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

Originally Posted by Air Force Brat

Well kids, if Mitt wins the Whitehouse in November, he will restart the F-22 line, this in from todays Air Force Magazine Daily Report, and I could end my F-22 blue funk! Halleluyah!

Then we can resurrect the HI/LO fighter/fighter attack plan and get the Air Force out its feminine funk, bout time we had a man's Air Force again!

Word is Mitt's team has been reading my, PROPOSAL FOR A US MILITARY BUILDUP...LOL! You think?

Well kids, if Mitt wins the Whitehouse in November, he will restart the F-22 line, this in from todays Air Force Magazine Daily Report, and I could end my F-22 blue funk! Halleluyah!

IMO no more F-22s should be built until the kinks are fixed and a reliable fully operational Raptor is available.

I think the USMC should be made to get rid of it's F-18C Hornets and upgrade to Super Hornets or go with F-35Cs.


Download HiRes

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. (Sept. 5, 2012) F-35 test pilots Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks and Peter Kosogorin fly CF-1 and CF-2 during a formation flying qualities test in the Atlantic Test Ranges. Testing formation flying qualities provides data on handling characteristics. The F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear to withstand catapult launches and deck landing impacts associated with the demanding aircraft carrier environment. The F-35C is undergoing test and evaluations prior to delivery to the fleet. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin/Layne Laughter/Released)

Originally Posted by bd popeye

IMO no more F-22s should be built until the kinks are fixed and a reliable fully operational Raptor is available.

I think the USMC should be made to get rid of it's F-18C Hornets and upgrade to Super Hornets or go with F-35Cs.

Yeah I like the C, I think that extra wing and horizontal stab area make it look more manueverable, although it has a 7.5 g limit to the A's 9g limit. Were your referring to the breathing issue or the corrosion issue or something else on the Raptor bd? Also word on the street is that some of the Marines can kick the superbugs butt with their buggs, and that they don't want to loose the Hornet?

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

Word is Mitt's team has been reading my, PROPOSAL FOR A US MILITARY BUILDUP...LOL! You think?

Well Duh! of course he's reading your blog, making you sec def if he wins is he? Well I would prolly just roll over and die from joy if BHO is gone in November, and to get the Raptor back, now that would be Christmas. Many of the proponents of the F-35 really have O understanding of the Hi/Lo concept, and we've never gone this route before to eliminate the Hi in the mix. I really think they should implement some of changes from the F-35 line, which has much tighter tolerances, better LO coverings, and the latest block upgrades, that would stimulate J-20 testing and production, and likely T-50 as well although if the Russians don't sell the Su-35, they may not have the cash to go all out on the T-bird?

Originally Posted by bd popeye

IMO no more F-22s should be built until the kinks are fixed and a reliable fully operational Raptor is available.

I agree...and I think they can do that. it seem,s to me that the issue with the impact to the pilot and flight crews was not talked about or heard of for several years and it is only in the last few years it has been an issue. Perhaps some upgrade introduced the problem...it is wierd that it is also impacting the mainteance crews.

There may be merit to some of the exotic materials being the root...but I am confidant they will address the issue.

I know this. When the pilots are healthy nothing else can touch it.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

IMO no more F-22s should be built until the kinks are fixed and a reliable fully operational Raptor is available.

I think the USMC should be made to get rid of it's F-18C Hornets and upgrade to Super Hornets or go with F-35Cs.


Download HiRes

The F-35C looks like a good choice to create a fighter worth the name in numbers at an affordable price. Giving the USMC the F-35C could mean that they become carrier interoperable on a STOBAR basis with lighter bombload and a fighter orientation. Fully interoperable with catapults could happen if something like ELMAG progresses that will benefit from the split development costs and higher production calculations for not so limited demand.

Why are the Russians and the USA so fixed on a high-low mix of two different new types of aircrafts? Why not develop a brand new fighter concept and evolve the legacy fighter concept from an increasingly strike oriented fighter role into a state of the art bomber and secondary role fighter? This maximises economies of scale and offers better used hardware options to the less afluent allies. We realized the basics in Europe, but passed out on most of the evolution part.
This is the route taken by the F-18 Super Hornet or the F-15 Strike Eagle and the F-15 Silent Eagle. These are really cheap in comparison to any F-35 bomber development, safe bets and can be ready in numbers on time. US allies will always have a good chance of longterm investments into a modern alliance interoperable aircraft. Plus, investing into the improvement of fewer types, leads to more outstanding results per type.
These are evolutions from old fighter designs, not old fighter designs. They are meant to be the up-to-date low part of the mix, but not the expensive jump ahead that is the high part of the mix. Reminds one of the Flanker family, despite currently serving as the high part until PAK FA. The new fighter type is always the high part of such a mix, but this development inevitably results in lower pay-off in capability increase per innovation cost. The jump ahead must be in the field of fighters because it is hardest to keep via evolution in step with the revolutions in air combat.
With the Raptor ambition got ahead of affordability, so it's currently sheer luck that a F-35C development exists, but it would be possible to outright decide on a more numerous F-22 that is F-35ized or the other way round to evolve from the F-35C. Central problem will be the cost control and progress management. It might be a lesson learned to first have a kind of F-35C that can serve as a very advanced trainer on carriers with lots of wear and tear for a short service life with subsequent evolutionary upgrades to the envisioned F-22 level. Going all the way in one go seems to be a safe bet on getting lost somewhere.

This leaves two types of aircrafts, the low part bomber version of an evolved design from a legacy fighter and the high part fighter design as a jump ahead. The fighter design gets introduced in a small series as a carrier aircraft for a short service life under stress and will then be evolved into the full blown fighter envisioned. Evolution offers more overview to cut off routes that endanger overall project goals instead of working on a revolution with predictable cost overruns. Of each type two variants will be each necessary, catapult-arrestor capable and non-catapult-arrestor capable. If a number of airframes can be modified on demand from one variant into another, the numbers of expensive to maintain high-stress carrier variants could be kept low via surge capability, while acquiring many flight hours per such aircraft within a short time. This will make the carrier variant always the first to be phased out and replaced by the latest model with more compareable contemporary capability. The carrier variant itself is already on a lower capability level as a fighter or bomber via the additional investment into structural strengthening, so having always the latest model will in part compensate, especially via the continuous weight savings.
The US has a tradition of two competing designs. If they feel afluent enough one design can go on to a carrier version (with Marines and Navy) and the other becomes a land version. That could alter the picture into a maximum of four types, one carrier based fighter(F-35C?) and bomber (F-18), one land based fighter(F-22/F-23/F35C-land version?) and bomber(F-15). The Marines could take the bomber variant on their carriers for ground support or sea control and the Navy can focus on the fighters.

Most nations use land based STOL aircrafts as naval aircrafts. The US is unlikely to ever fight far away from a waterway that can serve as the cheapest flexible bulk transport for fuel, munitions and spares for STOL airfields to be created on spot, including tiny islands or "raids" on coasts not far away from the place to bomb. A ferry, with air and missile defences (that can be landed or on board or both), etablishing a forward airfield on a coast, could offer a lot of advantages otherwise limited to carriers. Land based aviation seems to fly long hours to their area of operation and engines have a limited timespan of safe uninterrupted use. How will this not be the expensive and inefficiency creating part about using the F-35 land based variant for bombing in comparison to any mobile carrier based aviation? Add the development for missiles to more precisely hit longtime known places - will the investments into defending and keeping them operational pay off?

A F35 pure fleet was supposed too be the Marine Fleet.
I am wondering these days If the F35 has the same O2 issues and if not then why not try and install the life support system from s lightning into the raptor?

Originally Posted by TerraN_EmpirE

A F35 pure fleet was supposed too be the Marine Fleet.
I am wondering these days If the F35 has the same O2 issues and if not then why not try and install the life support system from s lightning into the raptor?

The STOVL variant of the JSF is the least capable fighter version possible at the same price. If this JSF aircraft is to fly ground combat missions with all these pesky firing guns and flying shrapnels it's like handing out Aston Martin's instead of Jeeps for the next firefight. They both can do the job, but repairing the Aston Martin will be a tad more expensive, compensated by the better looks before combat.

The Harrier is a winged fancopter and as such it is a major improvement of the attack helicopter and not a fighter-bomber like F-35A or F-35C. The Harrier is the most advanced attack copter design and the debate should be about Cobra, Apache and Harrier and a corresponding requirement for costs, armour and stealth. The knowledge and avionics from the JSF project could contribute a lot to this aircraft. He might even have a friend via a V-22 with a GAU-8, but both of them need to be rugged and cheap to maintain in their environment.

Why don't they just take the F-22 and fit it with two GAU-8 underwing and go ground combat hunting for Taleban in Afghanistan? That's an as reasonable suggestion as the whole F-35 B concept.

Were your referring to the breathing issue or the corrosion issue or something else on the Raptor bd?

Yes.

Also word on the street is that some of the Marines can kick the superbugs butt with their buggs, and that they don't want to loose the Hornet?

Doubt it. They'd have to prove it to me. The longer the marines keep the C flying the more maintenance intensive those birds become... I think the reason the USMC turned down the Super-bug is two fold.

1) They wanted an all F-35 fleet as has been pointed out.
2) Some general thought by keeping the Cs the USMC would be pulled from carrier air wings eventually and only make traditional deployments to Japan, Okinawa, Iraq & Afghanistan. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

I agree...and I think they can do that. it seem,s to me that the issue with the impact to the pilot and flight crews was not talked about or heard of for several years and it is only in the last few years it has been an issue. Perhaps some upgrade introduced the problem...it is wierd that it is also impacting the mainteance crews.

There may be merit to some of the exotic materials being the root...but I am confidant they will address the issue.

I know this. When the pilots are healthy nothing else can touch it.

Actually the combat edge, upper pressure vest is the primary culprit, the the release valve is failing and won't allow it to deflate when the Gs decrease, staying fully inflated it is like an elephant sitting on your chest. The Raptor will pull and maintain 9.5 gs in a sustained turn, it is at the upper limits of human physiology. [Please refrain from relating your RPV nightmares, I really don't want my head to explode with one more goof-head telling me about the joys of unmanned aircraft]. The Raptor is, and will likely remain the only true fifth gen aircraft in the world. Fifth gen was defined as Supermanueverable, Supercruise, Stealth, Integrated Combat Systems, able to network with other platforms, Advance Radar and Weapons systems. The F-35 is "not" supermanueverable, able to supercruise, and not nearly as stealthy as the Raptor, although it does employ L/O technology, and its Integrated Combat Systems, and ability to network with other combat systems is mind boggleing. The Raptors emergency O2 system will be fully automated and those systems have been ordered installed "Post Haste".

Originally Posted by Kurt

The F-35C looks like a good choice to create a fighter worth the name in numbers at an affordable price. Giving the USMC the F-35C could mean that they become carrier interoperable on a STOBAR basis with lighter bombload and a fighter orientation. Fully interoperable with catapults could happen if something like ELMAG progresses that will benefit from the split development costs and higher production calculations for not so limited demand.

Why are the Russians and the USA so fixed on a high-low mix of two different new types of aircrafts? Why not develop a brand new fighter concept and evolve the legacy fighter concept from an increasingly strike oriented fighter role into a state of the art bomber and secondary role fighter? This maximises economies of scale and offers better used hardware options to the less afluent allies. We realized the basics in Europe, but passed out on most of the evolution part.
This is the route taken by the F-18 Super Hornet or the F-15 Strike Eagle and the F-15 Silent Eagle. These are really cheap in comparison to any F-35 bomber development, safe bets and can be ready in numbers on time. US allies will always have a good chance of longterm investments into a modern alliance interoperable aircraft. Plus, investing into the improvement of fewer types, leads to more outstanding results per type.
These are evolutions from old fighter designs, not old fighter designs. They are meant to be the up-to-date low part of the mix, but not the expensive jump ahead that is the high part of the mix. Reminds one of the Flanker family, despite currently serving as the high part until PAK FA. The new fighter type is always the high part of such a mix, but this development inevitably results in lower pay-off in capability increase per innovation cost. The jump ahead must be in the field of fighters because it is hardest to keep via evolution in step with the revolutions in air combat.
With the Raptor ambition got ahead of affordability, so it's currently sheer luck that a F-35C development exists, but it would be possible to outright decide on a more numerous F-22 that is F-35ized or the other way round to evolve from the F-35C. Central problem will be the cost control and progress management. It might be a lesson learned to first have a kind of F-35C that can serve as a very advanced trainer on carriers with lots of wear and tear for a short service life with subsequent evolutionary upgrades to the envisioned F-22 level. Going all the way in one go seems to be a safe bet on getting lost somewhere.

This leaves two types of aircrafts, the low part bomber version of an evolved design from a legacy fighter and the high part fighter design as a jump ahead. The fighter design gets introduced in a small series as a carrier aircraft for a short service life under stress and will then be evolved into the full blown fighter envisioned. Evolution offers more overview to cut off routes that endanger overall project goals instead of working on a revolution with predictable cost overruns. Of each type two variants will be each necessary, catapult-arrestor capable and non-catapult-arrestor capable. If a number of airframes can be modified on demand from one variant into another, the numbers of expensive to maintain high-stress carrier variants could be kept low via surge capability, while acquiring many flight hours per such aircraft within a short time. This will make the carrier variant always the first to be phased out and replaced by the latest model with more compareable contemporary capability. The carrier variant itself is already on a lower capability level as a fighter or bomber via the additional investment into structural strengthening, so having always the latest model will in part compensate, especially via the continuous weight savings.
The US has a tradition of two competing designs. If they feel afluent enough one design can go on to a carrier version (with Marines and Navy) and the other becomes a land version. That could alter the picture into a maximum of four types, one carrier based fighter(F-35C?) and bomber (F-18), one land based fighter(F-22/F-23/F35C-land version?) and bomber(F-15). The Marines could take the bomber variant on their carriers for ground support or sea control and the Navy can focus on the fighters.

Most nations use land based STOL aircrafts as naval aircrafts. The US is unlikely to ever fight far away from a waterway that can serve as the cheapest flexible bulk transport for fuel, munitions and spares for STOL airfields to be created on spot, including tiny islands or "raids" on coasts not far away from the place to bomb. A ferry, with air and missile defences (that can be landed or on board or both), etablishing a forward airfield on a coast, could offer a lot of advantages otherwise limited to carriers. Land based aviation seems to fly long hours to their area of operation and engines have a limited timespan of safe uninterrupted use. How will this not be the expensive and inefficiency creating part about using the F-35 land based variant for bombing in comparison to any mobile carrier based aviation? Add the development for missiles to more precisely hit longtime known places - will the investments into defending and keeping them operational pay off?

Kurt, son this is sheer genius dude, You keep spouting this stuff and the bad guys heads will explode, I think I need one of those special aluminum foil hats to protect my head though, you must be a Ron Paul supporter. Wait, there I got my hat on, go ahead! Let er Rip!

Originally Posted by Air Force Brat

Kurt, son this is sheer genius dude, You keep spouting this stuff and the bad guys heads will explode, I think I need one of those special aluminum foil hats to protect my head though, you must be a Ron Paul supporter. Wait, there I got my hat on, go ahead! Let er Rip!

It's very kind of you to turn into a genius anyone who explains what people on the other side of the Atlantic actually do and suggests some possible modifications to current practice.
Your aluminium hat is cheap and has no style. I prefer my gold foil hat. 1312872381Glaubenssachen_Goldhut.jpg

Originally Posted by Kurt

It's very kind of you to turn into a genius anyone who explains what people on the other side of the Atlantic actually do and suggests some possible modifications to current practice.
Your aluminium hat is cheap and has no style. I prefer my gold foil hat. 1312872381Glaubenssachen_Goldhut.jpg

I love you man! I just couldn't resist a cheap shot, I have to agree, could you send me one of those, you are obviously a gentleman, and your response does prove that! You obviously wisely recieved my wise-acre comment in the spirit it was given, we are friends on here aren't we.

Now back on topic, as the Air Force Brat, I have fashioned myself as something of an informed bystander, so for the purpose of discussing aircraft a brief primmer!

1. Fixed wing on Fuse=Fixed Wing Aircraft

2.Wing on top flopping all over the place=Rotary Wing Aircraft

3. Air Force Brat=Old almost pilot, actually I still am, son of a Real Pilot! Hey and could ya please expidite that hat, today is the homecoming parade, and thanx I do love you guys, in a nice manly way, you are my brothers!

"""Why are the Russians and the USA so fixed on a high-low mix of two different new types of aircrafts? Why not develop a brand new fighter concept and evolve the legacy fighter concept from an increasingly strike oriented fighter role into a state of the art bomber and secondary role fighter? This maximises economies of scale and offers better used hardware options to the less afluent allies. We realized the basics in Europe, but passed out on most of the evolution par""""

1. Hi--F-15--ATF--F-22 - Air Superiority-or A2A - F-22 has a secondary but quite effective ground attack capability- costs a little more - nothing on this planet is in the league of the F-22 in A2A, very stealthy, super manueverable, super cruise, hence the Hi designation.
Production of the F-22 was cancelled due to politics and money -185 Raptors extant as of 8:26 Am Central Time- Stupidity

2. Lo--F-16--JSF--F-35 - Fighter-Attack or A2G - F-35 designed after the ATF as a follow on strike aircraft to replace A-10, F/A-18, F-16, role expanded to include secondary A2A capability, not bad, but nowhere near the F-22 in A2A- hence the Lo designation.
Touted as able to carry both A2A and A2G roles and superior to the F-22, [def not], sold to 8 partner nations, lots of political support [I can hear it Oinking], to big to fail? Lots and Lots and Lots of issues, structural cracking, afterburners melting, fan doors not functioning, and we haven't even begun High Alpha testing yet? In production due to politics- will likely be far more expensive than Raptor-IMHO

""""With the Raptor ambition got ahead of affordability""""", not really, fifth gens will be expensive- but one F-22 can take on eight F-15s and win- every time! Cost effective? prolly IMHO

""""The US has a tradition of two competing designs. If they feel afluent enough one design can go on to a carrier version (with Marines and Navy) and the other becomes a land version. That could alter the picture into a maximum of four types, one carrier based fighter(F-35C?) and bomber (F-18), one land based fighter(F-22/F-23/F35C-land version?) and bomber(F-15). The Marines could take the bomber variant on their carriers for ground support or sea control and the Navy can focus on the fighters.""""

Complimentary designs hence the Hi/Lo designation, F-22 clear the air of enemy aircraft and bad AA, F-35 follow on heavy strike and ground support, the old 1-2 punch, in todays very hostile anti aircraft environment any fourth gen aircraft is in a very grave situation, and please no RPV nonsense, and yes I know all about all that bus,,, by the way the Air Force cancelled the global hawk and choose to go back to the U-2 because the pilot does a better job for less money! That won't change IMHO!