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

[dtulsa]

There Is one variable no one has mentioned at all what are the rules of engagement doesn't a lot of tech get tossed away by political decisions

 

[JudgeKing]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

WASHINGTON — The F-35 joint strike fighter will fly until 2070, reflecting a decision by the US armed services to extend the operational life of the fleet by six years.

All three services that operate the F-35 — the US Air Force, US Navy and US Marine Corps — increased the total flight hours for the fleet by 1.6 million, F-35 Joint Program Office Chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told reporters March 24 at the Pentagon. Of the total, the Air Force added 1.3 million flight hours, while the Navy added 300,000 flight hours, according to the JPO.

The Air Force extended the life of each F-35A jet by two years, adding six years in total to the program, according to the JPO. This effectively means the JSF will fly until 2070, instead of 2064 as planned.

This extension translated into an addition of $45 billion in operating and support (O&S) costs to the 2015 estimate, masking a 2 to 4 percent drop in real O&S costs, Bogdan stressed. Without this extension, F-35 life cycle O&S costs would have decreased by about $22 billion from the 2014 estimate, he said. From 2014 to 2015, O&S costs saw a net increase of $23 billion from $597.8 billion to $620.8 billion.

The Pentagon's latest Selected Acquisition Report shows the estimate for procuring the F-35 over the life of the program decreased from $391 billion in 2014 to $379 billion in then-year dollars, a drop of $12.1 billion, according to a summary of the report sent out by the Pentagon March 24. Not counting inflation, this translates into a $7.5 billion drop in base-year 2012 dollars, Bogdan said.

The SAR reflects the program’s total acquisition cost in then-year dollars, while the JPO generally uses base-year 2012 dollars in order to compare apples to apples.

Compared to the 2014 SAR, the cost of an Air Force F-35A variant dropped $1.8 million in base-year dollars per jet; meanwhile the Marine Corps F-35B and Navy F-35C dropped by about $1 million per jet, Bogdan said.

The F-35 program continues to see cost reduction due to increasing quantities and improving manufacturing costs, Bogdan said.

The aircraft alone decreased by $5.7 billion, or 1.8 percent, from $324.1 billion to $318.4 billion, according to the SAR. The Pratt & Whitney F135 engine that powers the F-35 decreased $6.4 billion, or 9.5 percent, from $67 billion to $60.6 billion.

The latest SAR also shows an increase of about $300 million in base-year dollars for research, development, test and evaluation, Bogdan said. However, this increase does not reflect “real” RDT&E costs, rather it shows the JPO’s transfer of funds from the procurement account to the RDT&E account, Bogdan said. This had “zero net impact” on program costs since there was a corresponding decrease in procurement funds captured in the SAR. Real RDT&E costs held steady from 2014 to 2015, he noted.

“We had real decreases in real costs this year,” Bogan told reporters March 24 at the Pentagon. “For a program that has had a tragic past that is not a bad report card from ‘14 to ‘15.”

 

[dtulsa]

There in lies my major concern the 22.wasn't built in the quantity it should IMHO and I also would liked the F23 would have been modified into the F35 role that wouldn't been hard for anyone to defend against let alone defeat

 

[dtulsa]

Let history be the judge if I'm right thank you all for your info. Much appreciated the conversation till later

 

[Air Force Brat]

There Is one variable no one has mentioned at all what are the rules of engagement doesn't a lot of tech get tossed away by political decisions

The F-35 is a very fine aircraft, it was designed and built by the same team that fielded the very outstanding F-22. I am waiting for an F-35 pilot to get the drop on a Raptor, and I believe it will very likely happen at some point? In any regard the F-35 is very stealthy, much better than the target, and as the FCS is tweaked to open up the maneuverability it will become much clearer what a happy airplane this really is. All of the issues are being aggressively prosecuted, and our partners are very happy to line up for the opportunity to add this aircraft to their inventory.

It will be superior to all of the 4th gen, 4+gen aircraft, and to the 5th gen Op-Force aircraft in development/production. An A model with the FCS opened up was flown to 9.9 Gs with no ill effects although it is rated to 9Gs. It is popular to beat on this aircraft, just as it was the F-22, because these capabilities are expensive, but they give you an incredible bang for the buck, and increase your survivability on todays battlefield, as well as tomorrows.

Selling the last decades old fighters as comparable or superior is nonsense, and those aircraft stick out like sore thumbs once their fire control systems come up, the F-22 and F-35 are able to passively target and shoot those legacy aircraft because of the sheer volume and intensity of those emissions.

 

[dtulsa]

I'm sorry I wasn't comparing aircraft types just the way they were developed I for one am a fan of purpose built machines for specific missions time may have passed me by in that regards

 

[Brumby]

I'm sorry I wasn't comparing aircraft types just the way they were developed I for one am a fan of purpose built machines for specific missions time may have passed me by in that regards

The development strategy was debated extensively by yours truly sometime back and at that time I had a similar outlook as you.
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/f-...os-and-pics-thread.t5796/page-172#post-313397

Whether the joint development strategy is the right path is no longer relevant because it is what it is. Counterfactuals are interesting but does not generate any determinative outcome. Clearly there are learnings which will influence future developments like the 6th gen. program. I think the attributes of the F-35 is underestimated because its key capability known as sensor fusion remains classified. Such a capability has no parallel either with the J-20 or the PAK-FA program because it attempts to bring together the leading edge capabilities of what the US excels in with sensors and avionics which the Chinese and Russians lag behind by two generations. There are obviously risk in that the software has to work and is behind schedule. There is also an imminent change in administration which might have a different attitude towards the program just as Obama in his first term truncated the F-22 program.

 

[FORBIN]

Navy F-35C Training Unit Scheduled for First Carrier Qualifications

The Navy’s fleet replacement squadron (FRS) for the F-35C Lightning II strike fighter is scheduled for its first carrier qualifications in the new jet in June.

Strike Fighter Squadron 101 (VFA-101), the Navy’s F-35C FRS based at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., is planning to send a carrier qualification (CQ) detachment to an aircraft carrier to conduct the first day qualifications for its instructor pilots, including the squadron’s commanding officer, Capt. James Christie, who will be making his first F-35C carrier landings and catapult launches. Christie told Seapower the detachment likely will include four F-35Cs, 10 pilots and some maintenance personnel.

Christie said he expects to send out another CQ detachment in November for both day and night carrier qualifications. The carriers for both CQ periods were not identified.

So far, the F-35C has been sent on two sets of carrier trials — in November 2014 and October 2015 — but those have been by the program’s test pilots to prove the aircraft’s suitability for carrier operations. VFA-101 will be the first non-test unit to conduct CQs in the F-35C.

VFA-101 currently is focused on training instructor pilots and maintenance personnel for the F-35C.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Brumby]

Lt. Col. Raja Chari Talks About the Way Ahead with the F-35: The Renorming of Airpower Seen from Edwards

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

An interesting interview that provides some insight on how the F-35 will be transformational as a C2 platform; 4 plane formation utility; and information sharing and usage.

Question: When did you come to the command?

Answer: About nine months ago.

I came from the Rapid Capability Office where we focused on an accelerated acquisitions process for urgent operational needs.

Question: What were your expectations when you came to the command about the program?

Answer: I knew very little about the F-35 programmatics when I was informed I was going to take command.

With all the negative press out there, my first task was to get ground truth on the program.

When I went to Eglin to learn to fly the plane, I saw a lot of F-35s on the tarmac, and that was a key ground truth – the program is way beyond getting out the gate.

Indeed, when I got here [to Edwards], we were on the cusp of IOC for the USMC F-35; that was a launch point for me as well.

The ship has sailed on the F-35 program.

We have this awesome airplane, now how do we get the best out of it?

That is my task.

Ground truth and some press reporting seem a bit out of whack with one another.

And really it feels like what NASA must have been like in 1969; it is a once in a generation thing to get IOC on a next generation aircraft, and the excitement around here is palpable.

You are going to talk about this experience for the rest of your life, being present at the creation and evolution of F-35 combat capability.

Question: We discussed the so-called F-16 and F-35 dogfight with colleagues earlier today, what is your take on this amazingly blown out of context story?

Answer: My first week here that story came out. I found the whole thing amazing because it did not even involve a simulated combat sortie. We were going after some particular test points.

The F-16 was simply a test aid, not in a dogfight with the F-35.

The story was simply spun and used by those who like to spin stories.

Because this happened just after I got here, I reached back to the leadership to determine whether this would have a chilling effect on our pilot reporting and discussions and was given clear guidance that we were not testing in response to the press, we were testing to evolve the aircraft.

That was made very clear from the top down. We are looking for accurate test and evolution of the aircraft, not a managed press campaign. Somebody else’s distortions are not going to deter our discussions.

And really, discussing the F-16 with the F-35 would be like a horse cavalry officer discussing the tank during the First World War.

You know the tank can not jump across the trench like a horse does!

That is correct and absolutely irrelevant.

The USAF Chief of Staff has us focused on the target of dominance in 2035 and not just carrying the legacy approach and fleet forward. The F-35 is a big part of that forward thinking.

Question: Where are you with regard to USAF IOC?

Answer: We finished IOC testing on the USAF IOC software as of last Fall. We have been working on the next block or cluster of capabilities for the aircraft.

Recently, the program with inputs from us and OT, decided to go back to the AF IOC software to look at an anomaly in the missions systems to enhance the stability of those systems interacting with one another.

It is really about improving , but with the overall approach of still pushing the Full Operational Capability (FOC) software in the next block as far as we can go and then determining what we should do in that block vs what should be moved into a future block of the software.

Since we are focused on multi-ship formations, we are working on the stability of the exchange of information among the aircraft.

We are driving the evolving capabilities hard and will be throughout the life of the program.

We are pushing the limits of technology; that is the point of what we are doing here.

If we weren’t having challenges, it would mean we had set the bar way too low.

Question: There is an evolution of the tactics coming from places like Yuma and Nellis as they start to learn fifth generation combat F-35 style.

How does that feed in to your efforts?

Answer: The OT squadron here is a clear player in that domain and we work together closely and feedback goes both ways.

But the tactics OT is developing are very different.

We are likely not going to do visual formations with the F-35 tactically; you are operating over multiple tens of miles and flying distributed ops where you can have completely different functions or tasks being performed by those aircraft within the same four-ship.

You are essentially spreading out the geometry of air combat.

You are not simply operating in or patrolling a lane but operating a much wider variable geometry.
Question: How do you see the interaction between dynamics of change for C2 and the F-35 fleet?

Answer: The F-35 is generating the air picture, which changes the situation for the AWACS dramatically.

It does not need to tell me what I can see better than what I can already see; but it will become more like an airborne air battle manager.

And as the F-35 intersects with ground, sea and other air systems, the entire Command and Control (C2) operation changes as well.

The new challenge will be to get the right information to the right person at the right time; not just providing point outs on radar contacts like previous fighter/Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) integration.

Put in blunt terms, each F-35 is its own C2 platform.

The CNI is a key system here whereby software can generate waveforms for the jet. The Communications Navigation and Identification (CNI), is a set of processors and antennas that generate waveforms that can be UHF or VHF waveforms, a TACAN, data link, or whatever waveform you want it to be.

It’s just whatever software you’ve created will allow the pilot to pick and choose.

This is a revolutionary foundation for the evolution of C2 in the air.

The F-35 is a key tool in transitioning to how we will do air warfare differently as we push decision making and target determination capabilities to the edge of the battlespace, or to determine where effects need to be created.

Other systems will become part of this evolving approach but the F-35 is the game changer that will take us there.

 

[strehl]

This video dates to July 2014 but I hadn't seen it before. It's an F-35 test pilot discussing how the stealth and data fusion of the F-35 places it at a different level compared to previous aircraft. If this is already posted please delete.