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

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Netherlands also took deliverys for their 1st F35

UK also got its first one few months back and is under testing by BAE
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Netherlands also took deliverys for their 1st F35

UK also got its first one few months back and is under testing by BAE
Yes...slowly but surely the test aircraft are getting out to the partners.

In the mean time, the first production F-35A aircraft are already in service with the US Air Force.

Here are some beautiful, outstanding pics of one of them flying with an F-22 Raptor on its wing!

Air Force Brat should really like this. This is the way it ought to work, the F-22 flying cover/air superiority defence for the F-35As attacking and able to mix it up themselves if necessary.

Full production, active aircraft. Both of them. Nice to see the production, activated F-35As out there flying like this.


120919-f-zz987-000.jpg


120919-f-zz987-002.jpg


120919-f-zz987-004.jpg


120919-f-zz987-005.jpg

 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Yes...slowly but surely the test aircraft are getting out to the partners.

In the mean time, the first production F-35A aircraft are already in service with the US Air Force.

Here are some beautiful, outstanding pics of one of them flying with an F-22 Raptor on its wing!

Air Force Brat should really like this. This is the way it ought to work, the F-22 flying cover/air superiority defence for the F-35As attacking and able to mix it up themselves if necessary.

Full production, active aircraft. Both of them. Nice to see the production, activated F-35As out there flying like they are meant to.

Thanks for my new background photo Jeff, yes it is nice to see things the way they are supposed to be, now if we can give brother BHO a dream retirement, maybe we will see the Raptor line fired back up, that would be Christmas in November!LOL
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Thanks for my new background photo Jeff, yes it is nice to see things the way they are supposed to be, now if we can give brother BHO a dream retirement, maybe we will see the Raptor line fired back up, that would be Christmas in November!LOL
You are welcome my friend, I knew you would like those pics. As to November, one can hope...and work...and pray.
 

jackliu

Banned Idiot
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

So F-35B is the VSTOL version with the lifting fans behind the cockpit like this
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


While F-35A's configuration is the traditional layout. Does anyone have a cutaway picture of F-35A and F-35C? What are their internal structures look like?
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

So F-35B is the VSTOL version with the lifting fans behind the cockpit like this
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


While F-35A's configuration is the traditional layout. Does anyone have a cutaway picture of F-35A and F-35C? What are their internal structures look like?
Here's about the best you will find:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

They differ principally in the reas where they have different functions for their different roles. The F-35B gives up structure and some functionality to house the rotatable nozzled engine and the lifter fans necessary for vertical flight. For example in pay load and the lack of in internal 25mm cannon.

The F-35C has a larger wing and tails section for more lift and higher angle of attack landings, and a heavier undercarriage for the tough carrier landings. It's 25mm canon is on the centerline, underneath. It can carry more ordinance.

Anyhow, the production aircraft are already being dployed for the US Air Force variant and are now undergoing evaluation for getting instructor pilots trained and test aircraft for that type are already being delivered to or scheduled for the various partners.

At this point, with te UK out of the picture, I believe the US Navy is likely to be the only customer for the carrier version...but that is okay, the US Navy will buy a lot of them. Several hundred.

The VTOL capable (it will actually be used more in the STOVL mode) F-35B has a potential for numerous countries purchasing them (We know the UK, Spain, Italy and others are very involved) because of all of the STOVL carriers out there. Again, the US Marines will buy several hundred themselves.

But the "A" variety will be by far and away the most built and purchased by the US (The US Air Force will buy over 1,700 of them) and various countries.
 
Last edited:

zoom

Junior Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I just hope they know what they are doing>>>

Air Force Expands F-35 Trials Over Tester’s Objections

The U.S. Air Force is expanding pilot training for Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over objections from the Pentagon’s top weapons tester that the move increases the danger of a “serious mishap.”

After six months of limited check-out sorties for the plane, the Pentagon’s costliest weapon, the Air Force this month began 65 days of riskier training without ground-control personnel constantly monitoring instruments to warn of flaws.

Considering the aircraft’s “immaturity,” conducting the so-called uninstrumented training flights “entails significant risk with no benefit,” Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s testing director, wrote in a memo to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley obtained by Bloomberg News.

Gilmore’s concerns about flight training add to debate over the fighter program whose estimated cost has increased 70 percent since 2001 to $397 billion in current dollars while encountering flaws or delays with its software, a pilot helmet and aircraft deliveries. “Repair work” is needed to mend the Pentagon’s frayed relations with Lockheed over the F-35, General Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, said Sept. 18.

Michael Rein, a spokesman for the Bethesda, Maryland-based company, said in a statement Sept. 17, “We remain committed to continuing our work to solve program challenges and build on the momentum and success we’ve achieved during the past couple of years.” Welsh and Rein were commenting on issues other than the previously undisclosed training dispute.

Lockheed, the world’s largest defense contractor, rose 55 cents to $92.46 in New York trading yesterday and has gained 14 percent this year.

Florida Base

The Air Force started the 65-day “operational utility evaluation” of flying qualities, maintenance training, ground simulators and classroom courses on Sept. 10 at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

Air Force Colonel Andrew Toth, commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing, said in a Sept. 7 press release that starting the drill “is another huge milestone.”

In a response to Gilmore’s criticism, Donley wrote, “We have taken great efforts to ensure that comprehensive safety and readiness reviews have been completed.”

Flights conducted at Eglin since March were a “deliberate and incremental approach” demonstrating the “system is ready for the next step,” Donley wrote in the response dated Aug. 27. The aircraft flew 121 sorties at Eglin since March for a combined 152.9 flight hours, according to service data.

‘Unprecedented Move’

The current exercise, if successful, would let the Air Force expand the number of pilots trained on the F-35 to 80 instructor pilots by December 2015 from five today. It would be a step toward training the first foreign pilots -- Dutch students -- by January 2013 and as many as 100 American student pilots a year by December 2016.

The Air Force eventually would need as many as 2,200 pilots to fly the 1,763 F-35s it plans to buy. The service has yet to determine when it intends to declare the fighter has reached initial combat capability.

In Gilmore’s memo, dated July 20, he wrote that “initiating training with an immature, non-combat-capable version of a fighter aircraft is unprecedented among prior analogous systems and is not now supported by the need for trained pilots.”

“I recommend strongly” that the test phase be delayed until the F-35 has “actual combat capability,” Gilmore wrote. Going ahead “poses risks of a serious mishap,” he said, and has nothing to do with combat capability because the F-35s at Eglin “have none.”

Telling Nothing

“Executing this training will tell us nothing about the difficulty and time required to actually train pilots to conduct air combat,” he wrote.

The testing dispute provides a window into tensions as the Pentagon’s civilian leaders seek to exert increased oversight of the plane.

Tougher oversight of the F-35 by Pentagon civilians began in February 2010 when then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the military’s program manager and withheld $614 million in fees that Lockheed could have received.

Since then, the Pentagon has given increased scrutiny to contract proposals, delayed the purchase since 2010 of more than 400 planned aircraft until after 2017, and withheld payments to Lockheed because of a flawed cost-estimating system.

‘Abort Rate’

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, said in February that putting the F-35 into production years before its first flight test “was acquisition malpractice.” Kendall was criticizing the practice known as “concurrency,” when limited production occurs in parallel with development flight tests.

Gilmore said the Air Force is following the same flawed approach in the expanded training. “Now, the pressure is to make training concurrent with flight testing,” he said in the memo.

A comprehensive review of the jet’s airworthiness, each aborted flight and deficiencies all show the evaluation can be conducted safely, Donley wrote in his response. Gilmore stands by his memo and doesn’t find Donley’s rationale for pressing ahead “compelling,” spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said in a Sept. 10 e-mail.

The disagreement turns partly on “abort rates” for F-35 missions that had to be cut short, an Air Force measure used to assess an aircraft’s progress in development.

Air aborts often occur because a problem went undetected on the ground or didn’t occur until after the jet was airborne and is severe enough in terms of flight safety that the mission must be ended.

‘Not Improving’

The abort rate for F-35 test flights at Eglin and at Edwards Air Force Base in California “has been flat, that is, not improving,” Gilmore said in his memo.

The Air Force reviewed each mission abort, Colonel Dawn Dunlop, Donley’s special adviser on F-35 issues, said in a telephone interview.

“We’ve had many discussions with Dr. Gilmore’s staff,” she said. “We agree on the data. The only disagreement is in whether or not the risk is understood, is sufficiently mitigated and that there is smart plan to move forward. The Air Force thinks the answer is yes.”

Gilmore said the trend was also unchanged in discovering so-called Category 1 deficiencies, those that may cause death, injury or severe occupational illness and loss or damage to a weapon system.

As of July 9, 67 of the Category 1 deficiencies related to the F-35’s airframe, propulsion systems and support systems remained unresolved, according to Gilmore. “Twenty-eight are relevant to the intended” flight training at Eglin, he said.

Dunlop said in the interview that “every one of those was gone through line-by-line to see if there was sufficient mitigation in place.”

Donley and Gilmore “have different roles and different responsibilities and might come at this from different perspectives,” Dunlop said. “We have spent some time trying to reconcile those differences, but the Air Force feels confident in our assessment of the risk and the value of an independent evaluation at this point.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at [email protected]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I just hope they know what they are doing>>>

Air Force Expands F-35 Trials Over Tester’s Objections



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Of course they know what they're doing, the Air Force is incorporating the F-35 into its inventory, so that if the need arises it will be combat capable, that is what they do. The Pentagon is inhabited by politicians, the Air Force by fighter pilots, they FLY airplanes, not critique them to death like they did the F-22. In previous posts I have stated its time to get back to being the Air Force, not some effiminate social project, Sec Donley obviously aggrees!

No offense to the ladies, and if the girls put on their helmets and goggles they will be "real men" like all the rest of the boys, and frankly they can't wait. So step out of the way, the Air Force is reestablishing who they R, and its about time! Brat
 

delft

Brigadier
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Aviation Week & Space Technology seems to be giving up on F-35. See this editorial:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Pentagon Should Investigate Fighter Options Beyond The F-35
[Editor's Note: This editorial ran in the October 1 edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology.]

In October 2001, when the U.S. Defense Department awarded Lockheed Martin the contract to develop the Joint Strike Fighter, it looked like the deal of the century for the company and its customer. In the largest defense procurement in history, Lockheed would produce three variants of one stealthy design to replace the mixed and aging fleets of three U.S. services, saving money and time.

Eleven years in, the deal still looks pretty good for Lockheed, but less so for its customers, including the eight international partners. In 2001, they expected by 2020 to be operating a large fleet of stealthy “fifth-generation” fighters.

Instead, the cost to develop and produce the aircraft has grown to $330.5 billion, far more than the original $177.1 billion estimate (both in 2012 dollars). Projections of operating and support costs for the F-35 have escalated far beyond the estimates of 2001, and fielding is years behind the original schedule. In fact, 11 years in, the exact timings—and capability levels—for initial operation of the three variants are still uncertain.

Before going farther down this cracked and broken path, the Pentagon needs to take a hard look at the consequences. On schedule and affordability, the JSF program is already a failure. In terms of capabilities and the long-term benefits of commonality, the jury is still out. And even if the F-35 delivers on everything it promised, the world has changed since 2001.

One problem is the lack of competition. Including the F-22, Lockheed will have been the sole U.S. producer of all-new fighters for 50 years by the time a “sixth-generation” aircraft comes along—no earlier than 2030—with significant consequences for the industrial base.

Faced with an ill-defined, but unacceptable trillion-dollar sustainment cost estimate for the F-35 fleet, the new tough-talking leader of the joint program office is considering abandoning the contractor-run support system and opening it to competition, including from government depots.

That might work long term, but it would do little to help warfighters stay ahead of threats through the 2020s. By 2021, U.S. forces will be operating only a fraction of the 2,400-plus F-35s they plan to buy. The bulk of U.S. fleets will comprise the same F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s of 2001.

Some portion of that force will have been upgraded with the latest radars, avionics and weapons—at a cost that was not anticipated when the F-35 contract was awarded. But, for the most part, their airframes and engines will date back to the 1980s and 1990s, with all the costs and issues that come with age.

One bold plan might be for President Barack Obama or Republican rival Mitt Romney to commit the Pentagon to competing the purchase of its next 300 fighters. It would shake things up, although it is questionable the Pentagon could stage a meaningful competition between the F-35 with its estimated costs and promised abilities and the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 with known costs and available capabilities. And the value of new tails must be balanced against the impact of reducing F-35 procurement, potentially causing partners to defect, production rates to drop and costs to soar.

But complexity is no excuse for inaction. The Pentagon has begun to act by acknowledging there is a problem and publicly increasing pressure to perform. Step 2, also underway, is to gauge the severity of the problem and come to realistic acquisition and operating cost projections so the U.S. and its partners can decide what they can afford.

There must be a hedge against further problems. The U.S. should keep producing F/A-18s for the Navy, upgrading F-16s for the Air Force and promoting the F-15 and F-16 internationally so a fallback option remains open. Then, the Defense Department must revisit how to evolve tactical aviation through the 2020s and sustain the industrial base to keep competition alive for the next fighter.

The F-35's problems could provide an opportunity to adjust military plans to the new capabilities and realities that have emerged since 2001. Instead of the smooth transition to the fifth-generation fighter force envisioned then, the turbulent, mixed-fleet 2020s could bring a reason to rethink. Some military leaders already say U.S. relies too much on stealth—a technology China is moving rapidly to match. There is nothing to say the U.S. must wait beyond 2030 for the next fighter, or to introduce competition for the F-35.

There are many comments of which I especially like this part of the comment by EagleDriverJM
On the F-35, pretty much everyone thinks its a great computer (or potential to be one) but a crappy jet. STOVL ruined the airframe and the majority of the entire production (both A and C) pay the price.
 

icbeodragon

Junior Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Aviation Week & Space Technology seems to be giving up on F-35. See this editorial:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There are many comments of which I especially like this part of the comment by EagleDriverJM


Just a note, the article was written by Bill Sweetman, don't know why his name is not on the article.
 
Top