F-35 Lightning II developments

[Bram]

Morning,

Can anyone tel me whic F-35's are based at Nas Pax River.

Mtia for any help

Regards

Bram Marijnissen

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Piet Luijken]

The first F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter ever to land at Cherry Point taxied up to Fleet Readiness Center East Tuesday morning. The stealth jet, Navy Bureau Number 168059, is only the second production model of the F-35B to be completed by manufacturer Lockheed Martin. It arrived at the FRC East maintenance and repair facility as the first F-35B to enter a modification program that officials have said would be vital to the maintenance of the entire fleet of fifth-generation aircraft. ( From jdnews. )

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Starfighter_F-104G]

I received the list last year ... must be confirmed

[Coati]

Morning,

Can anyone tel me whic F-35's are based at Nas Pax River.

Mtia for any help

Regards

Bram Marijnissen

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

F-35B: BF-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18 (last with code VM-13 and buno 168314)
F-35C: CF-1, 2, 3, 5

BF-17 is at Edwards at the moment AFAIK as part of 461 FLTS and CF-8 (168735/ED-104) will be added to the fleet soon.

[Bram]

Hi Coati,

Thanks for the list Much appreciated by me

Regards

Bram Marijnissen

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Alpha Kilo One]

Not quite a development, but anybody read this article....?
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

Ronald

[Flyboy]

Not quite a development, but anybody read this article....?

Thanks for the link. Although a nice and clear list, it begins with the same mistake ever. One does not compare goodies to each other, but to a need (which has to be defined yet by our defense minister)

Several Air dominance fighters are compared to an all do-er: The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, thus has a superb radar (as an example) and the F-35 is a "one size fits all, for all services..." Which contains to mayor set of compromises. This is done by design as the thought is that this will reduce costs!!

The other question you may ask yourself is: do you want to buy from uncle Vladimir and or uncle Xi. Having answered this question will most likely result in European or American hardware. As the F-22 is not for sale (not even to the Israel...) the only hardware available will remain the F-35, Rafale and EF2000 (and F/18E/F, JAS39). And the latter are an other class than the Australian Comparison.

About the comparison (from a tactical point of view). If you want to use stealth, you don´t want to use your radar as it is an electronic lighthouse in the dark and gives you away immediately. So awarding points for both is a bit awkward IMHO. Same goes for counting both Specific excess power AND thrust to weight ratio. In a way its more or less the same counted twice. And it seems a 5th gen needs multi engine????

The comparison may be a nice document for price negotiations, but not for a selection in my view (and you can´t call me pro F-35 )

[ehusmann]

I agree with Flyboy, a comparison between the JSF and F-22/PAK-FA/etc doesn't really go well. These are different type planes, used by different air forces, in different roles. Let alone the comparison with the F-105 at the bottom... although I have to admit, the both have forward angled intakes

What I did find interesting though is the check in 5th generation. Looking at that table, the JSF is far from 5th gen. Yet, the fact it is supposed to be 5th gen has been used several times to promote the JSF.

The point about the radar and stealth I do not agree with though. IF you use stealth you might not want to use the radar, but at the same time, not all missions require stealth. So having both certainly can be an advantage.

Erwin

[SpudmanWP]

Let’s clear a few things up:
The term “5th Gen” started out as a marketing term without any clear definition. It has since been adopted to define a fighter with a VLO airframe & integrated avionics. Beyond that, it’s pretty much icing on the cake.

As far as that APA chart goes, it’s the typical “hide, obfuscate, lie, and make skat up” that we have become accustomed to from APA.

Let’s take a look at the way they put that chart together.

1. Super Cruise:

• a. Neither the Pak Fa or J-20 has demonstrated or announced super cruise numbers yet they get a pass.
  b. What exactly are the Su-35’s super cruise numbers? How is it armed?
  c. The JSF program announced that the F-35 can “maintain m1.2”, ie super cruise, yet are marked a “-1”

2. High Agility:

• a. Yes, the F-35 will likely not have the best agility of the three
  b. The APA’s biggest mistake here is “stuffing the ballot box” with numerous ways of saying the same thing in order to make the F-35 look as bad as possible. All of the following are all part of the same thing:
  • i. High Agility
    ii. High Specific Excess Power
    iii. Thrust Vectoring
    iv. Large Thrust to Weight Multi-Engine Thrust Growth
    v. High Combat Ceiling Loiter / Operate

3. Highly Integrated Avionics:

• a. Despite the F-22 and F-35 having a long design history of avionics superiority and integration, they are placed on par with jets that have relatively none (especially the J-20).
  b. No mention of LPI & Directional datalinks and how they allow the seamless and uninterrupted sharing of data.

4. Electronically Steered Array (ESA) Radar:

• a. APA’s mistake is basing the entire scale on power alone and leaving out tech, LPI, integration, CPU processing capabilities, etc.

5. Sidelooking ESA Apertures:

• a. Why is the J-20 given a pass when there is no data?
  b. Since when does a gimbaled array considered “side looking”?
  c. Is there any official word on Pak Fa’s arrays besides artist’s rendering?

6. High Situational Awareness (SA) - Onboard/Offboard:

• a. Again, everyone given parity when there are glaring differences in systems
  b. F-22 has no IRST, FLIR, EODAS, or HMD. Did it ever get SATCOM?
  c. Pak Fa & J-20 have no FLIR, Directional Datalink (no info). They have MAWS apertures but I am not sure on EODAS-like functionality. SATCOM?

7. Supersonic Weapons Delivery:

• a. Everyone gets a pass… except the F-35 (really, “bomber doors”?). This is one the outright lies that APA is pushing.
  b. Numerous times the program has stated that AMRAAMs can be launched at m1.6 and everything else they just said supersonic. The F-35 has already demonstrated the ability to operate its bay doors up to m1.6 9durring flutter testing).

8. Large Thrust to Weight Multi-Engine Thrust Growth:

• a. How does having two engines give you better growth potential than one? If you have the tech to increase engine thrust by x% for two engines, then that same x% of one engine will benefit you just the same.

9. Good Non RF Observables:

• a. Oh goody, the made up skat.
  b. His own linked Thales pdf states that all tests were done at less than 2km.
  c. Thales stated that the rcs of a wake vortex from a medium sized jumbo jet was 0.01m^2. How small would it be for a fighter jet?
  d. Given that wake vortex gets worse the heavier the plane is, why is the F-35 (the lightest of all the planes) given the worst score?

10. Large Internal Usable Fuel Load (klbs):

• a. APA’s blatant mistake is looking at total pounds and ignoring how it’s used.
  b. The point of “Usable Fuel” is how far you can go with it, aka range.
  c. Why is the F-22 given a better score than the F-35 when the F-35 has a better range?

Parting thought:
The APA stuffed the box with related features to decrease the F-35’s score, yet did not add unique F-35 features as a way of increasing its score. What about:

• 1. EODAS for offensive & defensive ops
  2. EODAS for navigation
  3. Jamming using the radar
  4. Directional Datalinks (Feature shared with the F-22’s IFDL)
  5. UAI
  6. Ability to carry 2k class weapons internally
  7. STOVL
  8. Ship-board ops
  9. Pulse-for-pulse fusion of the radar and ESM
  10. Pre-wired for NGJ

Before you say “That feature is ‘planned’ in plane X”, then what about F-35’s documented plans (that are currently being paid for)?
Items like:

• 1. 3-AAMs per bay (6 total)
  2. DIRCM
  3. Thrust improvements in the F-135
  4. ADVENT engine
  5. Weight reductions

My point is that the APA twisted the ground rules of the chart to try and push their agenda without having any non-public data on which to base a conclusion. This is one of the reasons why they were just about laughed out of the Australian Parliamentary Testimony last year.

[tally]

CF-9 in green primer color for first flight last Saturday, Jul 13, 2013.

[Coati]

Some Italy news:

First fuselage for the first Italian F-35A (part of LRIP-6) arrived at Cameri this week, with c/n AL-1.

http://www.aviationpros.com/news/110473 ... n-aircraft

Further last week a long lead order was signed for the next batch of F-35s for the Italian Air force, consisting of 3 F-35A en 1 F35B. Total on order now are 13 F-35A and 1 F-35B. Italy plans to purchase 90 F-35s: 60 F-35A and 15 F-35B for the Air Force, plus another 15 F-35B for the Navy.

[Starfighter_F-104G]

''13'' are you sure?

I have
FY12 LRIP 6 nr 3 F-35A
FY13 LIRP 7 nr 4 F-35A
FY14 LRIP 8 nr 3 F-35A , 1 F-35B

[Coati]

FY12 LRIP 6 nr 3 F-35A
FY13 LIRP 7 nr 3 F-35A
FY14 LRIP 8 nr 4 F-35A
FY15 LRIP 9 nr 3 F-35A , 1 F-35B

"Italy has so far confirmed orders for three F-35As each in LRIP 6 and 7, and provided initial funding for four more in Lot 8. The defence ministry is also believed to have advanced funds for three F-35As and a first F-35B for the navy as part of LRIP 9."

(actually the F-35B is intended for the air force)

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ws-388441/

[Coati]

Photos of AF-41, the 100th production F-35 being constructed. This aircraft, the 11th F-35A of LRIP-5, is the first F-35 destined for Luke AFB.

http://fightercountry.org/f-35/af-41-lo ... -afb/76378

[tally]

Not positive if these are first flights or not. However I have not seen any notifications as such for these two.

AF-30 as 10-5018/EG wearing 58 FS markings. It took to the skies over North Texas as "Lightning 31" today. 20 minutes later it was back on the ground after declaring an IFE due to an electrical issues.
AF-33 as 11-5022. No markings what so ever. As a matter of fact it is still in its birthday suit (primer). It took to the skies over North Texas as "Lightning 41" today.