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

[Jeff Head]

“I flew a mission the other day where our four-ship formation of F-35As destroyed five surface-to-air threats in a 15-minute period without being targeted once,” said Maj. James Schmidt, a former A-10 pilot now flying F-35s.

"Four planes taking out five SAM sites in 15 minutes represents nothing less than a quantum leap in capability for the Air Force, which prior to the F-35 would have to target threats with long-range missiles before getting close to the battle.

“We would shoot everything we had at that one threat just to take it out. Now between us and the (F-22) Raptor, we are able to geo-locate them and precision target them,” Watkins said, adding that F-35s are so stealthy, “we can get close enough to put a bomb right on them."


“I think based on the data that we’re hearing right now for kill ratios, hit rates with bombs, maintenance effectiveness … those things tell me that the airplane itself is performing extremely well from a mechanical standpoint and … that the proficiency and skills of the pilots is at a level that would lead them into any combat situation as required,” Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus, head of the Air Force's F-35 integration office told Defense News.

...despite the naysayers. despite those who want to still try and kill this program...

The people who know. The people who fly these aircraft.

We are hearing now what they are saying at it is pretty phenomenal.

...and the beat goes on!

 

[Jura The idiot]

I'm sorry, but letting Boeing listen in on your Lockheed call is dumb Mr. Trump, ...

LOLOL actually I liked that, looks a simple way to let LockMart know the money spigot may get closed!

now of course F-35 program chief downplays Trump phone call with Boeing CEO listening in

The Pentagon’s F-35 program director confirmed on Thursday that he was aware that the Boeing CEO was on the line during a Jan. 17 call from then President-elect Donald Trump.

Late last night,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg was present during one of Trump’s January phone calls to Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the government’s F-35 program executive officer. According to the story, Muilenburg was in Trump’s New York office for a meeting and overheard at least the final portion of the conversation — although the report did not specify whether Muilenburg was able to hear Bogdan, or listened in only Trump’s side of the call.

Bogdan confirmed during a Feb. 16 congressional hearing that the phone call had happened, and that all three men were aware of each other’s presence and participated actively in the conversation.

“It’s important to understand that the discussion that we had were all pre-decisional,” he said during a House Armed Service Committee panel. “There were no decisions made during those conversations, and it was my belief that President-elect Trump at the time was attempting to gain more information about the F-35’s capabilities, relative to the Super Hornet.”

Trump and Bogdan also participated in an earlier Jan. 9 phone call without Muilenburg, he said.

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Bogdan said he was careful to ensure that no proprietary or classified information was discussed in front of the Boeing CEO.

“The things that I talked about in front of Mr. Muilenburg were clearly publicly releasable information, and I understand the rules about talking about Lockheed Martin stuff in front of Mr. Muilenburg,” he said. “The reason why Mr. Muilenburg was there was because the discussion was about Advanced Super Hornets and the presidential airplane, and not necessarily F-35. So it was not inappropriate.”

The Pentagon is currently studying — as directed by Defense Secretary James Mattis in a Jan. 26 memo — how to make the F-35 more affordable and whether to alter the currently planned mix of Super Hornets and F-35s. The conversation between Muilenburg, Bogdan and Trump directly informed the objectives of the review, Bogdan acknowledged.

“Those tasks are ongoing, they’re not complete yet. We have yet to comport the answers to the Secretary of Defense. I am sure as soon as we report those tasks to him, he will then relay them to the appropriate folks in the administration,” he said.

Bogdan characterized the Jan. 17 phone call as “very forthright,” with Trump in a “learning mode,” seeking to better understand the difference in capabilities between the F-35 and Super Hornet.

Trump and Bogdan first met during a December briefing at the president’s Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida, days after the president-elect had tweeted that the program’s cost were “out of control.” Trump’s schedule that day was packed full, with briefings from other senior military officials and separate meetings with Muilenburg and Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson.

Face time between Bogdan and Trump was limited during the meeting, and at the time “he made it very clear with his staff and that he would be reaching out and asking me more questions,” Bogdan said, adding that he was not surprised that Trump had sought him out for further discussion before his Jan. 20 inauguration.

Although Trump has been personally involved with the F-35 program since his election, he may be beginning to hand off the reins to other Pentagon leaders. After Trump’s inauguration, Bogdan has been communicating with Mattis and acting Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work, not directly with the president, he said.

“I would expect that will be the normal way of doing business.”

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FORBIN]

That’s serious business !

The F-35 just dominated its latest test — and now it may finally be ready for prime time

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Good end but the program will nevertheless have passed close to the disaster coz an fighter for 3 services with same fuselage especialy one very special VSTOL variant but in fact the 3 variants share only about 60 % of parts it is very hard to build !

Planned from long time udapted the first build ofc unique Fighter build before to be completely tested able to do the job a method a very daring method ... !

So about 13 millions/F-35 total 1.2 bill for 90 for 108 : 1.4 billions.

F-35: Retrofit cost projections drop by almost half a billion dollars

Something the critics were sure would break the bank as the program used concurrency to both develop and field the F-35

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
The Pentagon now expects to pay $480 million less than it had figured on only eight months ago for retrofits to the first 90 F-35 fighters, based on revised cost projections of changes predicted to emerge through the end of development in 2017.

The updated cost figures were sent to Congress last month in its second review of so-called concurrency costs for the Lockheed Martin F-35 program. Because the program was crafted in 2001 to conduct production in parallel with testing activities, officials are tracking the concurrency costs, i.e., the price of retrofits that must be made to bring early production jets to an operational standard based on findings in ongoing testing. One example is a fix to the fuselage station 496 bulkhead, which was found to experience unexpected cracking.

As of last year, Pentagon officials estimated the total concurrency cost for the first 90 aircraft, including all on contract in low-rate, initial production (LRIP) lots 1-5, at $1.71 billion. However, since the first report was issued to Congress on these costs last September, the F-35 Joint Program Office, in concert with experts from Lockheed Martin, have reviewed more closely the “actuals,” or costs already known from work on earlier LRIPs, as well as refined how models of retrofits from past fighter programs (the F-22 and F/A-18E/F, for example) are applied to the F-35 moving forward, according to an official from the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO). Note that last sentence. If you read the critics you'd think the F-35 was the only program ever that has required retrofits. In fact, retrofits are quite common in all fighter programs.

Additionally, not all the retrofits identified may be necessary:
The retrofit estimates include non-recurring engineering for the fixes. Though foreign F-35 buyers will not have to pay for these non-recurring costs (those are included in the U.S.-specific development contract), they will have to pick up the tab for the actual retrofits if they decide to install them on their aircraft, according to the JPO official. Additionally, the U.S. services have the discretion of which retrofits to install. The program office is categorizing them by those that are essential to operate the aircraft (such as safety or durability issues) versus those that are “nice to have,” the JPO official says. Each service will have the discretion to decide on which of the retrofits are essential and which aren't.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FORBIN]

Matters much more interesting i have find the scenario with the dual F-35 vs S-400 at this time yet F-35 RCs was know

F-22 also can do good job for SEAD with a again a better RCS 0,00018 m2 frontal, 0.001 back F-35 RCS is very good but less fro price reasosn the F-35 is an fighter more " customized " it is the Queen
but to consider with new electronic, networking, EOTS possible F-35 is more efficient build especially for A2G missions the F-22 for A2A.

The deployment of the S-400 would be problematic for the United States as 4th generation aircraft would be unable to safely operate near China (which is already the case but to a lesser extent with the S-300 PMU2 and HQ-9) but the USAF maintains the capability to overcome the S-400 with stealth aircraft. The LSR-B, B-2, F-22, and F-35 should all be stealthy enough to destroy S-400 sites if equipped with the right munitions. For example, the F-35 is cited to have a frontal radar cross section around .0015m^2 and a rear of .01m^2 (Global Security, 2011). Thus, the F-35 would be able to approach the 92N2E Grave Stone without being detected until 40 nautical miles (after weapons release the F-35 will have to turn around exposing the larger rear rcs hence 40 nm not 20 nm). If the F-35 is equipped with the GBU-39/B small diameter bombs (SDB) which have a stand-off range in excess of 60 nautical miles (Boeing, 2013), the F-35 is more than capable of getting the job done. However, the F-35 would be unable to use JDAMs to destroy S-400 sites as the stand-off range is insufficient. The Raptor is considerably stealthier than the F-35 with a frontal radar cross section of .0001m^2 with a side and rear of between .01-.001m^2 (Air Power Australia, 2011). Thus, the Raptor might be able to employ JDAM's against S-400 sites if it drops the 1,000 pound JDAM's from altitude and at maximum supercruise speed of mach 1.5-1.8 which gives a standoff range of at least 24 nautical miles (Hanlon, 2006). However, using SDB's would likely be preferred as it gives a much greater margin of safety for F-22 pilots.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Other solution use especialy recent very good LR LACM SCALP, AGM-158, Taurus etc... but more expensives than guided bombs qty inferior and bombs are disponible in very big qty more cheaper and if you can going close ennemy ofc it is much better solution and in the futur a B-21 can be with a big weapons load, range again more efficient.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Even Boeing is changing it's pitch for the Advanced Hornet from FA18E-F+ or F35C to FA18E-F+ and F35C.

How Often Does The F-35 Need To Refuel?
Feb 14, 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

| Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

• 
  
  Sgt. Lillian Stephens, USMC
  
  A recent, lengthy journey by U.S.
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  traveling from Arizona to Japan has sparked a quiet debate within the Pentagon about how often the stealthy fighter needs to refuel during ocean crossings.
  
  It took seven days for 10 U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs to fly from Yuma to their new home at Iwakuni, Japan, a flight that on a commercial airliner normally takes less than 24 hr. Many factors contribute to the time it takes a military fighter to get from point A to point B: weather, terrain and pilot fatigue, to name just a few. But on this particular voyage, the U.S. Air Force’s conservative refueling model required the Marine Corps aircraft to refuel with accompanying tankers a grand total of 250 times, a number the Marine Corps’ top aviator says is far too high for an efficient ocean-crossing.
  
  “The airplane has got longer legs than an F-18 with drop tanks, so why are we going with the tanker so often? We don’t need to do that,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Marine Corps commandant for aviation. “We are tanking a lot more than we should, maybe double [what we should.] We could be a lot more efficient than that.”
  
  While Davis says the tanking model for refueling the Joint Strike Fighter is “off in an overly conservative manner,” it is ultimately up to the Air Force to set the rules—and the air arm is not budging.
  
  An often overlooked piece of the air logistics puzzle is tanker refueling, a critical enabler for operations around the world. Fighters are thirsty aircraft, and the F-35 is no exception, said Air Force spokesman Col. Chris Karns. During the Jan. 18-25 crossing to Iwakuni, nine tankers flew with the 10 F-35Bs, transferring a total of 766,000 lb. of fuel over 250 aerial refuelings, or 25 per F-35, according to Karns.
  
  The Marine Corps does have tankers—the legacy KC-130s—but only Air Force tankers support fighter ocean crossings.
  
  It comes as no surprise to Air Force Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus that the Marine Corps jets needed to refuel so many times during the crossing to Iwakuni. The Air Force sets up ocean crossings assuming the worst-case scenario, so that if any aircraft is not able to get fuel at any given time during the journey—whether due to weather or a technical malfunction—the entire group has enough gas to land safely, Pleus explained. For instance, the F-35Bs flew with their refueling probes out during the entire voyage, which significantly increases drag on the aircraft, to simulate a scenario in which the operator is not able to retract the probe.
  
  “So when we plan these things we take the worst winds, we take the worst configuration of the airplane, and we say: at the worst time, what would happen?” said Pleus, a former
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  pilot who now heads the Air Force’s F-35 integration office. “It is very conservative, and the reason why we’re so conservative is because it’s a life or death decision.”
  
  Traditionally the Air Force refuels “almost continuously” when crossing a large body of water, as often as every 30 or 40 min., Pleus said. An F-35B, which carries 5,000 lb. less fuel than the Air Force F-35A, likely needs to hit the tanker even more often than that, he noted.
  
  Pleus pushed back on Davis’ criticism, stressing that extending time between refuelings during an ocean crossing would mean more risk to pilots.
  
  During a combat scenario, however, the Air Force would have a different calculus. Typically on a 6-hr. mission, a pilot would tank just two or three times, according to one Air Force official. It is important to top up before the mission because tankers are too vulnerable to fly alongside fighters during combat.
  
  Fighters are often in the spotlight, but the tanker piece is equally important to national defense—without it, the F-35’s global reach is impossible, Karns emphasized
  
  “The F-35 and projected future fighter and bomber requirements only reinforce the need for the next generation of tanker capability to ensure rapid global response across nine combatant commands in an environment where seconds and minutes matter,” Karns said. “As the fighter force increases, it is apparent that global tanker demand and potential future threats will drive an increase for the next generation of tankers.”
  

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FORBIN]

F-22 also can do good job for SEAD with a again a better RCS 0,00018 m2 frontal, 0.001 back F-35 RCS is very good but less fro price reasosn the F-35 is an fighter more " customized " it is the Queen
but to consider with new electronic, networking, EOTS possible F-35 is more efficient build especially for A2G missions the F-22 for A2A.

I have forget a point very important AAMs weapons load, especialy coz accordings statistics only 50 % guided by radar and 60% IR reach their target in addtion US drivers have say F-35 is very capable but we don't have enough missiles fixed with futur block 5 and 6 AIM-120 internaly but in addition the F-22 with 8 AAMs is very helpfull for AAMs power.

Infernal team for the bad guys

 

[Air Force Brat]

I read art of the deal and it includes playing vendor against vendor however this is very different than selecting which plumber gets to put in new toilets in your hotels.

At best it's highly unprofessional and unbecoming of a president, at worst it affects national security and puts America's warfighters at risk. Boeing and Lockheed are competitors and both vying for multi billion $$ defense contracts. They were also chief rivals in the JSF program (X32 vs X35). Trump as CnC should NEVER have the CEO of one company secretly listening in when he talks to the other!

I mean who else was listening in? Not the Russkis I hope!

Exactly So Kwai, it is beneath the Office of the President of the United States to play corporations off on another, particularly when comparing apples and oranges. In no way are the F-18, (beautiful airplane I love), and the F-35 comparable, complementary yes, and we probably should buy a few more F-18s to fill in the gaps that Navy has right now.

But to lose the F-35 for a few F-18s is absolute and utter stoopidity, to threaten to do that reveals the mentality of a 14 year old. It is also a tremendous lack of decorum.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Even Boeing is changing it's pitch for the Advanced Hornet from FA18E-F+ or F35C to FA18E-F+ and F35C.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... what did you refer to (I mean some link ... or is this your opinion)?

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

... what did you refer to (I mean some link ... or is this your opinion)?

Dan Gillian Program manager EA/FA-18 Boeing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As President Donald Trump signals he may reconsider the mix of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for the carrier air wing of the 2020s and beyond,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is pitching an upgraded “Block 3” Super Hornet designed to add firepower and act as a smart node on the U.S. Navy’s future network.

However, Gillian would not say definitively whether Block 3 could replace the F-35C in the carrier air wing. Boeing is focused on “complementary capability,” and ultimately the Navy will decide the right mix of each platform, he stresses.

Gillian envisions a Block 3 Super Hornet working in tandem with the stealthy F-35C, Growler’s full-spectrum jammer and E-2D’s early-warning capability to dominate the skies. The addition of a long-range infrared sensor (IRST) will allow Block 3 to detect and track advanced threats from a distance, while conformal fuel tanks (CFT) will extend range by 100-120 nm. The CFTs are designed to replace the extra fuel tanks Super Hornets currently sling under the wing, reducing weight and drag and enabling additional payload.

“You can have an F-35 in its very stealthy way doing a deep-strike mission with Super Hornet providing air superiority at that same range, or you can have Super Hornet carrying large standoff weapons that F-35 cannot carry, with F-35 providing some air cover,” Gillian says. “You get very mission-flexible, so range is important.”

“I believe there is a general acceptance of the fact that we need to advance the Super Hornet, because it is going to be a front-line fighter [from the] 2020s into the ’40s,” Gillian says. “We believe we have good alignment on the Block 3 Super Hornet systems that address key carrier air wing gaps in a "complementary way" with the F-35, E-2D and Growler.”

 

[Air Force Brat]

Dan Gillian Program manager EA/FA-18 Boeing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So what Uncle Dan is saying is that with F-35C's accompanying them, the EA/FA-18 might be able to carry "part of the load", probably, maybe, sorta, kinda????? we hope??

Without the F-35C, the FA-18 is "DEAD MEAT!",,,, may make a little sense "right now" to fill the huge gap that Navy has allowed to develop with a few additional F-18s, but makes NO sense in the future??? The Navy is trying to stall, to buy some time for the XB-47 UAV to "catch up" and be the real gap-filler??

The Navy needs to pony-up for its F-35Cs like everybody else is doing, the XB-47 may make a wonderful complement to the F-35C??? probably will, but it is in NO WAY a replacement, or anywhere near as capable as the F-35C is "right now"??

So why buy yesterdays airplanes, to go to the South China sea and be "clubbed like baby seals" by the S-400s that Russia can't wait to sell to China???

Why????