US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Progress, Photos & Videos

Paint issues means that the F-22 had extraneous maintenance cost due to defective paint; Lockmart couldn't get the costs done right, so they opted for cheap and defective paint to keep production costs on track while increasing the total ownership costs.

I read, however, that recently they're retrofitting the F-22 with paint based on the F-35's RAM coatings, so that issue should be resolved.

Anybody know about this guy name "Greg_P" who wrote this article. I mean is he credible and legit (just curious)?

F-22 Raptor, Performance versus Cost: Is it worth it?

Originally Posted by Inst

Paint issues means that the F-22 had extraneous maintenance cost due to defective paint; Lockmart couldn't get the costs done right, so they opted for cheap and defective paint to keep production costs on track while increasing the total ownership costs.

I read, however, that recently they're retrofitting the F-22 with paint based on the F-35's RAM coatings, so that issue should be resolved.

Well Inst. the F-22 is a very, very expensive aircraft, and while stealth coatings continue to improve, the Raptor has not been hindered in its war gaming with F-15s etc, etc, it will come out on top of one on one, two on one, etc pairings. Compared to the far less capable F-35, the Raptor remains a bargain, UCAVs are really not capable of defending themselves against an aircraft such as the F-22, and if the US economy doesn't improve, there will never be a sixth gen fighter, our best option at present would be to relight, Raptor production in order to get the line back together and running. The F-35 has so many issues with cracking bulkheads ,burning its tail feathers of etc, etc, we may never get this thing in to full scale production. It is basically a jazzed up F-16, stealthy, with lots of power, and a "fantastic weapons pak", it is also heavy, slow, HOT, and loud. The Raptor remains the standard for fifth gen aircraft, the F-35 is far less stealthy, not supermanueverable, and will not super cruise, and IMHO not a true fifth gen. Brat

Some news here, again.
Israel will put some of it's own missiles into the F-35. Not really a suprise, and to be honest, I exspected that there would be even more israeli stuff in it. For startes, I thought they'd put their Python-5 missile there. That "Stunner" is probably going to be the Derby follow-up anyway. Or is that actually in the class of the P-5?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ssiles-370819/

Israeli F-35s to carry indigenous missiles
By: Arie Egozi Tel Aviv - 8 hours ago

The Israeli air force's Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighters will be armed with a mix of US- and Israeli-made weapon systems, sources have confirmed.

"At least one main weapon system" for the nation's conventional take-off and landing F-35As will be of Israeli origin, sources related to the issue said on 17 April. The Israeli air force has previously expressed its wish to equip the type with a nationally-developed new-generation air-to-air missile.
One potential candidate is Rafael. The company is already working on a new "Stunner" missile as part of the "David's Sling" rocket interceptor, being developed in cooperation with Raytheon. The same type could also be adapted for use as an air-to-air weapon.

The delivery of a first batch of around 20 F-35s to the Israeli air force is expected in early 2017. Negotiations on a further contract for 20-25 additional aircraft is expected to begin next year.
While the first batch of aircraft will carry the integral electronic warfare system being supplied under the Lockheed-led Joint Strike Fighter programme, it is expected that this will later be "enhanced" by additional units developed in Israel.

According to yesterdays Air Force Magazine daily report, report the pentagon found 258 million in a year end audit that will enable them to repurchase two of the F-35s that were cut from this years budget, and A and a C model. Theres lots of discussion on DT our sister forum about what this thing will eventually cost, and I always get in trouble as Australia states that LockMart is still quoting 70 million or so flyaway, but this shows the actual cost as somewhere likely between 120-140 million a copy. Its nearly impossible to have a civil discussion on that forum about this aircrafts costs and capabilities. Scratch prolly knows more about this aspect, but it is supposedly plug and play, with different weapons being tested and integrated into the system all the time, I should say that is the plan?

Originally Posted by Air Force Brat

Well Inst. the F-22 is a very, very expensive aircraft, and while stealth coatings continue to improve, the Raptor has not been hindered in its war gaming with F-15s etc, etc, it will come out on top of one on one, two on one, etc pairings. Compared to the far less capable F-35, the Raptor remains a bargain, UCAVs are really not capable of defending themselves against an aircraft such as the F-22, and if the US economy doesn't improve, there will never be a sixth gen fighter, our best option at present would be to relight, Raptor production in order to get the line back together and running. The F-35 has so many issues with cracking bulkheads ,burning its tail feathers of etc, etc, we may never get this thing in to full scale production. It is basically a jazzed up F-16, stealthy, with lots of power, and a "fantastic weapons pak", it is also heavy, slow, HOT, and loud. The Raptor remains the standard for fifth gen aircraft, the F-35 is far less stealthy, not supermanueverable, and will not super cruise, and IMHO not a true fifth gen. Brat

I'd like to see an updated Grumman YF-23 set up for the US Navy's F-18 replacement...talking about a 2020s bird here, maybe late 20s.

I really liked that bird, the YF-23 and think it has a lot of potential to this day...especially if upgraded to the latest sensors, stealth, weapons, avionics, etc.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

I'd like to see an updated Grumman YF-23 set up for the US Navy's F-18 replacement...talking about a 2020s bird here, maybe late 20s.

I really liked that bird, the YF-23 and think it has a lot of potential to this day...especially if upgraded to the latest sensors, stealth, weapons, avionics, etc.

It remains very popular among the what if crowd, and quite frankly might do okay, because its not an F-22. The F-22 won over the YF-23 because of superior agility, and the faboulous thrust vectoring powerplants, as a fighter the best ride won. The Yf-23 had a kind of attractive funky shape that your engineer's eye prolly finds quite attractive, had superior speed, was equipped with rudder/vators which combine the stabilators and rudders, although that may not be the correct term. It also had a smaller weapons bay if memory servers, the Raptor on the other hand is still Darth Vaders ride, although its technical complexity and high maintainence requirements have made it an easy target for pencil geeks, in the air, it rules! I do love your idea, as the F-35 will be severely handicapped if it does find itself up close and personal with the Sukhois, Pak Fa, or J-20, though its proponents tell us that will never happen.

Here is my take on the F-35. When you look at the climb rate, turn rate, thrust to weight ratio and speed this aircraft is below par to most modern jets like the F-16, F-15 even the J-10 and J-11's. The stealth primarily works on high radar S or X band. But radar's with a lower band like L can detect this plane. It can carry a very limited payload in her internal weapons bay, just four bombs or missile's. And yes there are pylons under her wings but carrying bombs and missile's there would defeat a lot of the stealth and make this plane even heavier, even less manoeuvrable and easier to detect. There is of course the electronic wizardry that should give this plane an edge over the others but the radar, avionic's and EW development of other countries doesn't stand still. Although China and Russia is far off from building systems that could be considered equal but they don't have to, if they can only make it electronically difficult for this plane then they can defeat it with their superior fire power, maneuverability and speed of their planes.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

I'd like to see an updated Grumman YF-23 set up for the US Navy's F-18 replacement...talking about a 2020s bird here, maybe late 20s.

I really liked that bird, the YF-23 and think it has a lot of potential to this day...especially if upgraded to the latest sensors, stealth, weapons, avionics, etc.

The YF-23 was a really nice concept, and probably even more geared towards high speed, stealthy incursion than the Raptor, wich is perhaps more of a pure fighter with better maneuverability. But that would have been a good start actually to make the Black Widow a new "Defender of the Fleet" and long range striker.
But then again, wasn't one official reason for the AF selection of the YF-22 that this design seemed more adaptable to the NATF requirement back in the day?

Anyway, a new jet in the mid term probably won't happen for the navy. Just recently the USN issued a "request for information" on a SuperHornet follow on to become operational in the mid 2030s. Looking out for the 6th gen.
A big emphasis this time is to be on propulsion. And I like that. We've seen revolutions in stealth coatings, sensors and weapons over the last years, or even decades. But engine development was more evolutionary, I'd say. In the ATF competition they stayed with the conventional option, instead of the variable cycle YF-120 from GE.
Something like that or maybe pulse detonation or so might open up new ways to tackle the challanges of having engines produce very high thrust levels under a wide range of conditions (speeds / altitudes) and still be efficient in transits.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-fa-xx-370854/

Propulsion is key to US Navy's F/A-XX
By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC - 6 hours ago

Propulsion is key to the US Navy's next-generation F/A-XX fighter to replace the service's Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet in the 2030s.
"That's the long-lead item, frankly," says Rear Admiral William Moran, director of the N98 air warfare office at USN headquarters. "In terms of technology it takes you to another place."

The USN will have to engage with industry to determine where the "art of the possible" might lead the service. "Propulsion has a lot of benefits, and we know its kind of the critical path to new developments," he says.
What is clear is that for a next-generation fighter to fly faster, over greater distances and then persist over a target area, all the while carrying a greater payload, means that the aircraft will require a new type of propulsion system, Moran says. That means such a fighter must be able conserve fuel while it is not operating at peak combat performance levels.
Next-generation propulsion systems should also be scalable to different applications, Moran says. That would afford the USN some level of commonality on the carrier deck of the future if parts of the air wing could share the same logistical train and skill sets for maintenance crews.

Moran reiterates his Naval Air System Command counterpart's--Rear Admiral Donald Gaddis--comments that the next-generation fighter must have far better kinematic performance and range than existing fighters. That is particularly true in an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment.
"If you look at the A2/AD environment, and that arc, overtime, is going to grow larger. We have to stay ahead of that," Moran says. "So the weapons have to be able fill that. And the only way you're going to do it is have greater kinematics."
That would have to be balanced with stealth and other factors.

The US Air Force and USN are both working on new fighter technologies and may find some benefit from each other's developmental efforts. It is possible that the two services might develop common subsystems but build different airframes based on their divergent needs, he says. But that has yet to be determined.
The USN issued a Request for Information (RfI) for a new fighter to replace the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in the 2030s on 13 April.

On a side note. While the pure numbers are worse for the F-35 compared to the F-16 for example, I think actual performance is in fact not equally bad. Even with just four AAMs (wich the Lightening II can carry internally) a F-16 will have to cope with additional drag from those missiles and the pylons, especially under higher AoAs. It gets worse when the F-16 has to carry bombs and a targeting pod, again something that the F-35 can carry convetiantly streamlined inside it's body.
Of course that advantage gets lost once the F-35 carries external stores. But by that time the threat level should have decreased anyway, and it can then also carry more stuff then a Viper (I think?)

The US Air Force and USN are both working on new fighter technologies and may find some benefit from each other's developmental efforts. It is possible that the two services might develop common subsystems but build different airframes based on their divergent needs, he says.

I like that.

My Dutch paper says today that Australia has delayed for two years the buy of, probably, 86 F-35s. That will make the price of these aircraft for all parties even higher.

Well, what I get so far is that Australia has delayed a decission to buy 12 more aircraft (beyond the 2 they already comitted to) by these two years. The decission to buy another 58 will then be made separately, as has already been the plan, I think.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-years-371402/

Australia to push back F-35 decision by two years
By: Greg Waldron Singapore - 19 hours ago

Australia will delay its acquisition of 12 Lockheed Martin F-35A aircraft by two years to save costs associated with the programme.

The decision to buy the 12 aircraft will be made in 2014-2015, as opposed to later this year, says minister for defence Stephen Smith.
Canberra has only committed to two F-35As, which will be delivered in the USA and used for ground and aircrew training. Plans call for it to buy an additional 12 under Project Air 6000 Phase 2A, and a subsequent 58 under Phase 2B.
The reports suggest that Australia hopes to save A$1.6 billion ($1.64 billion) by delaying the purchase. Smith said the move mirrors a US decision earlier this year to delay the acuisition of 150 F-35s.

"When we embarked upon the project we did a couple of very sensible things; firstly we chose the conventional Joint Strike Fighter, and secondly we put a fair amount of padding in our cost and in our timetable," says Smith. "On the timetable we have been making sure that we don't end up with a capability gap. We'll make that decision formally by the end of this year in terms of the capability gap, but my current advice is that the life of our 71 F-18 Classic Hornets and our 24 Super Hornets is sufficient for our air combat capability, but we'll make an advised judgement before the end of this year."
Boeing hopes to sell additional F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets to Canberra. Australia already has 24 Super Hornets that it acquired to fill a capability gap owing to F-35 programme delays, and Smith has consistently maintained that additional Super Hornets are an option.

Canberra's delay will only heighten cost concerns associated with the F-35. Japan, Norway and Canada have expressed concerns about the programme's cost.

I think so far Italy and the Netherlands have said they'll buy fewer planes then exspected.

About-turn on new variant of carriers’ fighter plane - Telegraph

The UK goes back to F-35B. I wonder when they will change their "mind" again.

Originally Posted by delft

About-turn on new variant of carriers’ fighter plane - Telegraph

The UK goes back to F-35B. I wonder when they will change their "mind" again.

Bipartisan politics perhaps?