The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

[sferrin]

Did any of the programs prior to Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), ASTOVL, SSF, JAF, CALF, JAST, consider a subsonic replacement for the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/British Aerospace Harrier II? It seems that supersonic was a requirement beginning with the Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) program begun in 1983. Was there any reason to believe that the STOVL variant of the Joint Strike Fighter wouldn't be supersonic?

There were TONS. How serious any of them were is another matter. Then again, both the XFV-12 and Convair 200 (looked at during the Sea Control Ship fiasco) were supersonic.

 

[bobbymike]

A direct lift system with a 3d thrust vectoring rear nozzle seems like it would have had very good stovl performance, maybe not as good as the f-35, but lower risk, less complicated, lighter, etc. and the versions without the stovl requirement could have better met the f-16 replacement need.


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726

"The F-35 channels its strong thermal loads, accumulated by the powerful avionics and sub-systems on-board, as well as the engine, into its fuel. So really, the fuel works as a giant heat sink. If the fuel is already warm upon start-up, there is less capacity to exchange the heat from their aircraft's simmering systems. Therefore the jet must shut down or risk overheating. A clever design that most likely lightens up the jet and leaves extra room for weapons and fuel, but one that may have very little room for adaptation." Quote

Sorry about the source for this story. Are the concerns valid? If the fuel is the heat sink for the systems and a hot fuel truck will cause overheat and systems shutdown, is this going to be a real problem operating in say, Saudi Arabia or somewhere in a challenging hot environment?

Do you think a story from December of last year got discussed at SPF? It was and rejected

 

[kitnut617]

I'm curious, so a question to everyone who's posted on this thread. How many of you work on, have worked on or fly the F-35 ?

 

[sferrin]

I'm curious, so a question to everyone who's posted on this thread. How many of you work on, have worked on or fly the F-35 ?

There are a few over on F-16.net. I'd be surprised if there are any here.

 

[Triton]

"Pentagon Reconsidering Total F-35 Buy, Dunford Says"
by Marcus Weisgerber
July 9, 2015

Source:
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/07/400-billion-f-35-no-longer-untouchable/117448/

Gen. Joseph Dunford, the nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he’s willing to rethink the acquisition plan for the most expensive weapons program ever.

Much has changed about the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter program in the past 13 years, but one thing has remained steady: the number of F-35s to be bought for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

All three variants have seen design tweaks, program managers have come and gone, and the projected price tag has climbed and climbed. Meanwhile, the world changed as well, while wars in Afghanistan and Iraq sucked money from long-term weapons projects. Through it all, Pentagon officials maintained they would need exactly 2,443 combat F-35s, plus 14 development aircraft, to deter and fight potential adversaries such as China.

But now radical extremists are wreaking havoc across much of the Middle East and northern Africa, and Russia has re-emerged as a major foe. On Thursday morning, Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Marine Corps commandant nominated to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the F-35 buying plan is under review.

“Given the evolving defense strategy and the latest Defense Planning Guidance, we are presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number,” Dunford wrote in response to questions asked by the committee in advance of his hearing Thursday. “Until the analysis is complete, we need to pursue the current scheduled quantity buy to preclude creating an overall near-term tactical fighter shortfall.”

Dunford’s comments come one week after Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the outgoing JCS chairman, warned in a new National Military Strategy that the military might need to rethink and reorganize for the hybrid wars of the future.

That doesn’t mean the F-35 — the largest weapons program ever, by many billions of dollars — is going away. “With projected adversarial threats challenging our current capabilities in coming years, the Joint Strike Fighter is a vital component of our effort to ensure the Joint Force maintains dominance in the air,” Dunford wrote.

The entire program, both developing and buying the actual jets, is projected to cost $400 billion, while operating and maintaining those planes is projected to cost between $859 billion and $1 trillion. In addition to the 2,457 U.S. aircraft, allies are projected to purchase hundreds of F-35s.

Many experts believed the Pentagon’s vision of a fleet of 2,443 Lockheed Martin F-35s was a pipe dream — but also that the program was likely stable for at least 15 to 20 years of its planned three-decade procurement period.

“I don’t think anybody on Wall Street would be surprised if [the Defense Department] starts to back away from that number just because I don’t think anybody really gave Lockheed Martin or the subcontractors on the program full credit for the total buy,” Byron Callan, a defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners said.

“That said, we’re still probably going to get to a build rate of 150 [aircraft] per year total, at least for the early part of the decade,” he said. “Then the real question is what happens beyond that.”

After years of cost increases and schedule slips, the F-35 project has largely stabilized over the past three years, according to defense officials. The Marine Corps version of the jet will soon be declare battle-ready. In the coming years, the Pentagon is planning to increase its annual orders of the aircraft.

But while the F-35 program stretched out year by year, other strategic national-security priorities began appearing. At the end of the next decade, the Air Force is planning to buy new long-range stealth bombers, while the Navy plans to buy an expensive replacement for the Ohio-class submarine.

“If confirmed, I will advise the Secretary as he assesses the delicate balance of the capacity and the capabilities of the future Joint Force,” Dunford wrote. “This advice will be informed by the extent to which the F-35 program conforms to the priority requirements identified by Combatant Commanders and the Department’s strategic plans.”

While Dunford is the first senior-level defense official to acknowledge that the total F-35 buy could change, his comments are not likely to affect stocks or prompt companies to change their business plans, Callan said.

Lockheed shares were up $2.60 to $192.70 in late-day trading.

 

[donnage99]

If I recall a lot of the Lockheed Martin JSF artwork looked "sleeker" than the actual F-35 does. I don't think it would be all that crazy to assume the McDonnell/Northrop/BAE design would have also "bulked up" a bit too.

Did their proposal have TVC?

The Mcdonnell proposal's simpler engine layout allowed it to be the sleekest among all the contenders. This was one of their argument for their proposal. And I just can't buy the idea that the f-35 bulked up from its original proposal. Did it gain weight? Absolutely. But did its outer mold change to accommodate this weight? I doubt that.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Keep in mind that the X-35 did not contain weapon bays (I know, that is different from the artwork).


One that that did happen, especially during SWAT, was that they saved weight by not making the OML flat (especially the bottom) like the F-22.

 

[Triton]

"PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence"
by John Kerin
July 7, 2015

Source:
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms-floating-fighter-jet-plan-quietly-sunk-by-defence-20150707-gi6qxj?stb=twt

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly.

Mr Abbott asked defence planners in May last year to examine the possibility of putting up to 12 of the short-take-off and vertical-landing F-35 Bs on to the two ships – the largest in the Navy – which carry helicopters and are likely to be primarily used to transport troops and equipment to war or disaster zones.

The first of the assault ships was completed last year and commissioned into the Navy in November as HMAS Canberra.

But defence officials conceded to a Senate estimates committee late last year that the jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars.

Defence sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the proposal was "still in the white paper mix" up until some weeks ago.

But one source close to the white paper was emphatic on Tuesday that "it will now not make the cut".

"There were just too many technical difficulties involved in modifying a ship which takes helicopters to take fighter jets and it is also very expensive," the source said. "You can safely say it has been dropped."
'Better ways to spend the money'

The white paper, which lays down the Abbott government's 20-year vision for defence – including a $275 billion-plus weapons wishlist – is expected to be released next month.

The Prime Minister's proposal would have brought Australia into line with the United States, Britain and a number of other nations that plan to operate F-35s from their assault ships.

The F-35B version of the joint strike fighter is being built for the US Marines and British forces to replace their British-built Harrier jump jets.

The Spanish Navy's version of the troop transport assault ship, which utilises the same underlying design as the Royal Australian Navy's troop assault ship, is equipped to carry Harrier jump jets.

Mr Abbott announced in April last year that Australia would buy an additional 58 conventional take-off and landing versions for the Royal Australian Air Force at a cost of $12 .4 billion, bringing the number of orders to 72.

But the RAAF version was not suitable for the troop transport assault ships, which would have required the purchase of extra fighters to equip the ships. And the radar-evading stealth fighter program has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, as well as software issues with the F-35B – the worst-afflicted version of the aircraft.

In an independent report on the jump jet proposal, defence think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned that the purchase of aircraft and ship modifications would involve "multibillions of dollars".

Analysts Richard Brabin-Smith and Dr Benjamin Schreer also warned in the report that the cost was unjustified and could also "raise unrealistic expectations" that Australia was adopting a "much more muscular strategic posture" in the region.

"The cost-benefit analysis is not in favour of developing [the assault ship-jump jet proposal]," the paper said.

"The scenarios in which the capability would be realistically required and make an important impact are operationally vague at best.

"The 2015 defence white paper should not announce a decision or intention to acquire jump jets for the ADF… there are likely better ways to spend the money."

 

[sferrin]

The Mcdonnell proposal's simpler engine layout allowed it to be the sleekest among all the contenders.

How was it simpler? It still had a lift jet up front, and unless they planned on two smaller engines in tandem, it'd be just as big as the lift fan on the LM design, as the lift requirements would be similar. Also, how was the main engine nozzle simpler than a 3-bearing? If they just plugged the end and opened vents they'd lose efficiency.

 

[bobbymike]

"Pentagon Reconsidering Total F-35 Buy, Dunford Says"
by Marcus Weisgerber
July 9, 2015

Source:
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/07/400-billion-f-35-no-longer-untouchable/117448/

Gen. Joseph Dunford, the nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he’s willing to rethink the acquisition plan for the most expensive weapons program ever.

Much has changed about the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter program in the past 13 years, but one thing has remained steady: the number of F-35s to be bought for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

All three variants have seen design tweaks, program managers have come and gone, and the projected price tag has climbed and climbed. Meanwhile, the world changed as well, while wars in Afghanistan and Iraq sucked money from long-term weapons projects. Through it all, Pentagon officials maintained they would need exactly 2,443 combat F-35s, plus 14 development aircraft, to deter and fight potential adversaries such as China.

But now radical extremists are wreaking havoc across much of the Middle East and northern Africa, and Russia has re-emerged as a major foe. On Thursday morning, Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Marine Corps commandant nominated to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the F-35 buying plan is under review.

“Given the evolving defense strategy and the latest Defense Planning Guidance, we are presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number,” Dunford wrote in response to questions asked by the committee in advance of his hearing Thursday. “Until the analysis is complete, we need to pursue the current scheduled quantity buy to preclude creating an overall near-term tactical fighter shortfall.”

Dunford’s comments come one week after Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the outgoing JCS chairman, warned in a new National Military Strategy that the military might need to rethink and reorganize for the hybrid wars of the future.

That doesn’t mean the F-35 — the largest weapons program ever, by many billions of dollars — is going away. “With projected adversarial threats challenging our current capabilities in coming years, the Joint Strike Fighter is a vital component of our effort to ensure the Joint Force maintains dominance in the air,” Dunford wrote.

The entire program, both developing and buying the actual jets, is projected to cost $400 billion, while operating and maintaining those planes is projected to cost between $859 billion and $1 trillion. In addition to the 2,457 U.S. aircraft, allies are projected to purchase hundreds of F-35s.

Many experts believed the Pentagon’s vision of a fleet of 2,443 Lockheed Martin F-35s was a pipe dream — but also that the program was likely stable for at least 15 to 20 years of its planned three-decade procurement period.

“I don’t think anybody on Wall Street would be surprised if [the Defense Department] starts to back away from that number just because I don’t think anybody really gave Lockheed Martin or the subcontractors on the program full credit for the total buy,” Byron Callan, a defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners said.

“That said, we’re still probably going to get to a build rate of 150 [aircraft] per year total, at least for the early part of the decade,” he said. “Then the real question is what happens beyond that.”

After years of cost increases and schedule slips, the F-35 project has largely stabilized over the past three years, according to defense officials. The Marine Corps version of the jet will soon be declare battle-ready. In the coming years, the Pentagon is planning to increase its annual orders of the aircraft.

But while the F-35 program stretched out year by year, other strategic national-security priorities began appearing. At the end of the next decade, the Air Force is planning to buy new long-range stealth bombers, while the Navy plans to buy an expensive replacement for the Ohio-class submarine.

“If confirmed, I will advise the Secretary as he assesses the delicate balance of the capacity and the capabilities of the future Joint Force,” Dunford wrote. “This advice will be informed by the extent to which the F-35 program conforms to the priority requirements identified by Combatant Commanders and the Department’s strategic plans.”

While Dunford is the first senior-level defense official to acknowledge that the total F-35 buy could change, his comments are not likely to affect stocks or prompt companies to change their business plans, Callan said.

Lockheed shares were up $2.60 to $192.70 in late-day trading.

I thought I read a follow up quote where Dunford was asked specifically if this meant fewer F-35s and he said no probably more.

 

[LowObservable]

Tons of subsonic AV-8 follow-ons?


Now, that's really puzzling.


NASA's Sam Wilson had a Harrier III paper in the early 1980s. There was one BAe model at Farnborough:


http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1990/1990%20-%202736.PDF


Tons, however.... ?????

 

[Sundog]

How was it simpler? It still had a lift jet up front, and unless they planned on two smaller engines in tandem, it'd be just as big as the lift fan on the LM design, as the lift requirements would be similar. Also, how was the main engine nozzle simpler than a 3-bearing? If they just plugged the end and opened vents they'd lose efficiency.

Actually, it was smaller in diameter than the L-M lift fan, which makes sense, since being another jet engine it most likely had higher velocity. However, the L-M design would have had the advantage with regard to a lack of hot gas re-ingestion issues. Though, this would have allowed the Mac design to have a smaller cross section and be more volume efficient.

 

[donnage99]

How was it simpler? It still had a lift jet up front, and unless they planned on two smaller engines in tandem, it'd be just as big as the lift fan on the LM design, as the lift requirements would be similar. Also, how was the main engine nozzle simpler than a 3-bearing? If they just plugged the end and opened vents they'd lose efficiency.

Without a straight tube run through the middle of the aircraft to connect the lift fan with the engine, internal layout can be alot more efficient.

 

[phrenzy]

"PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence"
by John Kerin
July 7, 2015

Source:
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms-floating-fighter-jet-plan-quietly-sunk-by-defence-20150707-gi6qxj?stb=twt

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly.

Mr Abbott asked defence planners in May last year to examine the possibility of putting up to 12 of the short-take-off and vertical-landing F-35 Bs on to the two ships – the largest in the Navy – which carry helicopters and are likely to be primarily used to transport troops and equipment to war or disaster zones.

The first of the assault ships was completed last year and commissioned into the Navy in November as HMAS Canberra.

But defence officials conceded to a Senate estimates committee late last year that the jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars.

Defence sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the proposal was "still in the white paper mix" up until some weeks ago.

But one source close to the white paper was emphatic on Tuesday that "it will now not make the cut".

"There were just too many technical difficulties involved in modifying a ship which takes helicopters to take fighter jets and it is also very expensive," the source said. "You can safely say it has been dropped."
'Better ways to spend the money'

The white paper, which lays down the Abbott government's 20-year vision for defence – including a $275 billion-plus weapons wishlist – is expected to be released next month.

The Prime Minister's proposal would have brought Australia into line with the United States, Britain and a number of other nations that plan to operate F-35s from their assault ships.

The F-35B version of the joint strike fighter is being built for the US Marines and British forces to replace their British-built Harrier jump jets.

The Spanish Navy's version of the troop transport assault ship, which utilises the same underlying design as the Royal Australian Navy's troop assault ship, is equipped to carry Harrier jump jets.

Mr Abbott announced in April last year that Australia would buy an additional 58 conventional take-off and landing versions for the Royal Australian Air Force at a cost of $12 .4 billion, bringing the number of orders to 72.

But the RAAF version was not suitable for the troop transport assault ships, which would have required the purchase of extra fighters to equip the ships. And the radar-evading stealth fighter program has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, as well as software issues with the F-35B – the worst-afflicted version of the aircraft.

In an independent report on the jump jet proposal, defence think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned that the purchase of aircraft and ship modifications would involve "multibillions of dollars".

Analysts Richard Brabin-Smith and Dr Benjamin Schreer also warned in the report that the cost was unjustified and could also "raise unrealistic expectations" that Australia was adopting a "much more muscular strategic posture" in the region.

"The cost-benefit analysis is not in favour of developing [the assault ship-jump jet proposal]," the paper said.

"The scenarios in which the capability would be realistically required and make an important impact are operationally vague at best.

"The 2015 defence white paper should not announce a decision or intention to acquire jump jets for the ADF… there are likely better ways to spend the money."

The idea that Australia has a need for our could afford a fleet air arm is ridiculous. I know the white suits were very excited by the proposition but it's a vanity project. If they want some basic strike capability off a ship then they should think about attack helicopters. A dozen F-35B's is hardly worth the bother when you don't have the associated supporting infrastructure to make them work (or even defend the ship in a real shooting war).

Maybe the Navy will get their cruise missiles now?

 

[Triton]

"Lockheed Martin to test signature impact of F-35 external weapons carriage"
Robin Hughes, London - IHS Jane's Missiles & Rockets
30 July 2015

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/53372/lockheed-martin-to-test-signature-impact-of-f-35-external-weapons-carriage

The US Department of Defense is planning to contract Lockheed Martin to conduct radar cross-section (RCS) testing on the F-35 Lightning II "to assess a weapon system and its effect on aircraft performance".

This notice of intent from the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) did not specify any details of the weapon system, but as it is RCS-related testing, it is clear that the study will assess the viability of mounting weapons outside of the aircraft's weapons bays, and how that will impact the platform's key discriminator: its low radar signature.

The contract is expected to be single-sourced to Lockheed Martin by the end of September.

 

[bobbymike]

Bunch of F-35B stories at AFA:

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/default.aspx

 

[Triton]

Published on Jun 4, 2015

Lockheed Martin Air System Climatic Test Coordinator Vic Rodriguez talks about taking the F-35 through near-tropical storm conditions inside the McKinley Climatic Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Learn more about F-35 climatic testing: http://bit.ly/1SZaLOo

https://youtu.be/IGr6AoRtpfk

 

[Triton]

Published on Jun 24, 2015

The F-35B Lightning II successfully launched into the skies from a ski-jump for the first time on Friday, June 19, 2015. The land-based test — conducted by the F-35 Lightning II Pax River Integrated Test Force — took place at Naval Air Station in Patuxent River, Maryland. Learn more: http://bitly.com/1SGhLyN

https://youtu.be/_3oniv01dbc

 

[bobbymike]

Published on Jul 23, 2015

Two USAF F-35 Lightning IIs from Eglin AFB perform low approaches before landing at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, WI. Their arrival marks the first display of F-35s at a civilian show. They will be on static display for the remainder of the event.

https://youtu.be/1WFP2hMBo8I

I posted this at #386 with the question if anyone else sees nozzle deflection on the approach or am I seeing things??

 

[sferrin]

What time specifically? (Didn't see anything that jumped out.)

 

[bobbymike]

What time specifically? (Didn't see anything that jumped out.)

The landing at 00:50 for example it looks like the heat from the engine is not in line with the angle of the plane just before it 'aborts' the landing and gains altitude. It doesn't look like very much why I think I'm seeing things.

 

[Triton]

I posted this at #386.

My apologies.

 

[bobbymike]

I posted this at #386.

My apologies.

No worries I was pointing it out more to try and get my question from that comment answered

 

[sferrin]

What time specifically? (Didn't see anything that jumped out.)

The landing at 00:50 for example it looks like the heat from the engine is not in line with the angle of the plane just before it 'aborts' the landing and gains altitude. It doesn't look like very much why I think I'm seeing things.

I'd bet it's just camera angle. Wouldn't be much reason at this point to keep TVC hidden if it had it.

 

[lastdingo]

What time specifically? (Didn't see anything that jumped out.)

The landing at 00:50 for example it looks like the heat from the engine is not in line with the angle of the plane just before it 'aborts' the landing and gains altitude. It doesn't look like very much why I think I'm seeing things.

TVC on aircraft uses very small angles of deflection (Su-30MKI +/- 15°) that should not be visible in such a scene.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35 does not have TVC as the benefits did not offset the weight penalty.


However, keep an eye on FTV (Fluidic Thrust Vectoring) as that holds a lot of promise with very little weight penalty.


FTV is the process of injecting air into the inner ring of the exhaust nozzle to change the angle of thrust.

 

[Jeb]

What time specifically? (Didn't see anything that jumped out.)

The landing at 00:50 for example it looks like the heat from the engine is not in line with the angle of the plane just before it 'aborts' the landing and gains altitude. It doesn't look like very much why I think I'm seeing things.

I'd bet it's just camera angle. Wouldn't be much reason at this point to keep TVC hidden if it had it.

It does look like it's dropped a bit but I doubt we're seeing what we think we're seeing.

 

[AeroFranz]

The F-35 does not have TVC as the benefits did not offset the weight penalty.


However, keep an eye on FTV (Fluidic Thrust Vectoring) as that holds a lot of promise with very little weight penalty.


FTV is the process of injecting air into the inner ring of the exhaust nozzle to change the angle of thrust.

It'll be interesting to see how they would combine variable area nozzles and fluidic injection. AFAIK, it's only been done on fixed nozzles. Not saying it can't be done, but there's going to be challenges.

 

[Triton]

"Concept of a nuclear-armed F-35C divides opinion"
By: James Drew Washington DC
Aug 03, 2015

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/concept-of-a-nuclear-armed-f-35c-divides-opinion-415353/

The US government may currently have no plans to carry nuclear weapons on the F-35C, the carrier-based variant of Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter, but some in Washington are keen to revive the concept.

They see as attractive the concept of carrier-based nuclear deterrence operations, particularly with an eye towards a 2017 review of the country's nuclear posture and planned initial operational capability of the naval fighter jet in 2018.

Thomas Karako of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies says it might not be the current policy to deploy nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers, but there needs to be some debate, particularly while the F-35C is still in development.

The problem, he says, is that America is coming to rely on fewer and fewer types of nuclear weapons and delivery platforms under the current so-called “3+2 strategy” where dual-capable fighters and bombers will be armed with just one type of nuclear gravity bomb (the B61-12) and one Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) cruise missile.

He says the current strategy is based on 1992, post-Cold War thinking and there is a case to be made for diversifying and distributing nuclear capabilities across the force to restore credibility to the “nuclear deterrent,” which is designed to keep traditional atomic adversaries like Russia and China in check.

“The first hurdle is coming clean with ourselves,” he says. “We’re going to have to consider whether there might be some new capabilities beyond what we had in 1992. I certainly don’t think it’s too early, since the F-35 is still being built.”

The US Navy and F-35 Joint Programme Office say there are currently no plans to pair the F-35C with the B61-12 guided nuclear weapon being developed jointly by the US Air Force and National Nuclear Security Administration.

The new weapon will consolidate four B61 variants into one and add a guided tail kit for improved accuracy. It is due to be integrated with the land-based F-35A by 2021 and was flight tested from a Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle for the first time last month at the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada.

“Both hardware and software upgrades are required for the weapon system to be dual-capable,” says a spokesman for the JPO. “These dedicated modifications are being installed on US Air Force F-35As as baseline design provisions. There is no programme effort to integrate this capability on F-35Cs.”

Still, Karako says he is not alone in arguing that F-35C integration with the B61-12 should be re-examined, as should the sole reliance on two air-delivered nuclear weapon types. His views are echoed by CSIS nuclear weapons policy expert Clark Murdock, who also argued for F-35C weapons integration in a recent report titled Project Atom.

Others nuclear policy thinkers in Washington, however, are completely opposed to dual-capable F-35Cs and the carriage of nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers.

“The navy is out of the tactical nuke business and should not get back into it,” says Tom Collina, author of The Unaffordable Arsenal. “There is no military mission for the B61 in the navy, nor is there a need to keep B61s in NATO [countries in] Europe. The B61 should be limited to air force strategic missions.”

Union of Concerned Scientist member Stephen Young says there is no strategic reason to reverse the decision to remove nuclear weapons from aircraft carriers. “I have not heard the navy clamouring to put nuclear weapons back on its carriers. It is an unneeded complication.”

Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists agrees, saying the US government has not shown any interest in returning to nuclear-strike capable aircraft carriers.

Of note, Karako says there is also a case to be made for building different versions of the Long-Range Standoff cruise missile being developed by the air force, such as sea- and ground-launched versions depending on whether Russia comes back into compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

 

[sferrin]

Personally I'd prefer a nuclear armed, stretched, LRASM but this works too. I'd clear it for the B83 as well.

 

[bobbymike]

Personally I'd prefer a nuclear armed, stretched, LRASM but this works too. I'd clear it for the B83 as well.

In addition to all the ongoing warhead LEPs the US should embark on research, development and eventual deployment of a whole new family of nuclear warheads from tactical to strategic for all new delivery systems.

 

[sferrin]

Personally I'd prefer a nuclear armed, stretched, LRASM but this works too. I'd clear it for the B83 as well.

In addition to all the ongoing warhead LEPs the US should embark on research, development and eventual deployment of a whole new family of nuclear warheads from tactical to strategic for all new delivery systems.

Definitely. You know they're doing that in both Russia and China.

 

[Triton]

"Northrop’s MADL validated as combat-ready with USMC’s F-35B"

Aug 04, 2015

Source:
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsnorthrops-madl-validated-combat-ready-usmcs-f-35b-4638471

Northrop Grumman's multifunction advanced data link (MADL) waveform has been validated as combat-ready after the US Marine Corps (USMC) achieved initial operational capability with F-35B Lightning II aircraft joint strike fighter (JSF).

The MADL communication system and missile warning system support the fifth-generation aircraft to communicate and coordinate tactics covertly.

The USMC's Lockheed Martin-built F-35B achieved this milestone after completing a five-day operational readiness inspection (ORI) recently.

Northrop Grumman Information Systems communications division vice-president and general manager Jeannie Hilger said: "Northrop Grumman congratulates the Marine Corps on their achievement of this momentous F-35 milestone.

"The successful completion of IOC also validates Northrop Grumman's more than ten-year effort to advance communication among fifth-generation aircraft."

The high-data-rate, directional communications link is part of Northrop Grumman's F-35 integrated communications, navigation and identification (CNI) avionics.

Being a significant element of the F-35 Block 2 software release, the company has delivered 181 CNI systems to Lockheed Martin.

With the achievement of initial operational capability with F-35B, Yuma-based Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) has become the first squadron to be operational with an F-35 variant.

Hilger added: "In addition to fifth-to-fifth, Northrop Grumman's CNI system also provides a core capability for fifth-to-fourth generation networked data sharing and unparalleled interoperability."

Northrop has also developed the Freedom 550 software-defined radio that bridges fifth-to-fourth generation platform interoperability gaps.

The integrated CNI system offers F-35 pilots with the equivalent capability of over 27 avionics subsystems, the company stated.

The USMC's F-35 JSF is expected to replace three legacy platforms such as the AV-8B Harrier, the F/A-18 Hornet, and the EA-6B Prowler.

 

[bobbymike]

Look at the chart on page 10 of this Los Alamos article. Look at the number of 'nuclear' employees Russia/China has compared to the US.

http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/national-security-science/2014-december/_assets/doc/NSS-december2014-rethinking_the_unthinkable.pdf

China has more than double and we're supposed to believe they have around 500 warheads? :

 

[GTX]

China has more than double and we're supposed to believe they have around 500 warheads? :

Employee numbers would not necessarily have a proportional link to warhead numbers. Moreover, wouldn't 500 be more than enough? Hell, even the use of a 10th of that number would be a catastrophe.

 

[bobbymike]

China has more than double and we're supposed to believe they have around 500 warheads? :

Employee numbers would not necessarily have a proportional link to warhead numbers. Moreover, wouldn't 500 be more than enough? Hell, even the use of a 10th of that number would be a catastrophe.

Maybe not but I bet it has a direct link to a large and growing nuclear weapons infrastructure that is mostly opaque to the West.

 

[kcran567]

Maybe another main mission of the F-35 is going to be anti-missile defense? There is video showing the f-35 tracking missile launches, that is another reason that the future operators are overlooking some of the F-35s shortcomings and are willing to pay for this capability?


Could Barracuda missile be used for anti-missile defense, and of course the (near future) fitted laser.

 

[sferrin]

Maybe another main mission of the F-35 is going to be anti-missile defense? There is video showing the f-35 tracking missile launches, that is another reason that the future operators are overlooking some of the F-35s shortcomings and are willing to pay for this capability?


Could Barracuda missile be used for anti-missile defense, and of course the (near future) fitted laser.

The F-35 will be but one tool feeding "the cloud" of information. What is this "Barracuda" missile? Do you mean that CUDA missile model LM showed several years back? That was just a study; there are no plans to produce it (unfortunately).

 

[Triton]

"Lockheed receives $431M to support F-35 production ramp up"
By: James Drew
Washington DC
Aug 5, 2015

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-receives-431m-to-support-f-35-production-ramp-up-415435/

Lockheed Martin has received $431 million for special tooling and test equipment to support the ramp up of F-35 production over the coming years.

The hefty sum was awarded as a modification to the current Lot 8 production contract, and comes as Lockheed and the Pentagon negotiate the purchase of approximately 150 domestic and international aircraft in Lots 9 and 10.

The current contract bought 43 aircraft with deliveries starting in 2016, whereas Lot 9 buys 57 aircraft and Lot 10 would secure just shy of 100 fighters, of which about 40% will be for international customers.

Of this latest award, the US Defense Department will pick up 70% of the tab ($300 million) and the international partners and foreign military sales customers will contribute $75 million and $56 million respectively.

“These items include special tooling and special test equipment items that are critical to meeting current and future production rates,” the August 4 contract announcement says.

Production is expected to peak at about 175 aircraft per year after 2018, according a Lockheed chart.

 

[Triton]

"Deputy CNO says both F-35 and UCLASS needed for future carrier air wing"
Marina Malenic, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
05 August 2015

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/53465/deputy-cno-says-both-f-35-and-uclass-needed-for-future-carrier-air-wing

Key Points

The USN sees the F-35 as "absolutely essential" in an A2/AD environment
The service wants to partner the F-35 with the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is "essential" to the US Navy (USN), while an Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft would also greatly improve the future carrier air wing, a senior USN official said on 5 August.

"The F-35 is absolutely essential in the A2/AD [anti-access/area-denial] environment," said Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin, deputy chief of naval operations for warfare capabilities. "The way we've shaped our air wing, with the [Boeing F/A-18E/F] Super Hornet becoming more of a truck, and the F-35B and C [on the first day of conflict] being able to [penetrate] into those integrated air defences and the Super Hornet partnering with them as the way to go."

The admiral was speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.

He added, however, that the navy may be forced to curtail buy quantities of costly aircraft, speaking generally but including the F-35. "It's a terrific aircraft, but it's expensive," he said of the F-35. But if "we keep on building [equipment] the way we are, the numbers are going to come down."

Regarding UCLASS, Vice Adm Aucoin said he is "a firm believer that we need that unmanned aircraft in our fleet, and it will make the air wing that much better".

He added that both manned and umanned aircraft will be critical to the USN in the future. "We need to find the right balance between manned and unmanned systems, between kinetic and non-kinetic [effects]," he said. He said the creation of a deputy assistant secretary of the navy for unmanned systems and a counterpart in his own office in September will help determine the ideal mix.