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

Franklin

Captain
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I don't know if this has been discuss before. But are the export versions of the F-35 less stealthy then those used by the USAF ? Or perhabs less capable in other area's.

How Stealthy Is Your F-35?

One of the most interesting parts of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter press conference on Tuesday had to do with the degree of stealthiness possessed by export versions of the JSF. Namely, is the company watering down the low-observable characteristics of planes bound for non-DoD buyers?

The question was raised toward the end of the presser by an Italian journalist who referenced an “Australian source” postulating online that JSF partner nations are getting F-35s that aren’t as stealthy as the American fleet. At first, it seemed like he was asking a ridiculous question, that is, until USAF and Lockheed officials offered answers that didn’t exactly swat down the question.

Here’s what they said when the journalist asked if this source’s writings are true:

“The partners are all in the process of defining the requirements on the airplane don’t know who the source on the Australian internet is but I don’t think he’s inside the program office so I don’t believe he probably has visibility into everything that’s going on with this airplane,” said Lockheed’s Tom Burbage (TITLE) in his most obvious attempt to shoot down the question. From here, things got vague. “But I can tell you that the airplane is highly capable and it’s being built by a consortium of nine nations and they all have equal access to all the information on the program.”

U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. C.D. Moore, the Pentagon’s deputy JSF program manager then chimed in saying:

“I would only add that the core requirements, the technical requirements that have been laid out in the program and our ability to meet those requirements…the low very observable characteristics, the low radar cross section, we’re achieving that; so when we think about lethality, survivability with the weapons with the very low observable capability, with the agility, maneuverability the sensor suit, it’s a combination of things that makes a weapons system effective. SO, instead of trying to speculate about what someone said about the weapons system in the press, all I can tell you is we have every intent of meeting the key performance parameters of the aircraft designated by our partners and the U.S. services and they’ve determined what capabilities are necessary for future war fighting needs.”

At this point, Aviation Week’s Amy Butler called both out on the vague answers saying it didn’t sound like either had “unequivocally said no.”

To which Moore responded:

“It’s certainly a hypothetical and speculative question until you understand the context of the question,” said Moore in response to Butler. “All I can tell you, Amy, is that based on the capabilities we’ve determined technically that are required to make this a formidable weapon system over the next 50 years, we’re going to deliver those capabilities. Anything like that that would have been conjectured b y somebody outside of the program as making one of our capabilities less than what it needs to be is purely speculative, and when we establish the requirements we don’t do that in a vacuum so we understand technically what the system needs to do from our vantage point and we believe that we’re going to meet all of those and we expect it will be a formidable weapon system to meet all of our needs.”

So, there you have it. Moore kinda, sorta tried to say the Aussie report was bunk but didn’t really. Saying the plane is going to meet everyone’s needs doesn’t exactly give the definitive yes, export jets will be less stealthy than American ones or no, all JSFs have the same degree of low-observable tech aboard.

Now, it could be that the airframe itself is as stealthy for all customers. However, things like avionics, sensor and communications emissions controls and IR signature reduction tech may be different for American F-35s than they are for foreign jets. However, with interoperability being one of the main selling points for the jet, wouldn’t it make sense for everyone to be using the same avionics, sensors and comms gear?

I’ll try to post the audio of this exchange later.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

F-35A operating costs to exceed F-16, official says

By: DAVE MAJUMDAR WASHINGTON DC 18 hours ago Source: Flight international

Operating costs for the conventional take-off and landing version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are expected to be roughly 10% greater than those of the Lockheed F-16.

According to the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan, who leads the tri-service effort, provided some preliminary numbers to the Dutch parliament comparing costs per flying hour between the two aircraft on 18 April.

"In his statement, Bogdan indicated that the cost per flying hour of an F-35A is estimated to be $24,000 per hour; roughly 10% higher than F-16 cost per flying hour," the JPO says. "This data was derived in co-operation with the US Air Force and the Department of Defense Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation Office. Comparable baseline assumptions were used to evaluate relative operational costs between F-35 and legacy aircraft."The final cost figures are due to be released in the Pentagon's 2012 selected acquisitions report for the F-35, which is set to be published during May.

Earlier this year, USAF chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh told reporters that the JPO was attempting to reconcile two different sets of cost estimates: one from the USAF and another from Lockheed. The cost numbers diverged because of differing underlying assumptions from which each side based its estimates.

Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35
U.S. defence contractor takes F-35 simulator on road show
By Terry Milewski, CBC News Posted: Apr 8, 2013 5:15 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 8, 2013 5:14 AM ET
Lockheed Martin, the giant U.S. defence contractor, is launching a cross-Canada publicity blitz to convince Canadians to buy its F-35 stealth fighter jet — but it's simultaneously raising the price by a hefty $20 million US a plane.

Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice-president for the F-35 program, said just 18 months ago that Canada would pay $65 million per plane. Now, O'Bryan tells CBC News the price is $85 million.

Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice-president for the F-35 program, tells CBC News that the price Canada will have to pay for each plane is now $85 million. (Terry Milewski/CBC)
It may not be the best time to mention that. The U.S. budget axe is hovering over the whole F-35 program and the Canadian government insists that it's no longer committed to buying the jet at all.

Still, Lockheed Martin is fighting on, sending its executives and a working F-35 flight simulator to wow Canadians with the capabilities of its brand-new, high-tech stealth fighter. The simulator will be on show in Toronto today, and in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa in the weeks ahead.

Lockheed Martin is also sending a Canadian combat veteran into the battle: Billie Flynn.
Cue the Darth Vader Helmet
Flynn is something of a star among stars — a veteran test pilot who can fly anything. He's married to Canadian astronaut Julie Payette. He served 23 years in the air force, flew combat missions in Kosovo, and has piloted 70 different aircraft — everything from Canada's CF-18 to the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Now, Flynn is working for Lockheed Martin, and he says the F-35 is by far the best plane for Canada's needs — whether to support NATO missions like Kosovo or Libya, or to patrol the Arctic — all under the veil of stealth.

And, Flynn is quick to mention, the F-35 has the Darth Vader helmet.

The cost for each F-35 helmet is estimated to be up to $2 million. (Terry Milewski/CBC)
The helmet really is something out of science fiction, yet it's integral to the F-35 — not just a head-up display but an on-your-head display. It's had a host of development problems, but is supposed to make the pilot all-seeing, providing 360-degree vision. Projected onto the visor before the pilot's eyes are images from the ground, from other planes, from top-secret sensors and from six cameras embedded in the skin of the fighter.

Flynn flips down the sunshade with a flourish and declares, "This is to keep the glare off me and make it look like Darth Vader." But what lies beneath gives him an all-seeing view from horizon to horizon — heat sources included.

"You see absolutely everything and it works!"

At this price, it had better. Estimates for the helmet range up to $2 million each; Flynn says it's less than $1 million. But never mind; it's just one costly part of the costliest weapons program in human history: the F-35 stealth fighter, with a total cost of $400 billion.

Pull up! Pull up!
Billed as the fighter of the future, the F-35 is famously over budget and behind schedule. Its critics predict what is known as a "death spiral" — high prices mean fewer orders, fewer orders mean higher prices … and so on to an embarrassing end.

"It's going to survive in the short term; it's not going to survive in the long term," says Winslow Wheeler, a Washington defence expert who spent 10 years at the General Accounting Office, keeping an eye on the budget.

'This airplane — despite what the air force says, or Lockheed Martin or Canadian generals — this aircraft will come close to costing a quarter of a billion dollars apiece.'
—Washington defence analyst Pierre Sprey
Another Washington defence analyst, former Pentagon official Pierre Sprey, says the real cost will be far higher than advertised.

"This airplane — despite what the air force says, or Lockheed Martin or Canadian generals — this aircraft will come close to costing a quarter of a billion dollars apiece," says Sprey.

"My prediction is they'll kill the program after 500 airplanes."

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin's chief rival, Boeing, is offering to sell Canada a fleet of F-18 Super Hornets for half the price of the F-35.

So it was just a matter of time before Lockheed Martin launched its counter-strike. Call Billie Flynn!

'Stealth is not an accessory'
Flynn swoops into the fray fully loaded. For him, the price isn't really the issue. Spread over the 40-year lifespan of the fleet, he says, the F-35's cost will be roughly the same as its rivals.

Rather, the issue for him is whether Canada wants to send pilots to war with second-rate equipment. Having flown his share of Arctic-sovereignty missions in Canada's North, Flynn doesn't think much of them. Canada's CF-18s, he says, allowed only a "token presence." They couldn't see far or stay for long. The F-35, he says, has greater range and lets pilots see much more — covertly, too.

"With the immense amount of fuel — with 18,500 pounds of gas inside this jet — it has range and persistence better than any other jet," Flynn says.

"So I go further, I stay longer and with the sensors I see vast distances."

'You come with the A game, or you don't come at all'
As for stealth, Flynn has no time for critics who say it's a high-priced frill.

"Stealth is not an accessory," he says. "It is an absolute basic that you have to have … to go to war in this day and age. If you don't have it, you won't be allowed to play."

Veteran test pilot Billie Flynn, who now works for Lockheed Martin, says the F-35 is by far the best plane for Canada's needs. (Terry Milewki/CBC)
Even if it's just a surveillance mission, Flynn maintains that stealth makes a difference, because modern ship-borne radars can see planes at huge distances.

"When we talk about surveillance over the Arctic, stealth comes directly into play … you will not be able to fly at 25,000 feet, as I did in Kosovo, and live in some sort of sanctuary. They can reach out and touch you."

Kosovo, Flynn says, is not the future of warfare. Nowadays, "you cannot send an aircraft into bad-guy land unless he is stealthy or protected by stealth, because he will die."

Stabbing a finger in the air, Flynn adds, "We don't go to war because we have a 51-to-49 chance. We go to war when the odds are overwhelmingly in our favour. There's no-one in Canada — I'm certain — that wants to send our children into war with something that is 'good enough.' You come with the A game, or you don't come at all."

'Political engineering'
Whether Lockheed Martin's pitch will work remains to be seen. It probably won't help to start out with a price hike of $20 million per plane. But don't count Lockheed Martin out. The company has proved adept at what Pierre Sprey calls "political engineering." He notes that work on the F-35 has been spread around 46 states. Which congressman wants to vote against that much pork? And Canada's share of F-35 work is already at the $450-million mark. Will Canadians feel confident that Boeing will share as much?

Fort Woth, Texas, is the home of Lockheed Martin headquaters. (Terry Milewski/CBC)
So it's not over, just because the Harper government has "hit the reset button," as it often says, on the fighter contract. The Maple Leaf still flies outside Lockheed Martin headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas. Lockheed Martin's Steve O'Bryan calls Canada a "partner in good standing" in the program. Canada's still listed in the company literature as "under contract" to buy the plane.

Lockheed Martin didn't get to be the world's largest defence contractor by backing down from a fight.

US to expand military ties with India, no decision on F-35: State DeptPTI : Washington, Fri Apr 19 2013, 08:47 hrs
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US is looking forward to expand its military ties with India, including a potential sale of the F-35 fighter aircraft, though no decision have been made so far, a top State Department official said.
"We have made tremendous progress in the defence trade relationship. Now we're at USD 8 billion, we think there's going to be billion dollars more in the next couple of years," said Andrew Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs.

When asked about a potential sale of the fifth generation F-35 stealth fighter aircraft to India, he said that there might also be down the road some potential for it, but certainly no decision has been made regarding that.

It was earlier speculated that the US might offer the famed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft to India, following India's rejection of the F/A-18 and F-16 fighters in the multi-million dollar MMRCA deal.

"So we are on track," Shapiro told reporters in response to a question at the Washington Foreign Press Center.

He added that the Deputy Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter is heading up a defence trade initiative with India, which the US believes is making some good progress and will, hopefully, lead to even a greater pace of additional defence trade with India.

Last year, Shapiro had led the US delegation for the first ever political-military dialogue with India in six years.

"It was significant because we were able to help our Indian counterparts work through the challenges of inter agency cooperation on national security issues," said Shapiro.

"Indian officials' have remarked that this dialogue is especially helpful in helping coordinate between the various inter-agency partners in India," he added.

Responding to question on news reports that India might reopen its multi-billion dollar fighter jet deal, he said the American companies would have to consider if they want to participate in it.

"I wouldn't say we were kicked out (of the fighter jet deal). I would say there was a selection process where they made a determination to down select to the two and eventually to select the Rafale," he said.

"I have been reading in the Indian press various rumors about that transaction. We have no official communication from the Indian government and obviously if there was a reopening, US companies would have to consider whether they want to participate," Shapiro added.
And on we go.
 

Air Force Brat

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

I don't know if this has been discuss before. But are the export versions of the F-35 less stealthy then those used by the USAF ? Or perhabs less capable in other area's.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Absolutely NOT, they will all be very High End, but each nation will be free to integrate its own weapons and accourterments as desired! Brat
 

Air Force Brat

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

Absolutely NOT, they will all be very High End, but each nation will be free to integrate its own weapons and accourterments as desired! Brat

The team at Edwards testing high AoA capabilities of the F-35A reports that they have finished their work, the aircraft has been flown to and exceeded all the limits, the aircraft equipped with a spin chute, was flown well past the design max AoA of 50 degrees to 73 degrees and recovered. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom and does in fact show the F-35 to have very sound aerodynamics, and to be very agile even without OVT, while it is a ThunderHogge II, it will be no slouch, especially when flown at typical mission weights, I predict the pilots will be touting its "sports car handling". They have recentionly upgraded to the next "block number" in avionics and so things are progressing nicely.....

Could someone link the video showing the aircraft being intentionally departed! Brat
 

Jeff Head

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

Could someone link the video showing the aircraft being intentionally departed! Brat
Yes...of course:

Lockheed Video: F-35 High AOA Intentional Departures

[video=youtube;aWji8AcOYGA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA[/video]​


As the female flight engineer said, "The aircraft is performing beyond our expectations."
 

delft

Brigadier
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I have neglected to mention earlier a discussion in the Netherlands, nothing was said officially, some weeks ago that we have the choice between buying a decent number of F-35's ( against the currently expected prices ) and abolishing the submarine service or maintaining that service, now with four boats and responsible for examining submarine commanding officer candidates of many countries including the US, and buying a ridiculously small number of F-35's.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
High Angle of Attack (AOA) Videos. Intentional Departure.

AFB, here's another Lockheed video of the High AOA tests on the F-35. It was done earlier than the one I posted a couple of posts ago. So you end up with two:

The earlier video of the high AOA tests:

[video=youtube;mfWHHuLILs0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWHHuLILs0[/video]​

...and the more recent one (which I posted earlier):

[video=youtube;aWji8AcOYGA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA[/video]​

Pretty good stuff. She was designed to "go there."
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Re: High Angle of Attack (AOA) Videos. Intentional Departure.

AFB, here's another Lockheed video of the High AOA tests on the F-35. It was done earlier than the one I posted a couple of posts ago. So you end up with two:


[video=youtube;aWji8AcOYGA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA[/video]​

Pretty good stuff. She was designed to "go there."

If your talking about the Lady Flight test engineer, I would say you are correct, and if I had to pick a chick for air superiority or player99, now here's an attractive, sweet girl that you could have an interesting dinner conversation with, and when it all comes down to it, that's very sweet, now if you're talking about the F-35, I feel a little sheepish, I have had to completely re-evaluate my whole assessement on this chick, and yes Jeff she will definetly, "go there". This is one of my "public recantations", I am very very much pleasantly surprised with her terminal performance, and I am very sad that some of our "partners" are having to pull back on this purchase. Brat

Well gentlemen, there you have it, proof positive that the F-35 will take it to the bad boys, I am so disgusted that we will never have an honest out in the open demonstration of the performance of the J-20, J-31, or the Pak Fa for that matter, that is what it takes to have credibility, although there is no doubt that this is a positive piece, it most certainly is accurate because on this side of the pond if you make these types of claims and put it out there you are legally obligated to "defend" those statements, and they must be defensible! Brat

Oh and thank you so much Jeff, now player and air you fellows really should contact our little FTE for further evaluation. brat
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

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

BTW, AFB, here's what I believe is the current count of F-35s which have been produced and handed over to the US military and others:

USAF - 82 Aircraft (Active squadrons stood up)
USMC - 32 Aircraft (Active squadrons stood up)
USN - 09 Aircraft
RN - 10 Aircraft
RNLAF - 02 Aircraft

That's a total of 136 aircraft. By the end of the year, the number will be 150 aircraft.

The current build schedule is:

2013 - 30 Aircraft LRIP (Total of 150)
2014 - 30 Aircraft LRIP (Total of 180)
2015 - 43 Aircraft LRIP (Total of 223)
2016 - 66 Aircraft LRIP (Total of 289)
2017 - 76 Aircraft LRIP (Total of 365)
2018 - FULL PRODUCTION

Only 2,035 more to go after that!
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Jeff, you're forgetting the two Dutch ones that are to be useless at least until 2015.
 
Top