F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter 1.44
- Start date
A beautiful week maybe but rainy and cold morning in Holland.
Janes:
The RNLAF is procuring the F-35A to replace its F-16AM/BMs, with 46 set to be ordered for EUR5 billion (USD5.6 billion). The first eight are currently located in the United States as part of the international training and test and evaluation fleets (six F-35As are located at Luke AFB, with two at Edwards AFB in California). In May 2016, two aircraft made the flight from Luke AFB to Leeuwarden AB, marking the first time that RNLAF F-35s had visited the Netherlands.
While delivery of aircraft F-009 to the first operational unit marks a welcome milestone for the RNLAF, the event did not apparently pass without incident. According to media reports that were substantiated by official images of the arrival ceremony, the aircraft was accidently doused in fire retardant foam instead of water as intended. This foam is highly corrosive, and it is likely that F-009 will need to undergo a deep-clean and checks at the least before it can take-up its operational duties.
Janes:
The RNLAF is procuring the F-35A to replace its F-16AM/BMs, with 46 set to be ordered for EUR5 billion (USD5.6 billion). The first eight are currently located in the United States as part of the international training and test and evaluation fleets (six F-35As are located at Luke AFB, with two at Edwards AFB in California). In May 2016, two aircraft made the flight from Luke AFB to Leeuwarden AB, marking the first time that RNLAF F-35s had visited the Netherlands.
While delivery of aircraft F-009 to the first operational unit marks a welcome milestone for the RNLAF, the event did not apparently pass without incident. According to media reports that were substantiated by official images of the arrival ceremony, the aircraft was accidently doused in fire retardant foam instead of water as intended. This foam is highly corrosive, and it is likely that F-009 will need to undergo a deep-clean and checks at the least before it can take-up its operational duties.
“Social media has become a high school playground where the challenge is what idiot can come up with the best insult”
David Draiman
Have a good day.
F-117 are now more deadly with SDB (which gives stand off range over 50 miles). Means before most SAM can detect F-117, mission is over.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/exposed-4-‘retired’-f-117-stealth-fighters-went-back-war-68497
Bhurki
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2018
- Messages
- 1,301
- Likes
- 1,765
What do you mean?!?!?
F35 can carry SDB as well.. Infact SDB2 is primarily integrated with f35 electronics.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,558
This is such a beautiful, so futuristic looking yet so deadly a machine.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,510
- Likes
- 7,217
Australia’s F-35s: lessons from a problematic purchase
PETER LAYTON
The rush nearly 20 years ago to buy the fighter of the future exposed fundamental shortcomings in defence acquisitions.
An F-35A Joint Strike Fighter on approach at RAAF Base Richmond in July (Photo: Department of Defence)
In a startling statement reported this month, two recent Air Force chiefs assert Australia has made some grave force structure errors. It seems the RAAF needs a new bomber, as the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now entering service is inadequate for future strike operations. The chiefs’ intervention raises questions about how this could have happened and, given growing international tensions, how such expensive strategic missteps can be avoided.
Australia joined the US-led F-35 program in a rush in 2002. There was no tender process or formal evaluation. Nor could there be. The aircraft was still brochure-ware, with delivery schedule and cost unknown, albeit thought to be Australia’s most expensive defence equipment purchase.
It suddenly seems the Air Force needs major recapitalisation, just as its force structure is being renewed at considerable cost.
The sudden decision surprised many, as the Howard Government’s 2000 Defence White Paper had set out a comprehensive decision-making process that investigated alternative force structure options, including single-role fighters, multi-role aircraft, long-range missiles, and unmanned aircraft. The rationale behind the unexpected rush to purchase F-35s was explained publicly by the then Air Force chief.
Unfortunately, soon after the decision, the F-35 began suffering technical problems, cost growth, and long delays.
The first two F-35s finally arrived in Australia in late 2018, with the last nine planned for mid-2023. These nine are expected to be the Lot 15 Block 4 version, the fully developed standard broadly envisaged back in 2002. The rest, comprising six different interim-build standards, will then be progressively modernised to this definitive configuration.
The Lot 15 aircraft has significant hardware and software changes so the complete maintenance and support system, simulators and training centres will also need modernising. This will take time and additional money, but there is no choice. If not modernised, the earlier F-35s – almost all the RAAF’s brand-new fleet – will become hard to maintain or software update, and gradually operationally deficient.
The nine Lot 15 aircraft arrival will allow the RAAF to declare Final Operational Capability and start wrapping the acquisition project up. Over 20 years, the project has slipped 10 years.
This delay meant an interim aircraft, the Super Hornet, was necessary. Funding this meant the overall air-combat capability project had the largest cost overrun of any Australian defence acquisition in history, in absolute terms.
Yet making matters worse, the threat environment evolved.
In 2017, USAF reviewed its air combat programs and determined that, all things considered, the F-35 would be unable to penetrate defended airspace past 2030. The logic underpinning this formal report was later explained publicly by its lead author. The recent pronouncements by the retired RAAF chiefs are then unsurprising. They consider that the RAAF’s force structure is now passé, being unable to defend “our lines of communication or prevent the lodgment of a hostile power in the Indo-Pacific region.”
It suddenly seems the Air Force needs major recapitalisation, just as its force structure is being renewed at considerable cost. The retired chiefs are now calling for a “reset”, with significant new spending and possibly acquiring advanced bombers, cruise missiles, and unmanned aircraft – a laundry list reminiscent of the Howard government’s White Paper.
Before rushing in there are several aspects worth considering.
Firstly, the F-35 acquisition decision was made independently of considering the overall force structure. Airbase defence illustrates this shortcoming. RAAF focused on acquiring F-35s, rather than on also building a capability to defend the airbases they might operate from. China’s long-range missile attack capabilities now mean that in time of crisis, the RAAF might be ill-advised to deploy F-35s to Southeast Asian airbases. In time, this vulnerability might also apply to Australia’s northern bases. Any “reset” needs to be made cognisant of all pertinent aspects, even if they are difficult ones.
Secondly, the chiefs consider that “we need to urgently review where we stand”. The F-35 decision was perceived by some as urgent, a perception less obvious in retrospect. There is apparently a review underway that will report on Air Force structures and composition early in 2020. This is a process that needs considerable thought and deliberation. Rushed decision-making today can produce poor results and long delays downstream. A repeat of the F-35 acquisition should be avoided. This review might be headed that way.
Thirdly, the chiefs blame the Air Force’s parlous state of affairs on changing strategic circumstances that no one could have foreseen. Force structures, though, are acquired for the longer term. The chief’s critique implies the current Defence White Paper process has serious fundamental shortcomings in terms of comprehending the possibility of strategic change.
Before undertaking an “urgent” review or rushing to buy a new jet, it is essential to address the methodology used when designing the future force. This all sounds pretty dry, but its absence can be seen in the chiefs’ conclusion that Air Force’s brand-new fighter is inadequate. This is potentially operationally disastrous, strategically unacceptable, and a waste of taxpayers’ money.
There are methodologies well-suited to thinking about future uncertainty. The Defence Minister’s very first review needs to determine which to use. Until then, all future reviews or White Papers will be of doubtful value. The chiefs’ have done the nation a service in highlighting the shortcomings in contemporary Australian strategic thinking – even if they were involved in making it so. Their critique needs acting on.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-s-f-35s-lessons-from-problematic-purchase
PETER LAYTON
The rush nearly 20 years ago to buy the fighter of the future exposed fundamental shortcomings in defence acquisitions.
An F-35A Joint Strike Fighter on approach at RAAF Base Richmond in July (Photo: Department of Defence)
In a startling statement reported this month, two recent Air Force chiefs assert Australia has made some grave force structure errors. It seems the RAAF needs a new bomber, as the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now entering service is inadequate for future strike operations. The chiefs’ intervention raises questions about how this could have happened and, given growing international tensions, how such expensive strategic missteps can be avoided.
Australia joined the US-led F-35 program in a rush in 2002. There was no tender process or formal evaluation. Nor could there be. The aircraft was still brochure-ware, with delivery schedule and cost unknown, albeit thought to be Australia’s most expensive defence equipment purchase.
It suddenly seems the Air Force needs major recapitalisation, just as its force structure is being renewed at considerable cost.
The sudden decision surprised many, as the Howard Government’s 2000 Defence White Paper had set out a comprehensive decision-making process that investigated alternative force structure options, including single-role fighters, multi-role aircraft, long-range missiles, and unmanned aircraft. The rationale behind the unexpected rush to purchase F-35s was explained publicly by the then Air Force chief.
Unfortunately, soon after the decision, the F-35 began suffering technical problems, cost growth, and long delays.
The first two F-35s finally arrived in Australia in late 2018, with the last nine planned for mid-2023. These nine are expected to be the Lot 15 Block 4 version, the fully developed standard broadly envisaged back in 2002. The rest, comprising six different interim-build standards, will then be progressively modernised to this definitive configuration.
The Lot 15 aircraft has significant hardware and software changes so the complete maintenance and support system, simulators and training centres will also need modernising. This will take time and additional money, but there is no choice. If not modernised, the earlier F-35s – almost all the RAAF’s brand-new fleet – will become hard to maintain or software update, and gradually operationally deficient.
The nine Lot 15 aircraft arrival will allow the RAAF to declare Final Operational Capability and start wrapping the acquisition project up. Over 20 years, the project has slipped 10 years.
This delay meant an interim aircraft, the Super Hornet, was necessary. Funding this meant the overall air-combat capability project had the largest cost overrun of any Australian defence acquisition in history, in absolute terms.
Yet making matters worse, the threat environment evolved.
In 2017, USAF reviewed its air combat programs and determined that, all things considered, the F-35 would be unable to penetrate defended airspace past 2030. The logic underpinning this formal report was later explained publicly by its lead author. The recent pronouncements by the retired RAAF chiefs are then unsurprising. They consider that the RAAF’s force structure is now passé, being unable to defend “our lines of communication or prevent the lodgment of a hostile power in the Indo-Pacific region.”
It suddenly seems the Air Force needs major recapitalisation, just as its force structure is being renewed at considerable cost. The retired chiefs are now calling for a “reset”, with significant new spending and possibly acquiring advanced bombers, cruise missiles, and unmanned aircraft – a laundry list reminiscent of the Howard government’s White Paper.
Before rushing in there are several aspects worth considering.
Firstly, the F-35 acquisition decision was made independently of considering the overall force structure. Airbase defence illustrates this shortcoming. RAAF focused on acquiring F-35s, rather than on also building a capability to defend the airbases they might operate from. China’s long-range missile attack capabilities now mean that in time of crisis, the RAAF might be ill-advised to deploy F-35s to Southeast Asian airbases. In time, this vulnerability might also apply to Australia’s northern bases. Any “reset” needs to be made cognisant of all pertinent aspects, even if they are difficult ones.
Secondly, the chiefs consider that “we need to urgently review where we stand”. The F-35 decision was perceived by some as urgent, a perception less obvious in retrospect. There is apparently a review underway that will report on Air Force structures and composition early in 2020. This is a process that needs considerable thought and deliberation. Rushed decision-making today can produce poor results and long delays downstream. A repeat of the F-35 acquisition should be avoided. This review might be headed that way.
Thirdly, the chiefs blame the Air Force’s parlous state of affairs on changing strategic circumstances that no one could have foreseen. Force structures, though, are acquired for the longer term. The chief’s critique implies the current Defence White Paper process has serious fundamental shortcomings in terms of comprehending the possibility of strategic change.
Before undertaking an “urgent” review or rushing to buy a new jet, it is essential to address the methodology used when designing the future force. This all sounds pretty dry, but its absence can be seen in the chiefs’ conclusion that Air Force’s brand-new fighter is inadequate. This is potentially operationally disastrous, strategically unacceptable, and a waste of taxpayers’ money.
There are methodologies well-suited to thinking about future uncertainty. The Defence Minister’s very first review needs to determine which to use. Until then, all future reviews or White Papers will be of doubtful value. The chiefs’ have done the nation a service in highlighting the shortcomings in contemporary Australian strategic thinking – even if they were involved in making it so. Their critique needs acting on.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-s-f-35s-lessons-from-problematic-purchase
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,558
Australia’s F-35s: lessons from a problematic purchase
PETER LAYTON
The rush nearly 20 years ago to buy the fighter of the future exposed fundamental shortcomings in defence acquisitions.
An F-35A Joint Strike Fighter on approach at RAAF Base Richmond in July (Photo: Department of Defence)
In a startling statement reported this month, two recent Air Force chiefs assert Australia has made some grave force structure errors. It seems the RAAF needs a new bomber, as the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now entering service is inadequate for future strike operations. The chiefs’ intervention raises questions about how this could have happened and, given growing international tensions, how such expensive strategic missteps can be avoided.
Australia joined the US-led F-35 program in a rush in 2002. There was no tender process or formal evaluation. Nor could there be. The aircraft was still brochure-ware, with delivery schedule and cost unknown, albeit thought to be Australia’s most expensive defence equipment purchase.
It suddenly seems the Air Force needs major recapitalisation, just as its force structure is being renewed at considerable cost.
The sudden decision surprised many, as the Howard Government’s 2000 Defence White Paper had set out a comprehensive decision-making process that investigated alternative force structure options, including single-role fighters, multi-role aircraft, long-range missiles, and unmanned aircraft. The rationale behind the unexpected rush to purchase F-35s was explained publicly by the then Air Force chief.
Unfortunately, soon after the decision, the F-35 began suffering technical problems, cost growth, and long delays.
The first two F-35s finally arrived in Australia in late 2018, with the last nine planned for mid-2023. These nine are expected to be the Lot 15 Block 4 version, the fully developed standard broadly envisaged back in 2002. The rest, comprising six different interim-build standards, will then be progressively modernised to this definitive configuration.
The Lot 15 aircraft has significant hardware and software changes so the complete maintenance and support system, simulators and training centres will also need modernising. This will take time and additional money, but there is no choice. If not modernised, the earlier F-35s – almost all the RAAF’s brand-new fleet – will become hard to maintain or software update, and gradually operationally deficient.
The nine Lot 15 aircraft arrival will allow the RAAF to declare Final Operational Capability and start wrapping the acquisition project up. Over 20 years, the project has slipped 10 years.
This delay meant an interim aircraft, the Super Hornet, was necessary. Funding this meant the overall air-combat capability project had the largest cost overrun of any Australian defence acquisition in history, in absolute terms.
Yet making matters worse, the threat environment evolved.
In 2017, USAF reviewed its air combat programs and determined that, all things considered, the F-35 would be unable to penetrate defended airspace past 2030. The logic underpinning this formal report was later explained publicly by its lead author. The recent pronouncements by the retired RAAF chiefs are then unsurprising. They consider that the RAAF’s force structure is now passé, being unable to defend “our lines of communication or prevent the lodgment of a hostile power in the Indo-Pacific region.”
It suddenly seems the Air Force needs major recapitalisation, just as its force structure is being renewed at considerable cost. The retired chiefs are now calling for a “reset”, with significant new spending and possibly acquiring advanced bombers, cruise missiles, and unmanned aircraft – a laundry list reminiscent of the Howard government’s White Paper.
Before rushing in there are several aspects worth considering.
Firstly, the F-35 acquisition decision was made independently of considering the overall force structure. Airbase defence illustrates this shortcoming. RAAF focused on acquiring F-35s, rather than on also building a capability to defend the airbases they might operate from. China’s long-range missile attack capabilities now mean that in time of crisis, the RAAF might be ill-advised to deploy F-35s to Southeast Asian airbases. In time, this vulnerability might also apply to Australia’s northern bases. Any “reset” needs to be made cognisant of all pertinent aspects, even if they are difficult ones.
Secondly, the chiefs consider that “we need to urgently review where we stand”. The F-35 decision was perceived by some as urgent, a perception less obvious in retrospect. There is apparently a review underway that will report on Air Force structures and composition early in 2020. This is a process that needs considerable thought and deliberation. Rushed decision-making today can produce poor results and long delays downstream. A repeat of the F-35 acquisition should be avoided. This review might be headed that way.
Thirdly, the chiefs blame the Air Force’s parlous state of affairs on changing strategic circumstances that no one could have foreseen. Force structures, though, are acquired for the longer term. The chief’s critique implies the current Defence White Paper process has serious fundamental shortcomings in terms of comprehending the possibility of strategic change.
Before undertaking an “urgent” review or rushing to buy a new jet, it is essential to address the methodology used when designing the future force. This all sounds pretty dry, but its absence can be seen in the chiefs’ conclusion that Air Force’s brand-new fighter is inadequate. This is potentially operationally disastrous, strategically unacceptable, and a waste of taxpayers’ money.
There are methodologies well-suited to thinking about future uncertainty. The Defence Minister’s very first review needs to determine which to use. Until then, all future reviews or White Papers will be of doubtful value. The chiefs’ have done the nation a service in highlighting the shortcomings in contemporary Australian strategic thinking – even if they were involved in making it so. Their critique needs acting on.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-s-f-35s-lessons-from-problematic-purchase
This is a cheap article. Only the most idiot will believe this anti-F-35 anti-American diatribe.
F-35 is a multi-role fighter and not a bomber. A bomber also cannot be a fighter.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,558
Air Force Wants Its XQ-58A Valkyrie Drone To Help F-22s And F-35s Talk To Each Other
An XQ-58 working as a stealthy data fusion and relay node would give America's two stealth fighters the ability to fight together like never before.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ne-to-help-f-22s-and-f-35s-talk-to-each-other
An XQ-58 working as a stealthy data fusion and relay node would give America's two stealth fighters the ability to fight together like never before.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ne-to-help-f-22s-and-f-35s-talk-to-each-other
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,510
- Likes
- 7,217
This is a cheap article. Only the most idiot will believe this pro F-35 and pro American diatribe. :biggrin2:Air Force Wants Its XQ-58A Valkyrie Drone To Help F-22s And F-35s Talk To Each Other
An XQ-58 working as a stealthy data fusion and relay node would give America's two stealth fighters the ability to fight together like never before.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ne-to-help-f-22s-and-f-35s-talk-to-each-other
PS : it's the futur, the work of UCAV and piloted planes together. And also it reduce the need of so stealthy planes, with this kind of drone.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,558
Please stop commenting about the subject without researching it. You're giving the whole of France a bad rap.
Do you know that to preserve stealth F-22 uses IFDL that allows it to securely datalink with other F-22s and that the F-35 too has its own known as MADL? This is how far the Americans have gone to preserve the potency of the tip of their spear.
And do you know that both IFDL and MADL datalinks are secure becsuse they are line-of-sight radio links? So just imagine the technical difficulty of synchronizing these different datalinks and then keeping the connection over wide distances.
The Americans early this year used a U2 spyplane that carried a device that allowed F-22s and F-35s to connect their datalinks in flight. It worked.
Then the Americans also tried successfully to make an F-22 and F-35 directly datalink using their own IFDL and MADL. They used software to decode each others' signals. This one is still under continuing research.
Then now USAF is proposing using X8-58A in place of U2 as a relay station. This UAV will solve the issue of distance between F-22s and F-35s in the battlefield. And again this is brilliant.
Therefore, 1) again, you're embarassing France with your laziness to research; and 2) F-22 and F-35 datalinks are brilliant engineering; and 3) F-22 and F-35 datalinks definitely are immune from interception or jamming.
You're welcome!
Last edited:
Looking forward for India to join this club.
BTW Dutch are still cleaning their first F-35.
More F-35 Fighters for South Korea | Defense News: Aviation International News
by Jon Lake
Oct 12, 2019 - 2:02 AM
South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration has announced that 20 more Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters will be procured under the second phase of its F-X3 program, due to be launched in 2021, when deliveries of the first batch of 40 are scheduled to be completed. These 40 original F-35As were ordered for the Republic of Korea Air Force (RoKAF) in 2014, and deliveries began in March 2019. Eight have now been delivered, and the RoKAF expects to have 13 by the end of the year and 26 by the end of 2020.
It remains uncertain as to which version of the Lightning II will be procured under the new phase of the program, which is valued at 4 trillion won ($3.35 billion). There were press reports that the National Security Office of the Blue House (the president's residence) had pushed the Air Force in April to consider purchasing the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35B, presumably to allow them to operate from the Navy’s two 14,500-tonne Dokdo-class amphibious assault ships, a planned 30,000-tonne carrier-type landing platform helicopter carrier, or more likely from a new class of aircraft carrier.
The Blue House immediately denied that it had tried to influence the F-35 purchase, pointing out that there was “a legal procedure for any procurement project.” The usual procedure is for the military to make a procurement request, which is then approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reviewed by the Ministry of National Defense’s Defense Acquisition Program Promotion Committee before being handed off to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration to manage the project.
South Korean media has recently reported that the purchase of aircraft carriers is “under consideration” by the National Assembly’s National Defense Commission. It was reported that one option under consideration is a 70,000-tonne twin-island design with a length of 298 meters and a width of 75 meters, carrying 40 fixed-wing aircraft and eight helicopters. This is similar in size and configuration to the new 72,000-tonne British Queen Elizabeth class, which is 280 meters long. The other option reportedly being considered by South Korea is smaller—40,000 tonnes, 238 meters long and 62 meters wide—and is intended to embark an air wing composed of 20 fixed-wing aircraft and eight helicopters. This is broadly similar to the U.S. Navy’s 45,000-tonne America-class Landing Helicopter Assault ships, which can carry up to 20 USMC F-35Bs.
While these ship programs would indicate a Korean requirement for the F-35B, the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) suggested that the introduction of more F-35As might be “more feasible," while the RoKAF itself is understood to favor the F-35A, which has longer range, more weapons options, and a lower price tag than the STOVL variant, with price being the main factor. The F-35A is currently priced at about $89 million, while the F-35B costs $115 million.
Korea is the latest in a growing list of existing F-35 customers to have placed additional orders for the type. The Netherlands ordered nine more F-35As in October 2019, while Japan has announced its intention to buy additional F-35As, as well as 42 F-35Bs.
BTW Dutch are still cleaning their first F-35.
More F-35 Fighters for South Korea | Defense News: Aviation International News
by Jon Lake
Oct 12, 2019 - 2:02 AM
South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration has announced that 20 more Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters will be procured under the second phase of its F-X3 program, due to be launched in 2021, when deliveries of the first batch of 40 are scheduled to be completed. These 40 original F-35As were ordered for the Republic of Korea Air Force (RoKAF) in 2014, and deliveries began in March 2019. Eight have now been delivered, and the RoKAF expects to have 13 by the end of the year and 26 by the end of 2020.
It remains uncertain as to which version of the Lightning II will be procured under the new phase of the program, which is valued at 4 trillion won ($3.35 billion). There were press reports that the National Security Office of the Blue House (the president's residence) had pushed the Air Force in April to consider purchasing the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35B, presumably to allow them to operate from the Navy’s two 14,500-tonne Dokdo-class amphibious assault ships, a planned 30,000-tonne carrier-type landing platform helicopter carrier, or more likely from a new class of aircraft carrier.
The Blue House immediately denied that it had tried to influence the F-35 purchase, pointing out that there was “a legal procedure for any procurement project.” The usual procedure is for the military to make a procurement request, which is then approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reviewed by the Ministry of National Defense’s Defense Acquisition Program Promotion Committee before being handed off to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration to manage the project.
South Korean media has recently reported that the purchase of aircraft carriers is “under consideration” by the National Assembly’s National Defense Commission. It was reported that one option under consideration is a 70,000-tonne twin-island design with a length of 298 meters and a width of 75 meters, carrying 40 fixed-wing aircraft and eight helicopters. This is similar in size and configuration to the new 72,000-tonne British Queen Elizabeth class, which is 280 meters long. The other option reportedly being considered by South Korea is smaller—40,000 tonnes, 238 meters long and 62 meters wide—and is intended to embark an air wing composed of 20 fixed-wing aircraft and eight helicopters. This is broadly similar to the U.S. Navy’s 45,000-tonne America-class Landing Helicopter Assault ships, which can carry up to 20 USMC F-35Bs.
While these ship programs would indicate a Korean requirement for the F-35B, the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) suggested that the introduction of more F-35As might be “more feasible," while the RoKAF itself is understood to favor the F-35A, which has longer range, more weapons options, and a lower price tag than the STOVL variant, with price being the main factor. The F-35A is currently priced at about $89 million, while the F-35B costs $115 million.
Korea is the latest in a growing list of existing F-35 customers to have placed additional orders for the type. The Netherlands ordered nine more F-35As in October 2019, while Japan has announced its intention to buy additional F-35As, as well as 42 F-35Bs.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
Lockheed’s stealthy F-35 breaks down too often, Pentagon says
A U.S. Air Force F-35A stealth fighter jet manufactured by Lockheed Martin is display during a press day of the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition (ADEX) at Seoul Airport in Seongnam, South Korea, on Oct. 16, 2017.
By TONY CAPACCIO | Bloomberg | Published: November 13, 2019
The Pentagon’s chief weapons tester said the next-generation F-35 jet continues to fall short of full combat readiness targets and, despite some progress on reliability issues, all three versions of the fighter are breaking down “more often than planned.”
None of the Air Force, Marines and Navy variants of the Lockheed Martin fighter is meeting its five key “reliability or maintainability metrics,” Robert Behler, the Pentagon’s director of operational testing, said in prepared remarks Wednesday before two House Armed Services Committee panels.
The House subcommittees are reviewing the $428 billion program’s status and progress recovering from years of cost overruns and production delays.
“The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains at a level below service expectations,” Behler said in the prepared remarks. “In short, for all variants, aircraft are breaking down more often than planned and taking longer to fix.”
His statement is a reality check just weeks after the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin announced that they finalized the largest contract in the program’s history, a deal valued at $34 billion for 478 additional aircraft. About $27 billion’s worth of F-35s already have been placed on contract even though the program hasn’t completed all its combat testing and struggles with reliability.
The program continues in its most rigorous phase of combat testing, a stage that will stretch into next year. So far, 458 jets have been fielded out of about 3,500 planned purchases by U.S. and allies from Australia to Poland. Pentagon approval for full-rate production, delayed from December, looms for 2020.
Even with that 2020 target approaching, analysis to date shows that neither the Marine Corps nor the Navy F-35 model is currently “on track” to meet its reliability metrics even as they log more hours, according to the latest assessment.
Among the key lagging metrics cited by Behler are “mean flight hours between critical failure” — a data point that refers to the time between failures that result in the loss of capability to perform a mission-critical task, or mean time between part removals for replacement from the supply chain.
Significantly, while the F-35 fleet demonstrated, over short periods, “high mission capability” rates reflecting the percentage of time jets are safe to fly and able to perform at least one specific mission, the jets “lagged” by “a large margin” the more complete measure of “Full Mission Capable” status, he wrote.
That indicates “low readiness” for combat missions “that require operationally capable aircraft,” Behler said.
Nevertheless, Pentagon and Lockheed Martin officials repeatedly highlight the “mission capable” rates of operational units deployed overseas when discussing program progress. In her statement to the Congressional panels Wednesday, Pentagon Under Secretary for Acquisition Ellen Lord cited “improving overall F-35 sustainment outcomes and aircraft readiness despite dramatic fleet size increases.”
“As the fleet has grown, aircraft readiness has grown,” Lord said. All three U.S. military services have declared their respective aircraft as possessing an initial combat capability. Lord added that overall “mission capable” rates increased to 73% last month from 55% in October 2018.
Across the services, over the same time period, the Air Force increased its mission capable rate to 75% from 66%, Air Force Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, the Pentagon’s F-35 program manager, said in his prepared statement. The Marine Corps rate rose to 68% from 44%, he added.
Citing one measure of reliability improvement, Fick said the percentage of aircraft rated not mission-capable because they waited for spare parts “increased through early 2019, but has steadily decreased since summer.” As of last month, the rate “was under 15% for our operational fleets and 24% for our non-operational, testing and training fleets,” he said.
Behler agreed, pointing out that “after several years of remaining relatively stable, several key suitability metrics are showing signs of slow improvement” this year.
Still, no F-35, including those deployed to combat units, has been able “to achieve and sustain” the 80% “Mission Capable” goal for the 12 months ending in September called for by then-Defense Secretary James Mattis, Behler said. “However, individual units were able to achieve the 80% target for short periods.”
The Air Force F-35 version, which will constitute the bulk of U.S. purchases, demonstrated the best performance while the Navy’s F-35C fleet has the lowest. The more recent improvements were due to the “greater availability of spare parts” and “longer-term efforts to improve maintenance processes and depot support,” Behler said.
In his statement, Lockheed Martin program manager Greg Ulmer said “readiness rates continue to rise across the fleet, and today we see on average a mission capable rate of more than 70% on combat-coded aircraft.” Earlier this year, the Air Force announced that its airmen and fleet of F-35As participating at Red Flag at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada “delivered 90% mission capable rates during the exercise,” he said.
https://www.stripes.com/news/air-fo...-breaks-down-too-often-pentagon-says-1.607138
LockMart is only using deployed aircraft for its availability rates, going by that metric Rafale has near 100% availability.
A U.S. Air Force F-35A stealth fighter jet manufactured by Lockheed Martin is display during a press day of the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition (ADEX) at Seoul Airport in Seongnam, South Korea, on Oct. 16, 2017.
By TONY CAPACCIO | Bloomberg | Published: November 13, 2019
The Pentagon’s chief weapons tester said the next-generation F-35 jet continues to fall short of full combat readiness targets and, despite some progress on reliability issues, all three versions of the fighter are breaking down “more often than planned.”
None of the Air Force, Marines and Navy variants of the Lockheed Martin fighter is meeting its five key “reliability or maintainability metrics,” Robert Behler, the Pentagon’s director of operational testing, said in prepared remarks Wednesday before two House Armed Services Committee panels.
The House subcommittees are reviewing the $428 billion program’s status and progress recovering from years of cost overruns and production delays.
“The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains at a level below service expectations,” Behler said in the prepared remarks. “In short, for all variants, aircraft are breaking down more often than planned and taking longer to fix.”
His statement is a reality check just weeks after the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin announced that they finalized the largest contract in the program’s history, a deal valued at $34 billion for 478 additional aircraft. About $27 billion’s worth of F-35s already have been placed on contract even though the program hasn’t completed all its combat testing and struggles with reliability.
The program continues in its most rigorous phase of combat testing, a stage that will stretch into next year. So far, 458 jets have been fielded out of about 3,500 planned purchases by U.S. and allies from Australia to Poland. Pentagon approval for full-rate production, delayed from December, looms for 2020.
Even with that 2020 target approaching, analysis to date shows that neither the Marine Corps nor the Navy F-35 model is currently “on track” to meet its reliability metrics even as they log more hours, according to the latest assessment.
Among the key lagging metrics cited by Behler are “mean flight hours between critical failure” — a data point that refers to the time between failures that result in the loss of capability to perform a mission-critical task, or mean time between part removals for replacement from the supply chain.
Significantly, while the F-35 fleet demonstrated, over short periods, “high mission capability” rates reflecting the percentage of time jets are safe to fly and able to perform at least one specific mission, the jets “lagged” by “a large margin” the more complete measure of “Full Mission Capable” status, he wrote.
That indicates “low readiness” for combat missions “that require operationally capable aircraft,” Behler said.
Nevertheless, Pentagon and Lockheed Martin officials repeatedly highlight the “mission capable” rates of operational units deployed overseas when discussing program progress. In her statement to the Congressional panels Wednesday, Pentagon Under Secretary for Acquisition Ellen Lord cited “improving overall F-35 sustainment outcomes and aircraft readiness despite dramatic fleet size increases.”
“As the fleet has grown, aircraft readiness has grown,” Lord said. All three U.S. military services have declared their respective aircraft as possessing an initial combat capability. Lord added that overall “mission capable” rates increased to 73% last month from 55% in October 2018.
Across the services, over the same time period, the Air Force increased its mission capable rate to 75% from 66%, Air Force Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, the Pentagon’s F-35 program manager, said in his prepared statement. The Marine Corps rate rose to 68% from 44%, he added.
Citing one measure of reliability improvement, Fick said the percentage of aircraft rated not mission-capable because they waited for spare parts “increased through early 2019, but has steadily decreased since summer.” As of last month, the rate “was under 15% for our operational fleets and 24% for our non-operational, testing and training fleets,” he said.
Behler agreed, pointing out that “after several years of remaining relatively stable, several key suitability metrics are showing signs of slow improvement” this year.
Still, no F-35, including those deployed to combat units, has been able “to achieve and sustain” the 80% “Mission Capable” goal for the 12 months ending in September called for by then-Defense Secretary James Mattis, Behler said. “However, individual units were able to achieve the 80% target for short periods.”
The Air Force F-35 version, which will constitute the bulk of U.S. purchases, demonstrated the best performance while the Navy’s F-35C fleet has the lowest. The more recent improvements were due to the “greater availability of spare parts” and “longer-term efforts to improve maintenance processes and depot support,” Behler said.
In his statement, Lockheed Martin program manager Greg Ulmer said “readiness rates continue to rise across the fleet, and today we see on average a mission capable rate of more than 70% on combat-coded aircraft.” Earlier this year, the Air Force announced that its airmen and fleet of F-35As participating at Red Flag at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada “delivered 90% mission capable rates during the exercise,” he said.
https://www.stripes.com/news/air-fo...-breaks-down-too-often-pentagon-says-1.607138
LockMart is only using deployed aircraft for its availability rates, going by that metric Rafale has near 100% availability.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,558
And yet the World's top air forces can't get enough F-35. This shpws confidence that eventually most if not all metrics agreed will be met.Lockheed’s stealthy F-35 breaks down too often, Pentagon says
A U.S. Air Force F-35A stealth fighter jet manufactured by Lockheed Martin is display during a press day of the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition (ADEX) at Seoul Airport in Seongnam, South Korea, on Oct. 16, 2017.
By TONY CAPACCIO | Bloomberg | Published: November 13, 2019
The Pentagon’s chief weapons tester said the next-generation F-35 jet continues to fall short of full combat readiness targets and, despite some progress on reliability issues, all three versions of the fighter are breaking down “more often than planned.”
None of the Air Force, Marines and Navy variants of the Lockheed Martin fighter is meeting its five key “reliability or maintainability metrics,” Robert Behler, the Pentagon’s director of operational testing, said in prepared remarks Wednesday before two House Armed Services Committee panels.
The House subcommittees are reviewing the $428 billion program’s status and progress recovering from years of cost overruns and production delays.
“The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains at a level below service expectations,” Behler said in the prepared remarks. “In short, for all variants, aircraft are breaking down more often than planned and taking longer to fix.”
His statement is a reality check just weeks after the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin announced that they finalized the largest contract in the program’s history, a deal valued at $34 billion for 478 additional aircraft. About $27 billion’s worth of F-35s already have been placed on contract even though the program hasn’t completed all its combat testing and struggles with reliability.
The program continues in its most rigorous phase of combat testing, a stage that will stretch into next year. So far, 458 jets have been fielded out of about 3,500 planned purchases by U.S. and allies from Australia to Poland. Pentagon approval for full-rate production, delayed from December, looms for 2020.
Even with that 2020 target approaching, analysis to date shows that neither the Marine Corps nor the Navy F-35 model is currently “on track” to meet its reliability metrics even as they log more hours, according to the latest assessment.
Among the key lagging metrics cited by Behler are “mean flight hours between critical failure” — a data point that refers to the time between failures that result in the loss of capability to perform a mission-critical task, or mean time between part removals for replacement from the supply chain.
Significantly, while the F-35 fleet demonstrated, over short periods, “high mission capability” rates reflecting the percentage of time jets are safe to fly and able to perform at least one specific mission, the jets “lagged” by “a large margin” the more complete measure of “Full Mission Capable” status, he wrote.
That indicates “low readiness” for combat missions “that require operationally capable aircraft,” Behler said.
Nevertheless, Pentagon and Lockheed Martin officials repeatedly highlight the “mission capable” rates of operational units deployed overseas when discussing program progress. In her statement to the Congressional panels Wednesday, Pentagon Under Secretary for Acquisition Ellen Lord cited “improving overall F-35 sustainment outcomes and aircraft readiness despite dramatic fleet size increases.”
“As the fleet has grown, aircraft readiness has grown,” Lord said. All three U.S. military services have declared their respective aircraft as possessing an initial combat capability. Lord added that overall “mission capable” rates increased to 73% last month from 55% in October 2018.
Across the services, over the same time period, the Air Force increased its mission capable rate to 75% from 66%, Air Force Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, the Pentagon’s F-35 program manager, said in his prepared statement. The Marine Corps rate rose to 68% from 44%, he added.
Citing one measure of reliability improvement, Fick said the percentage of aircraft rated not mission-capable because they waited for spare parts “increased through early 2019, but has steadily decreased since summer.” As of last month, the rate “was under 15% for our operational fleets and 24% for our non-operational, testing and training fleets,” he said.
Behler agreed, pointing out that “after several years of remaining relatively stable, several key suitability metrics are showing signs of slow improvement” this year.
Still, no F-35, including those deployed to combat units, has been able “to achieve and sustain” the 80% “Mission Capable” goal for the 12 months ending in September called for by then-Defense Secretary James Mattis, Behler said. “However, individual units were able to achieve the 80% target for short periods.”
The Air Force F-35 version, which will constitute the bulk of U.S. purchases, demonstrated the best performance while the Navy’s F-35C fleet has the lowest. The more recent improvements were due to the “greater availability of spare parts” and “longer-term efforts to improve maintenance processes and depot support,” Behler said.
In his statement, Lockheed Martin program manager Greg Ulmer said “readiness rates continue to rise across the fleet, and today we see on average a mission capable rate of more than 70% on combat-coded aircraft.” Earlier this year, the Air Force announced that its airmen and fleet of F-35As participating at Red Flag at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada “delivered 90% mission capable rates during the exercise,” he said.
https://www.stripes.com/news/air-fo...-breaks-down-too-often-pentagon-says-1.607138
LockMart is only using deployed aircraft for its availability rates, going by that metric Rafale has near 100% availability.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
According to the Global Power Index the top 5 Air Forces are:
1) US
2) Russia
3) China
4) India
5) France
Out of those Top 5 Air Forces only one operates the F-35, there are two that operate Rafale.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,558
Well, I mean air forces of rich US/NATO aligned countries.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,558
F-35 program on track to replace Turkey, Pentagon officials say
https://www.defensenews.com/congres...ack-to-replace-turkey-pentagon-officials-say/
https://www.defensenews.com/congres...ack-to-replace-turkey-pentagon-officials-say/
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,558
Pentagon, Lockheed Martin continue dispute over F-35 intellectual property rights
Pat Host, Washington, DC - Jane's Defence Weekly
The ongoing conflict between Lockheed Martin and the US Air Force over F-35 IP rights has contributed to the recently announced full rate production decision delay.
https://www.janes.com/article/92571...ispute-over-f-35-intellectual-property-rights
Pat Host, Washington, DC - Jane's Defence Weekly
The ongoing conflict between Lockheed Martin and the US Air Force over F-35 IP rights has contributed to the recently announced full rate production decision delay.
https://www.janes.com/article/92571...ispute-over-f-35-intellectual-property-rights
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2016
- Messages
- 996
- Likes
- 1,471
Americans should offer f 35 instead of f 21 for MMRCA 2.0...this plane would be a game changer for IAF. Dassault Rafael is no match period.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,558
200 F-35As in IAF + US + Japan + SoKor + Australian F-35s would definitely box China in. Then to supplement F-35s, the IAF can induct 500 F-21s or 1000 Tejas.
Rafale cannot fight on day 1 against China without the massive EW, ELINT, stealth drones, Satellites and other support infra that the US has, and it's very expensive to induct it in huge numbers as secondary fighter. So it's a dead end.
The better thing to do for India is to add more leverage against the US to get F-35. S-400 is good but a better one would be announcing its willingness to join in either SCAF or Tempest projects. Never mind if these projects are uncertain and would take 20 years to start production (judging from past European and even the F-35 projects).
Last edited:
