The F-35 thread, Mk II
Perhaps some more info about F-35B trials PWLS recently and perhaps IZUMO next year:
"...Trials were also carried out with the F-35Bs carrying the maximum load of 22,000 lb, according to a Royal Navy release on Oct. 20, with a PAX ITF F-35B being loaded with a combination of inert 500-pound Paveway IV laser-guided bombs and inert 1,000-pound Paveways."
"...Trials were also carried out with the F-35Bs carrying the maximum load of 22,000 lb, according to a Royal Navy release on Oct. 20, with a PAX ITF F-35B being loaded with a combination of inert 500-pound Paveway IV laser-guided bombs and inert 1,000-pound Paveways."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Easy to obsfucate details with the F-35 because seldom is any detail given deliberately for opsec reasons I guess. Perhaps I am OBSfukatin' 
Meanwhile JPO facefook website says this:
And in a galaxy far far away in 2001 this info was used to help design said F-35 variants to be ship compatible:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf
OLD RAF F-35B info link no longer wurks for image below so it won't be posted.
Meanwhile JPO facefook website says this:
And in a galaxy far far away in 2001 this info was used to help design said F-35 variants to be ship compatible:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf
OLD RAF F-35B info link no longer wurks for image below so it won't be posted.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 15th Nov 2023 at 03:21.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
GIF from an LM briefing PDF about F-35 Weapon Integration: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3370
F-35A beastly model loadout: E7vju7iXMAAb9VV (900×1200) (twimg.com)
F-35A beastly model loadout: E7vju7iXMAAb9VV (900×1200) (twimg.com)
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 15th Nov 2023 at 03:53.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Just for textual LAFFs? Roles F-35B Lightning II "UK F-35B maximum weapon payload of 6 Paveway IV, 2 AIM-120C AMRAAM, 2 AIM-132 ASRAAM & a missionised 25mm gun pod": http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35j...ikefighter.cfm
ETS winter 2012_13 LIGHTNING STRIKES “...Onboard the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, the aircraft would take off at its maximum weight of nearly 27 tonnes using a UK-developed ski-jump,...” (2204.62lbs = 1 tonne 59,535lbs = 27 tonnes) [Wing Commander Hackett explained] ETS Winter 2012-13
ETS winter 2012_13 LIGHTNING STRIKES “...Onboard the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, the aircraft would take off at its maximum weight of nearly 27 tonnes using a UK-developed ski-jump,...” (2204.62lbs = 1 tonne 59,535lbs = 27 tonnes) [Wing Commander Hackett explained] ETS Winter 2012-13
GIF from an LM briefing PDF about F-35 Weapon Integration: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3370
Max hardpoint payload and the max weapon payload will be a bit less, because of pylons
It has caused some debate amongst the Wiki crusaders
On a side note. The B-21 is reported to have a payload of 20-30,000lb.
Last edited by golder; 15th Nov 2023 at 07:12.
I've always been very suspicious of the 22,000 lb (and even the 18,000 lb) payload claim for the F-35. The recently disclosed USAF F-35 vs A-10 report says it has 4 air-to-ground external and 2 internal stations (there are also 2 air-to-air stations) for 4,000 lb. Given it says the A-10 can carry 16,000 lb on 11 stations, you'd have to assume a like-for-like comparison in this table, rather than a per pylon figure for the F-35 and an overall figure for the A-10.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/lightning-f35b/
Maximum take-off weight: around 60,000lb (27,216kg)
Armament: typically two AAMs and two bombs carried internally, with optional 25mm gun pod and underwing pylons enabling stores carriage up to 15,000lb (6,800kg)
____________________________
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35j...ikefighter.cfm
OLD RAF Info (link no work) UK F-35B maximum weapon payload of
6 Paveway IV = 225 Kg x 6 = 3,000 lbs
2 AIM-120C AMRAAM = 710 lbs
2 AIM-132 ASRAAM = 390 lbs
a missionised 25mm gun pod = 800 lbs (my guess)
total 4,900 lbs
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Photo essay: UK Carrier Strike Group completes second phase of 2023 deployment
NOVEMBER 15, 2023 https://www.navylookout.com/photo-es...23-deployment/
"...Exercise Atlantic Trident was planned to test what the RAF calls ‘Agile Combat Deployment’. In a very long overdue recognition that the UK mainland could be targeted by cruise missiles, the first step are being made to operate aircraft dispersed away from their primary bases. AT-23 involved US F-35As, French Airforce and Navy Rafale jets, and RAF Typhoons responding to a simulated attack on their base. The jets conducted missions together but were informed mid-air that airfields had been denied and they were to relocate to RAF Leeming, Yorkshire.
After successfully relocating to a remote corner of the airbase, they established secure communications with HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Diamond to activate F-35Bs on the carrier . The jets provided support and connected with Command and Control Centres on the ground and in the air to receive tasking orders; including counter-air missions to protect the Carrier Support Group.
Typhoons switched their role mid-air from patroling to air-to-surface attack. The F-35Bs stayed on mission for 4 hours by ‘hot-pitting’ on the carrier – to refuel and simulate rearming with engines running. Jets remained airborne by being air-to-air refuelled by French MRTT, US KC135 and RAF Voyager aircraft....
...HMS Queen Elizabeth has now returned to Portsmouth having covered 13,000 nautical miles and achieving 944 aircraft deck landings in the 6-week period. She remains at high readiness..."
Jets operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth participate in UK, US and French Exercise Atlantic Trident
NOVEMBER 15, 2023 https://www.navylookout.com/photo-es...23-deployment/
"...Exercise Atlantic Trident was planned to test what the RAF calls ‘Agile Combat Deployment’. In a very long overdue recognition that the UK mainland could be targeted by cruise missiles, the first step are being made to operate aircraft dispersed away from their primary bases. AT-23 involved US F-35As, French Airforce and Navy Rafale jets, and RAF Typhoons responding to a simulated attack on their base. The jets conducted missions together but were informed mid-air that airfields had been denied and they were to relocate to RAF Leeming, Yorkshire.
After successfully relocating to a remote corner of the airbase, they established secure communications with HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Diamond to activate F-35Bs on the carrier . The jets provided support and connected with Command and Control Centres on the ground and in the air to receive tasking orders; including counter-air missions to protect the Carrier Support Group.
Typhoons switched their role mid-air from patroling to air-to-surface attack. The F-35Bs stayed on mission for 4 hours by ‘hot-pitting’ on the carrier – to refuel and simulate rearming with engines running. Jets remained airborne by being air-to-air refuelled by French MRTT, US KC135 and RAF Voyager aircraft....
...HMS Queen Elizabeth has now returned to Portsmouth having covered 13,000 nautical miles and achieving 944 aircraft deck landings in the 6-week period. She remains at high readiness..."
Jets operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth participate in UK, US and French Exercise Atlantic Trident
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023...-delivery-fix/
Upgraded F-35s fly with partial software as DOD hunts for delivery fix
WASHINGTON — The first production F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with an early, incomplete version of the software powering a key upgrade was flown last week at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas, facility, the company told Defense News.
The Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office is considering whether a strategy of loading interim versions of the Technology Refresh 3 software into the latest F-35s might provide a way to end a months-long delivery halt, and allow the government to start accepting the latest versions of the fighter.
Technology Refresh 3, or TR-3, is the name for a batch of hardware and software upgrades to the newest F-35s, and include better displays, computer memory and processing power. The TR-3 upgrades are necessary to pave the way for a more expansive modernization, known as Block 4, which will allow the F-35 to carry more long-range precision weapons and improve its electronic warfare capabilities and target recognition.
TR-3 has been stymied by software problems and difficulties integrating it with the new hardware, and its schedule has slipped significantly. It was originally expected to arrive in April but has now slipped until well into 2024, perhaps as late as next June.
Lockheed first started rolling jets with the TR-3 hardware off its Fort Worth production line around the end of July. But because the software was not finished, these fighters could not be taken for the check flights necessary for the Defense Department to accept them.
While the Pentagon has halted deliveries, Lockheed has continued building new F-35s with TR-3 hardware and then storing them at Fort Worth. The JPO refused to tell Defense News how many planes are now parked there, citing security concerns, but Lockheed Martin can build roughly a dozen F-35s per month.…..
Upgraded F-35s fly with partial software as DOD hunts for delivery fix
WASHINGTON — The first production F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with an early, incomplete version of the software powering a key upgrade was flown last week at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas, facility, the company told Defense News.
The Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office is considering whether a strategy of loading interim versions of the Technology Refresh 3 software into the latest F-35s might provide a way to end a months-long delivery halt, and allow the government to start accepting the latest versions of the fighter.
Technology Refresh 3, or TR-3, is the name for a batch of hardware and software upgrades to the newest F-35s, and include better displays, computer memory and processing power. The TR-3 upgrades are necessary to pave the way for a more expansive modernization, known as Block 4, which will allow the F-35 to carry more long-range precision weapons and improve its electronic warfare capabilities and target recognition.
TR-3 has been stymied by software problems and difficulties integrating it with the new hardware, and its schedule has slipped significantly. It was originally expected to arrive in April but has now slipped until well into 2024, perhaps as late as next June.
Lockheed first started rolling jets with the TR-3 hardware off its Fort Worth production line around the end of July. But because the software was not finished, these fighters could not be taken for the check flights necessary for the Defense Department to accept them.
While the Pentagon has halted deliveries, Lockheed has continued building new F-35s with TR-3 hardware and then storing them at Fort Worth. The JPO refused to tell Defense News how many planes are now parked there, citing security concerns, but Lockheed Martin can build roughly a dozen F-35s per month.…..
Anything in the way of ordinance you carry externally is going to effectively negate the 'stealth' characteristics of the F-35 (they might be able to come up with some sort of conformal external fuel tank that doesn't significantly affect the radar cross-section, but bombs and missiles would have to somehow go inside that conformal structure to avoid killing stealth). So regardless of the max bomb load weight limit - if have to carry some of it externally you've just effectively limited it to non-contested airspace.
true but historically that's where it'll do 95% of its fighting...................
Just about EVERY fighter started out as nice and clean and then people started hanging vast amounts of really useful stuff on the outside
You always have the option to go back to stealth if you have to
Just about EVERY fighter started out as nice and clean and then people started hanging vast amounts of really useful stuff on the outside
You always have the option to go back to stealth if you have to
true but historically that's where it'll do 95% of its fighting...................
Just about EVERY fighter started out as nice and clean and then people started hanging vast amounts of really useful stuff on the outside
You always have the option to go back to stealth if you have to
Just about EVERY fighter started out as nice and clean and then people started hanging vast amounts of really useful stuff on the outside
You always have the option to go back to stealth if you have to
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Plenty of scenarios where external loads would be carried. Examples off the top of my head.
Scenario 1 - External SOW to be dropped before entering radar cover, external ARM to take-out any high threat emitters to protect follow up follow up attacks and HVA, then penetrate once clean to take out further AD assets with internal PGMs.
Scenario 2 - AD flight of 4 on sweep for enemy HVA., pair up-threat with 4 internal AMRAAM, second pair fully loaded with 4 external AMRAAM + 4 internal in 50-60nm trail. Lead pair engage any HVA fighter cover which commits against rear pair and provides weapons guidance for external missiles from rear pair until they join the fight having shed their external load.
Scenario 1 - External SOW to be dropped before entering radar cover, external ARM to take-out any high threat emitters to protect follow up follow up attacks and HVA, then penetrate once clean to take out further AD assets with internal PGMs.
Scenario 2 - AD flight of 4 on sweep for enemy HVA., pair up-threat with 4 internal AMRAAM, second pair fully loaded with 4 external AMRAAM + 4 internal in 50-60nm trail. Lead pair engage any HVA fighter cover which commits against rear pair and provides weapons guidance for external missiles from rear pair until they join the fight having shed their external load.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Maintainers at Hill Air Force Base in Utah are stitching two damaged F-35As into one fully operational aircraft
The front fuselage section of AF-211 (nose gear separation) is being replaced with that of AF-27 (engine fire).
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/458844...ative-endeavor
The front fuselage section of AF-211 (nose gear separation) is being replaced with that of AF-27 (engine fire).
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/458844...ative-endeavor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,035
Received 2,903 Likes
on
1,244 Posts
This is just absolutely crazy for a military fighter.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/incapa...ired-from-the/
South Korean Air Force decided to retire its F-35A Lightning II fighter jet after a bird strike in January 2022. The cost of repairing the aircraft was estimated at 140 billion won ($107.6 million), which exceeds the cost of purchasing a new F-35A aircraft.
In January 2022, a South Korean F-35 pilot was compelled to execute a “belly landing” following a bird hit during a training session that resulted in an avionics system malfunction.
At the time, the ROKAF revealed that a 10-kilogram eagle hit the jet in the left air intake of the aircraft.
This accident led to the penetration of a bulkhead into the weapons room, damaging hydraulic duct and power supply cables. This interfered with the operation of the landing gear. Consequently, the aircraft had to belly land, but the pilot was unhurt.
This unforeseen incident triggered deliberations on repair expenses, ultimately culminating in the decision to retire the aircraft due to financial constraints and heightened security concerns, reported South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency on December 1.
The report said a detailed analysis involving the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, revealed alarming damage to nearly 300 crucial components, encompassing critical areas such as the airframe, structure, engine, and control and navigation systems.
The severity of the damage raised concerns regarding both the exorbitant costs of repair, estimated at around 140 billion won (equivalent to US$107.6 million), and the extensive time required to restore the aircraft to operational status.
The expense of repairs surpasses the original acquisition cost of the F-35A, initially estimated at 110 billion won. Considering this financial gap and the extended repair duration, the Air Force deemed retirement a more practical choice.
At the time, the ROKAF revealed that a 10-kilogram eagle hit the jet in the left air intake of the aircraft.
This accident led to the penetration of a bulkhead into the weapons room, damaging hydraulic duct and power supply cables. This interfered with the operation of the landing gear. Consequently, the aircraft had to belly land, but the pilot was unhurt.
This unforeseen incident triggered deliberations on repair expenses, ultimately culminating in the decision to retire the aircraft due to financial constraints and heightened security concerns, reported South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency on December 1.
The report said a detailed analysis involving the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, revealed alarming damage to nearly 300 crucial components, encompassing critical areas such as the airframe, structure, engine, and control and navigation systems.
The severity of the damage raised concerns regarding both the exorbitant costs of repair, estimated at around 140 billion won (equivalent to US$107.6 million), and the extensive time required to restore the aircraft to operational status.
The expense of repairs surpasses the original acquisition cost of the F-35A, initially estimated at 110 billion won. Considering this financial gap and the extended repair duration, the Air Force deemed retirement a more practical choice.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/incapa...ired-from-the/
From the latest review of the UK National Equipment plan
F35-B combat aircraft third front-line squadron (Royal Air Force) The investment cost of developing a third front-line squadron increases the capital budget shortfall by £0.1 billion between 2023-24 and 2026-27, and this option is not accompanied by funding of £0.4 billion needed to operate the squadron.
F35-B combat aircraft third front-line squadron (Royal Air Force) The investment cost of developing a third front-line squadron increases the capital budget shortfall by £0.1 billion between 2023-24 and 2026-27, and this option is not accompanied by funding of £0.4 billion needed to operate the squadron.