F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[Jura The idiot]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Jura, any sincere question is good question, and not dumb at all. In the end, each and every one of us have many things to learn.

thank you

My point above was not with the question regading the article, but with the article itself. A journalist should know better. It is their job to investigate.

yeah, the headline is an outrage

Well, the F-35B, like the harrier, is going to be able to land on any flat surface that can support its weight, and that is not likely to be significantly structurally impacted by the jet blast...or catch fire.

So, it could land on a road, a flat deck, an airfield, a field, etc. as long as those criteria I mentioned above are met.

Now, for vessels, airfields, decks, etc. the fact that the structure can suppport the wieght and not fail, does not mean that it will not be damaged. That is why ships, and even airfields are being heat treated for regular use of the F-35B.

A flat place on the ground for forward staging will work...but you also want to make sure you do not start a forest fire or something, and you also want to make sure that no significant FOD would potentially damage the aircraft.

I happen to know what FOD is, as some time ago Popeye told me about FOD Walks on Aircraft Carriers (when I asked a dumb question like what those people are looking for on the flight deck LOL)

 

[navyreco]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Joint Strike Missile - A Considerably Strengthened Norwegian Threshold Against War & Conflict

Key Facts - JSM: Weight: 400 kg Length: 4 m Range: >150 nautical miles

The missile is also the first of its kind designed specifically to fit within the internal weapons bay of the F-35. This allows the F-35 to carry up to two JSM internally - one missile in each weapons bay. This ensures that the F-35 will be able to retain its low radar signature while carrying the weapon, making it very difficult to detect for any opponent. The F-35 is also able to detect targets for the JSM at extended distances either using its own powerful sensors, or by using target information transmitted from other platforms. This allows the F-35 to deliver the weapon at a significant distance, which in turn reduces its own risk of detection.

In transit to its target the JSM uses several different systems to navigate and to follow the terrain. These systems are mutually supportive, and hence make it very difficult for any opponent to mislead the missile. When approaching the target area the imaging infrared seeker begins to look for the target. The seeker is able to recognize a large number of targets and will not attack before it is both recognized and classified. The seeker is also used to adjust the point of impact so that the missile strikes in precisely the right spot, such as in a specific part of the superstructure of a vessel, in order to achieve the desired effect. Unlike the NSM, the JSM seeker is able to do so against land target as well as naval targets.

Once the target has been found and identified, the JSM will have to avoid any defensive systems trying to intercept it. In order to do so, the missile will perform a series of random evasive maneuvers to avoid defensive fire and thereby increasing the chances of successfully striking its intended target. Thanks to an integrated data link it will also be possible to communicate with the missile after it has been launched, and to retarget the missile in-flight. This is a capability currently not included on the NSM.

No other known weapon, neither in production nor in development combines this particular set of capabilities, and the JSM therefore presents a unique solution to Norway and other future users of the F-35.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Joint Strike Missile - A Considerably Strengthened Norwegian Threshold Against War & Conflict

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes!

It was in late 2013 that Norway successfully conducted

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. The F-35 will be able to carry two of these advanced anti-surface missiles in its weapons bays (one in each bay) along with AMRAAM missiles in each bay as well. They can carry another JSM on each wing if they want too...up to four JSMs altogether. The JSM has a 125kg warhead and a 290 km range, so it is definitely a long range ASM...and it is advanced and it is stealthy.

​

This is a significant capability for the F-35. A 5th generation stealth aircraft carrying and firing up to four 5th generation stealth ASMs.

 

[thunderchief]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Yes...two:

First, let's speak to the article title stating that the F-35B "can't land". They are talking about a vertical landing Here's my comment and answer to that

Article states that F-35B cannot land on regular asphaltic concrete which is factually true .

And what Navfac calls “standard airfield concrete” is military-grade, made with aggregate and Portland cement. Many runways are asphaltic concrete—aggregate in a bitumen binder—which softens and melts under heat.

But in real life, all that talk about operating from improvised airstrips is just a hogwash. Last time US forces operated their fixed-wing aircraft from recently captured airstrips was WW2 . And even then they had a lot of trouble, almost all of the airfields had to be repaired .

Back to present time, US military prefers to build new airbases then to use existing ones . Camp Bastion in Afghanistan is one example . Therefore it is very unlikely either F-35B or Harriers would ever operate from improvised airstrips in actual combat.

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Article states that F-35B cannot land on regular asphaltic concrete which is factually true .

Come on Thunder, if you read my response fully, you know that I took issue with the title of the article where it said that "Our New Stealth Jet Can’t Land." That was a misleading title.

I then directly addressed the issue about the landing surfaces having to be prepared. That is no secret.

So I am at a loss as to why you are responding as you are.

all that talk about operating from improvised airstrips is just a hogwash

Actually...it is not hogwash in the least, Thunder. You are simply either misinformed, or just incorrect on this.

In the 1982 Falklands War the British Harriers did just that. They established an FOB San Carlos, did some quick improvements, and then operated off of it:

​

No improvised airstrips hogwash there.

As for more recent time, the US Marine Harriers (and UK Harriers until they were retired) train to be able to operate in this fashion:

​

In fact, they have also operated in that fashion in combat. In Desert Storm and again in Iraqi Freedom, US Marine AV-8Bs operated out of FOBs. Speaking about this concerning the advance on Baghdad, Major General James AMOS USMC said;

"I had my Harriers flying off of highways and bombed-out runways as we advanced on Baghdad for the final showdown."

In Afghanistan, US Marine AV-8Bs have operated off of several FOBs. Now, although they are not in as difficult conditions as what the Harriers in the Falklands War faced, still US Navy and Marine engineers go in, do the necessary improvements, and establish these FObs and then the Harriers fly from them.

​

This entails significant dangers as well...as you would expect operating forward like this. Remember, in September 2012, Taliban raiders penetrated FOB Bastion in Afghanistan and destroyed six Harriers on the ground.

So, clearly FOBs and improvised conditions are not hogwash at all.

The US (and earlier the UK) regularly trained to do so, and have in fact done so in combat numerous times since World War II. They continue to conduct training to be able to do so, and, if they needed to, they would. The F-35s will be used similarly..

 

[thunderchief]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

FOB for Harriers were/are not improvised. They are made from prefabricated metal sheets specially prepared for this function . You could check some of them here :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To use them, you obviously need to carry them with you, and to have trained engineering unit to set them up (you could see that from pictures). That is a considerable logistic effort .No improvisation there, and no "bombed-out runways " there. If no other reason, no sane flight operations officer would allow flights near unexploded ordnance.

During invasion of Iraq, Marines did operate several FOB but mainly as refueling points . Even more so in Afghanistan (Camp Bastion is full fledged military airport with runway, not FOB ) .

As for British in Falklands, it is clear from link below that they used single FOB on San Carlos mostly for helicopters and few times as refueling point for Harriers late in the war, with one incident. Reason for that was that FOB could not be completed - most of the landing mats sunk with Atlantic Conveyor .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FORBIN]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

USMC Aviation will US Air service which will see its combat capability increased the most.

With F-35B USMC Aviation get many improvements over AV-8B and F-18, steatlth, larger radius of action, more powerful radar, electronic sensor fusion...

And if USMC Aviation replaces her 360 AV-8B and F-18 by 360 F-35B you see the difference in power...

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

FOB for Harriers were/are not improvised. They are made from prefabricated metal sheets specially prepared for this function .

I know all about them, Thunder, hehehe...it's why I showed you pictures of them.

Yoiu stated that the entire idea was hogwash....I simply indicated, with things that I am well aware of, that it is not.

The whole purpose was for the militaries using those prepared items is to improvise a landing field for those aircraft in a forward operating area where there had been none before.

And that's what they did. You may argue semantics...but, as I say, the whole point of those "systems," was to allow them to quickly improvise a capability for those aircraft where there had been none before.

As to the US use...as I stated... in most cases the conditions were not nearly so acute as what the UK did at San Carlos...but they did do it and in some cases brought along their own perpared equipment (as shown) to accomplish the same thing as needed.

My point about Bastion was simply to explain the danger, as the picture of the one crashed Harrier you showed at San Carlos also does. It is dangerous thing to do...but it can also be a very beneficial thing to do...which is the point.

The US, and others did, and do train to do the same if necessary today. It is one of the benefits of such aircraft and it is a benfit that has been used on numerous occassions, and will be used again if necessary.

That's all.

 

[Miragedriver]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Norway discloses JSM cost increase ahead of vote
Richard Scott, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
26 May 2014

Norway is set to shoulder the full costs of development and integration activities for the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) programme after failing to secure a partner to share weapon integration on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

Costs to develop the JSM and integrate it onto the F-35 have risen by around NOK2.2 billion, it has been revealed. (Kongsberg)Costs to develop the JSM and integrate it onto the F-35 have risen by around NOK2.2 billion, it has been revealed. (Kongsberg)

Announcing the presentation of a bill to the national parliament - the Storting - to sanction investment of nearly NOK3.7 billion (USD620 million) for a third and final phase of development running to 2017, the county's coalition government acknowledged that the overall cost of the nationally funded JSM effort was now expected to rise above NOK8 billion.

A vote on the bill is planned before the Storting begins its summer recess at the end of June.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is the weapons bay smaller on the F-35B? Also is this the version the UK is buying? Will that preclude the JSM fit inside it's bay?



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Is the weapons bay is smaller on the F-35B? Also is this the version the UK is buying? Will that preclude the JSM fit inside it's bay?

The three F-35 variants have a common weapons bay.

Scroll down in the thread. There are several pictures showing the JSM fitted into the F-35 weapons bay. Like this: