première fois depuis longtemps, le nouveau gouvernement fédéral s’engage d’investir massivement dans la Défense. D’ici 2029, notre pays, plus mauvais élève de la classe au sein de l’OTAN, devra tenir sa promesse. Une deuxième brigade de combat, davantage de chasseurs F-35, une défense...
www.7sur7.be www.7sur7.be
 
TomcatViP said:
Belgian Gov looking to increase the number of F-35 with fresh orders ( qty still unspecified) :



www.7sur7.be

Plus de F-35, une défense aérienne et une troisième frégate: l’accord de gouvernement prévoit beaucoup plus de moyens pour l’armée belge

Pour la première fois depuis longtemps, le nouveau gouvernement fédéral s’engage d’investir massivement dans la Défense. D’ici 2029, notre pays, plus mauvais élève de la classe au sein de l’OTAN, devra tenir sa promesse. Une deuxième brigade de combat, davantage de chasseurs F-35, une défense...
www.7sur7.be www.7sur7.be
Click to expand...
Tanks don't really make a lot of sense for Belgium. At least not in large numbers.

I would not expect Belgium to operate more than about 165 tanks, 3 battalions worth. Small country, small population, and now a relatively long distance from any front lines.
 
TR3 tests wont begin until mid to late 2026!
There goes the hope that it would be done this year and the manufactured TR3 planes could be used operationally rather than restricted to training duties. Also means the delivery backlog isn't likely to clear anytime soon and we wont see the ramping up in production start this year.

www.defensenews.com

Key tests for latest F-35s will begin in 2026, two years after rollout

This is the latest in a series of delays for the Lockheed Martin-made fighter, causing modernization efforts to slip further behind.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
I find it interesting that the -B model is basically right at the required 9 hours maintenance per flight hour, while the -A is at 5.3. As we all probably expected, the -C needs the most, but even 12 maintenance hours per flight hour isn't bad at all...

I'm not expecting the -C to need more than double the maintenance of the -A, however.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I find it interesting that the -B model is basically right at the required 9 hours maintenance per flight hour, while the -A is at 5.3. As we all probably expected, the -C needs the most, but even 12 maintenance hours per flight hour isn't bad at all...

I'm not expecting the -C to need more than double the maintenance of the -A, however.
Click to expand...
Fleet size and maturity of platform maintenance knowledge would be the big factor there. The A being where it is points to the B and C being able to improve although they are more complex by definition.
 
Ozair said:
Fleet size and maturity of platform maintenance knowledge would be the big factor there. The A being where it is points to the B and C being able to improve although they are more complex by definition.
Click to expand...
Right, I'm expecting a ~20% drop in maintenance-per-flight-hour over time.
 
_Del_ said:
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.
Click to expand...
:) One thing I always curious about is that given modern military aircraft are often somewhat protected against HEMP, is it multiple use protection or only single use?. Like if there is two nuclear warhead exploded that cause EMP, but there is slight delay between them, will the protection be useless?
 
Ronny said:
:) One thing I always curious about is that given modern military aircraft are often somewhat protected against HEMP, is it multiple use protection or only single use?. Like if there is two nuclear warhead exploded that cause EMP, but there is slight delay between them, will the protection be useless?
Click to expand...
Yes, no, sometimes, always.

It really depends on the type of shielding you are talking about and the amount of particles zipping around. The three phases of the actual pulse are all over extremely quickly, but E3 could potentially linger a bit.

There will be more than one type of shielding involved in an aircraft, and they work in different ways.

In the most general sense, if the shielding installed was effective for one pulse, then it should be effective for the next pulse if it has enough time between pulses.

And of course if something was damaged by the first pulse but still works, it will not necessarily survive a second identical pulse no matter the time between them.
 
_Del_ said:
Yes, no, sometimes, always.

It really depends on the type of shielding you are talking about and the amount of particles zipping around. The three phases of the actual pulse are all over extremely quickly, but E3 could potentially linger a bit.

There will be more than one type of shielding involved in an aircraft, and they work in different ways.

In the most general sense, if the shielding installed was effective for one pulse, then it should be effective for the next pulse if it has enough time between pulses.

And of course if something was damaged by the first pulse but still works, it will not necessarily survive a second identical pulse no matter the time between them.
Click to expand...
:) I'm just thinking, let say a submarine just launch all of its ballistic missile and detonate it at altitude, how many it would it take for these aircraft to fall down from the sky due to HEMP? can modern fighter jet still fly and land after affected by EMP?
 
Ronny said:
:) I'm just thinking, let say a submarine just launch all of its ballistic missile and detonate it at altitude, how many it would it take for these aircraft to fall down from the sky due to HEMP? can modern fighter jet still fly and land after affected by EMP?
Click to expand...

I think if that happens you will have other more far reaching concerns.
 
Ronny said:
:) I'm just thinking, let say a submarine just launch all of its ballistic missile and detonate it at altitude, how many it would it take for these aircraft to fall down from the sky due to HEMP? can modern fighter jet still fly and land after affected by EMP?
Click to expand...
Anything still running a mechanical fuel control system won't even notice. Once started, a turbine engine doesn't need any electrical systems to keep working. No ignitors, nothing. There's a continuously burning fire in the engines, not an intermittent spark or bang like a piston engine.

For example, those old KC-135s? Won't care. Mechanical fuel controls on the engines, mechanical flight controls. C-5s? same deal.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Anything still running a mechanical fuel control system won't even notice. Once started, a turbine engine doesn't need any electrical systems to keep working. No ignitors, nothing. There's a continuously burning fire in the engines, not an intermittent spark or bang like a piston engine.

For example, those old KC-135s? Won't care. Mechanical fuel controls on the engines, mechanical flight controls. C-5s? same deal.
Click to expand...
I would assume that anything with FBW like F-16 and F-15EX just fall down from sky right?. And it even worse for aircraft with electronic actuator?
IMG_7743.jpeg
IMG_7744.png
 
Ronny said:
I would assume that anything with FBW like F-16 and F-15EX just fall down from sky right?. And it even worse for aircraft with electronic actuator?
Click to expand...
You would be wrong to assume that designers of combat aircraft have not factored in EMP etc.
 
GTX said:
You would be wrong to assume that designers of combat aircraft have not factored in EMP etc.
Click to expand...
Saw opinion that all those factors are deadly for purpose built combat aircraft at literally ranges where there's no chance of physical survival.

For civilian and ots systems it's more tricky.
 
Ainen said:
Saw opinion that all those factors are deadly for purpose built combat aircraft at literally ranges where there's no chance of physical survival.

For civilian and ots systems it's more tricky.
Click to expand...
This (as well as the comment about having bigger problems) is at least directionally true. Too many variables to make absolute statements, but the default is certainly not everything with FBW will fall from the sky.
 
GTX said:
You would be wrong to assume that designers of combat aircraft have not factored in EMP etc.
Click to expand...
I never say they weren’t , if they didn’t factor in EMP then we wouldn’t have image of F-35 and Eurofighter under the HEMP test equipment. But I’m just assuming that the protection might only work once, for the second nuclear warhead, then the protection stop working. Beside since SLBM often have like 8-10 warhead, I don’t think EMP protection can work for 8-10 consecutive time. Probably only mechanical system is immune. Or if the aircraft is full metal like a faraday cage?
 
Last edited:
Seem like EMP protection in aircraft are mostly in the form of faraday cage and shielded cable, so logically, multiple EMP likely doesn’t degrade it, especially consider that aircraft can take lightning strike and not instantly exploded.
On newer aircraft such as F-16 block 60, F-35 they also seem to use fiber optic instead of copper wire which eliminate the vulnerable to EMP since it can’t conduct current inside fiber optic wire

IMG_7760.jpeg
IMG_7759.jpeg
IMG_7761.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Ronny said:
Seem like EMP protection in aircraft are mostly in the form of faraday cage and shielded cable, so logically, multiple EMP likely doesn’t degrade it, especially consider that aircraft can take lightning strike and not instantly exploded.
On newer aircraft such as F-16 block 60, F-35 they also seem to use fiber optic instead of copper wire which eliminate the vulnerable to EMP since it can’t conduct current inside fiber optic wire
Click to expand...
What I do not know about fibre-optic aircraft control systems would be hard to overestimate. However, I do see a couple of possible problems with these statements, if my minimal knowledge of fibre-optic communications and Faraday cages is applicable.

[1] First, as far as I know, Faraday cages have to be continuous, with no openings that can let an eleectrical field through. This makes them impractical in many settings. For example, as an anti-eavesdropping measure, a secure briefing room that I know of had a Faraday cage implemented in the form of continuous, fine brass screen in the walls. There was a single door, also screened, with all its edges covered by fine brass brushes to bridge gaps when closed. There were no electrical, network, telephone, or plumbing conduits piercing the cage. This so reduced the usability of the room that the customer eventually cut all sorts of holes in the wall, spoiling both the cage and its rather large investment.

In an aircraft, I suspect that practical difficulties are a much bigger obstacle to effective use of Faraday cages. Even with shielded cables interconnecting cages around equipment, it sees like protecting all electronic components would be hard at the very least--and expensive in terms of weight and money. It might work in very large aircraft, like bombers. But in volume-limited aircraft like fighters, it seems less practical. Anything that needs to radiate and receive--radars, radios, GPS, etc--might not be protected at all.

[2] While fibre-optic lines are indeed immune to EMP, the interfaces to electronic components are not. At present, at least, fibre only transports signals. Vulnerable copper- and silicon-based components generate and interpret the signals. If the sensitive items are Faraday-caged, how do you connect the fibre to them without breaching the cage?

[3] Also, nuclear weapons aren't the only possible EMP sources: solar flares, some currently deployed quasi-conventional weapons, and lightning can have similar effects.

So it seems to me that, realistically, EMP is likely to knock out mission critical components, from radars to flight- and fire-control computers to electronic engine management systems. Even if the electro-mechanical actuators for the control surfaces and engines remain unaffected, the controlling computers will be ruined You'd need mechanical backups for basic flight and engine controls just to fly home.

The benefits of fly-by-wire are not free--even before we talk about software.
 
In addition to Faraday cages surge suppressors are also needed to stop EMP induced voltage and current spikes in connectors.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Of course.

But there's still different levels of pulse strength, which may be able to exceed the protection designed in.
Click to expand...

The nuclear shock front would knock the plane out of the sky at such a distance, or the X-rays turn the crew's DNA into Swiss cheese, given how with modern electronics a computer can survive for weeks under radiation bombardment with nary a cycle missed. EMP is simply not a serious threat to modern aircraft, except for the occasional lightning strike, as other factors would be more important.

This may be different for something like a TACAMO aircraft, which will actually be subjected to multiple massive nuclear EMPs, while trailing huge ELF antennae; but it's not super important for a tactical fighter designed to deliver nuclear weapons in the first place, though. If someone is slinging nukes, the much bigger issue is that the F-35 is not going to have an airbase to return to, assuming the plane isn't being actively torn apart by the blast.

If you can hit a plane with a EMP missile like CHAMP, too, you can actually just use a normal warhead.
 
NMaude said:
In addition to Faraday cages surge suppressors are also needed to stop EMP induced voltage and current spikes in connectors.
Click to expand...
Are there such surge suppressors? Suppressors work for line fluctuations. But they are marginal even for lightning.
 
Kat Tsun said:
The nuclear shock front would knock the plane out of the sky at such a distance, or the X-rays turn the crew's DNA into Swiss cheese, given how with modern electronics a computer can survive for weeks under radiation bombardment with nary a cycle missed. EMP is simply not a serious threat to modern aircraft, except for the occasional lightning strike, as other factors would be more important.
Click to expand...
Not so. High altitude nuclear explosions (HALE) and major solar flares can knock out electrical grids over vast distances. Since the 1960s, when the last HALE events occurred, we are far more vulnerable to EMP because we make much wider use of semiconductors. Modern aircraft are, if anything, an extreme case of this.
 
iverson said:
Not so. High altitude nuclear explosions (HALE) and major solar flares can knock out electrical grids over vast distances. Since the 1960s, when the last HALE events occurred, we are far more vulnerable to EMP because we make much wider use of semiconductors. Modern aircraft are, if anything, an extreme case of this.
Click to expand...

Most civilian infrastructure is far more vulnerable than any aircraft.
 
iverson said:
Are there such surge suppressors? Suppressors work for line fluctuations. But they are marginal even for lightning.
Click to expand...

I don't recall the details there are IIRC surge suppressors of some sort for military electronics that basically trip and form a short-circuit when a current or voltage spike induced by EMP arrives.
 
iverson said:
Are there such surge suppressors? Suppressors work for line fluctuations. But they are marginal even for lightning.
Click to expand...
There are various methods all being employed at the same time. Effectiveness for that will depend on the line conditioner. Some of the surge protectors used in commercial aircraft would probably work to at least mitigate, but would not meet spec for protection in a military aircraft.

iverson said:
First, as far as I know, Faraday cages have to be continuous, with no openings that can let an eleectrical field through
Click to expand...
You can have holes in the Faraday cage for the same reason you can have holes in the screen in the microwave door or the holes in the mesh in your conference room. Ronny posted a pretty good graphic that does a good job illustrating it.

Using a waveguide can prevent leakage in larger holes for the same reasons a long intake will slowly attenuate (at least part of) a radar wave as it bounces around. Depending on the specific frequencies you were trying to protect against, one could presumably have any number of large holes in the cage (or room or bunker) with an appropriate waveguide.
 
iverson said:
What I do not know about fibre-optic aircraft control systems would be hard to overestimate. However, I do see a couple of possible problems with these statements, if my minimal knowledge of fibre-optic communications and Faraday cages is applicable.

[1] First, as far as I know, Faraday cages have to be continuous, with no openings that can let an eleectrical field through. This makes them impractical in many settings. For example, as an anti-eavesdropping measure, a secure briefing room that I know of had a Faraday cage implemented in the form of continuous, fine brass screen in the walls. There was a single door, also screened, with all its edges covered by fine brass brushes to bridge gaps when closed. There were no electrical, network, telephone, or plumbing conduits piercing the cage. This so reduced the usability of the room that the customer eventually cut all sorts of holes in the wall, spoiling both the cage and its rather large investment.

In an aircraft, I suspect that practical difficulties are a much bigger obstacle to effective use of Faraday cages. Even with shielded cables interconnecting cages around equipment, it sees like protecting all electronic components would be hard at the very least--and expensive in terms of weight and money. It might work in very large aircraft, like bombers. But in volume-limited aircraft like fighters, it seems less practical. Anything that needs to radiate and receive--radars, radios, GPS, etc--might not be protected at all.

[2] While fibre-optic lines are indeed immune to EMP, the interfaces to electronic components are not. At present, at least, fibre only transports signals. Vulnerable copper- and silicon-based components generate and interpret the signals. If the sensitive items are Faraday-caged, how do you connect the fibre to them without breaching the cage?

[3] Also, nuclear weapons aren't the only possible EMP sources: solar flares, some currently deployed quasi-conventional weapons, and lightning can have similar effects.

So it seems to me that, realistically, EMP is likely to knock out mission critical components, from radars to flight- and fire-control computers to electronic engine management systems. Even if the electro-mechanical actuators for the control surfaces and engines remain unaffected, the controlling computers will be ruined You'd need mechanical backups for basic flight and engine controls just to fly home.

The benefits of fly-by-wire are not free--even before we talk about software.
Click to expand...
Given that F-35 is protected according to mil-std 2169 and we literally saw it is tested with EMP generator at White Sands Missile Range, it is a given that the aircraft is hardened against HEMP. The question is just how many EMP it can take before falling down from the sky. I think that RWR and Radar might fail after 2 EMP attack, however things like electro actuator and FBW can probably be shielded very well
1.png

22.png

33.png

44.png

55.png
 
had said:
I find it worth noticing to see a F-35 in India (Country with S-400 systems) after the whole NDAA 2021/CAATSA thing.

Start of a softening stance in this regard? Or the reason why the F-35 will probably not fly there?
Click to expand...
Well, first of all the F-35 is wearing a Luneburg Lens or three, so whatever the S-400 is detecting isn't the F-35's true RCS.

Though I suspect that after the S-400's performance in Ukraine, the Indians aren't too happy.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom