F-16.net

- Successful IRCM ignition demonstrated on F-16. Currently characterizing IRCM A/G and A/A performance

SpudmanWP wrote:IRCM = InfRared CounterMeasures

ie, flares

SpudmanWP wrote:IRCM = InfRared CounterMeasures

ie, flares

Beazz wrote:Admins:
Can we get the RAR limit up to 9 megs as I have several docs that when RAR'ed are between 8 and 9 megs.

Beazz

SpudmanWP wrote:IRCM = InfRared CounterMeasures

ie, flares

SpudmanWP wrote:fap?

SpudmanWP wrote:It's using the same gun as the Harrier and is a more accurate and deadlier gun than the 20mm ones on F-15, F-16, F-22, etc.

SpudmanWP wrote:btw, the USAF is working of laser-guided A2A rounds.... ROF would no longer be an issue.

SpudmanWP wrote:Start on page 18 of this PDF. They have been working on this for over 10 years.

SpudmanWP wrote:Something new... Presentations with AUDIO
I will try to get the files pulled off the site by themselves.

energo wrote:Nicely spotted SpudmanWP.

A pdf on the F-35s ALGS framework; Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment.

Source: http://lean.mit.edu/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=776

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

SpudmanWP wrote:I came across the 2009 (December 1-3) Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Conference. There are many presentations about the F-35 ground and bird-strike testing.

Webpage: http://www.asipcon.com/Proceedings/2009 ... agenda.asp

I did not upload the "Finite Element Analysis Validation for STOVL" report because it was to large (11mb). Here is the link.
http://www.asipcon.com/Proceedings/2009 ... /P2800.pdf

--update--

I found a good article from the 2008 Conference (again, too large to upload) on Bonded Control Surfaces.
http://www.asipcon.com/2008proceedings/ ... /P1746.pdf

.

SpudmanWP wrote:01 April 2010
LM Fast Facts

Original Location: Available Here

Is there anyone awake at the LM PR dept? You would think they would wait at least till the 2nd before releasing this.

Key points:
1. STOVL operations
2. First use of Gen2 Helmet
.

Average Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost (in FY 2002 dollars – the most recent comprehensive estimate)
F-35A upper-$40 million
F-35B mid-$60 million
F-35C mid-$60 million

SpudmanWP wrote:The devil is in the details.

That cost quote is:

Average Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost (in FY 2002 dollars – the most recent comprehensive estimate)
F-35A upper-$40 million
F-35B mid-$60 million
F-35C mid-$60 million

There is nothing wrong with that estimation. It is based on the REC flyaway in FY2002 dollars. The recent news articles about soaring costs have been in Then Year dollars (with inflation added) and for total program cost, not just REC Flyaway.

bandit66 wrote:sextemusin whatever....are you really in mexico city?

Joint Strike Fighter Program Office has authorized a series of publications to be produced by Faircount Media Group. Volume I “Commemorating First Flight” was published in December 2006 to coincide with the F-35’s maiden flight on 12/15/06.
The series will continue early in 2010 with Volume II “Commemorating Delivery” as the program continues its System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase. The “Delivery” edition will contain introductory messages and interviews from JSF program personnel and senior military staff. The publication will also contain feature stories that examine the continuing chronology of the program, the international partnerships, the aircraft’s testing program, the aircraft’s design, airframe, flight systems, technology, and weaponry.

spazsinbad wrote:F-35 Live Fire Test: Full-Up Systems Level Testing

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews ... ring10.pdf (3.3Mb)

"The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) (F-35, Lightning II) Vulnerability and Live Fire Test Team will be
conducting Full-Up System Level (FUSL) testing on the 1st JSF System Design and Development
(SDD) aircraft (2AA:0001). The F-35 live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) strategy is to conduct a
comprehensive test and evaluation of the system-level vulnerability and lethality of all three F-35
variants against ballistic and advanced threats. The original LFT&E strategy for determining the
system-level vulnerability for the F-35 family of aircraft was founded on the FUSL testing of an
F-35 short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. The approach for the remaining two
variants was to leverage the high degree of commonality between the F-35 family of aircraft by
conducting Full-Up testing of the variant unique features and component/system level tests. The
waiver approving this live fire (LF) strategy was approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L) on 25 October 2001."

Code: Select all

F-35 Specifications
         F-35A CTOL               F-35B STOVL            F-35C CV
Length       51.4 ft / 15.67 m          51.2 ft / 15.61 m       51.5 ft / 15.7 m
Height       14.2 ft                  14.1 ft             14.9 ft
Speed       Mach 1.6(~1,200 mph)      Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)   Mach 1.6(~1,200 mph)
Wingspan    35 ft / 10.67 m          35 ft / 10.67 m       43 ft / 13.11 m
Wing area    460 ft2 / 42.7 m2          460 ft2 / 42.7 m2       668 ft2 / 62.06 m2
Horizontal
tail span    23 ft                   22 ft                26 ft
Combat radius(internal fuel)
         >590 nm / 1,093 km          >450 nm / 833 km       >600 n.mi / 1,111 km
Range(internal fuel)
         >1,200 nm / 2,222 km       >900 nm / 1,667 km       >1,200 n.mi / 2,222 km
Internal fuel capacity
         18,250 lb / 8278 kg       13,500 lb / 6,123.5 kg    19,750 lb / 8,958.5 kg
Weight empty
         29,300 lb                32,000 lb             34,800 lb
Maximum weight
         70,000 lb class          60,000 lb class       70,000 lb class
Max g-rating
         9.0                   7.0                7.5
Weapons payload
         18,000 lb / 8,164.67 kg    15,000 lb / 6,803.89 kg 18,000 lb / 8,164.67 kg

cola wrote:Any idea, why is F135 in March 2012, listed as 40k/25k lb class engine, instead of 43k/28k?

spazsinbad wrote:I'll bite - where is F135 listed as a '43,/28k'? I can answer 'where' but you will have to ask LM 'why'.

http://www.f135engine.com/proven-tech/e ... cter.shtml

Prinz_Eugn wrote:10 minutes of hover! That's crazy.

energo wrote:March 14 2013 Fast Facts and Program Status.

"Since December 2006, F-35s have flown more than 5,800 flights and accrued more than 8,900 cumulative flight hours. This total includes 91 flights from the original test aircraft, AA-1; 3,242 SDD test flights; and more than 2,490 production-model flights.'

"Program Status
SDD flight test activity totals for 2013 as of Aug 31, are provided below:
- F-35A Flight Science aircraft have flown 186 times
- F-35B Flight Science aircraft have completed 236 flights
- F-35C Flight Science aircraft have flown 143 times
- The Mission Systems Test Aircraft have flown 224 times

Since December 2006, F-35s have flown more than 6,000 flights and accrued more than 9,000 cumulative flight hours. This total includes 91 flights from the original test aircraft, AA-1; 3,384 SDD test flights; and more than 2,658 production-model flights."

Program Status

SDD flight test activity totals for 2013 as of Sept. 30, are provided below:

o F-35A Flight Science aircraft have flown 208 times
o F-35B Flight Science aircraft have completed 260 flights
o F-35C Flight Science aircraft have flown 168 times
o The Mission Systems Test Aircraft have flown 262 times

Since December 2006, F-35s have flown more than 6,500 flights and accrued more than 10,200 cumulative flight hours. This total includes 91 flights from the original test aircraft, AA-1; 3,493 SDD test flights and more than 3,000 production-model flights.

"...The F-35A is comprised of 280,000 individual parts while the F-35B is made up of 300,000. The F-35C consists of 290,000 individual parts. Despite their differences, the three variants are actually 80 percent common."

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 18 Feb 2014

SOURCE: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... ry2014.pdf (182Kb)

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Store Separation Flight Test and Analysis
2013 Chris Hetreed Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
2013 MSC Software Users Conference May 7-8, 2013 Irvine, CA

Source: http://pages.mscsoftware.com/rs/mscsoft ... alysis.pdf (4.0Mb)

"...Since December 2006, F-35s have flown more than 23,000 cumulative flight hours...."

SpudmanWP wrote:Here is the 1996 to 2007 F-35 SAR

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_m ... resent.pdf

AAA and missile fragment-induced damage stressed
the structural limitations of the forward fuselage fuel
tanks (F-1 and F-2). Cascading effects from the F-1 tank
damage included a large fuel release into the cockpit and
damage to the pilot seat mounting structure. To mitigate
the vulnerability to the pilot, the Program Office has
recently altered the F-35B fuel burn strategy so that the
F-1 tank behind the pilot empties sooner. Threat-induced
damage in these fuel tank tests also caused large fuel
discharge into the engine inlet, which would have likely
caused engine failures due to fuel ingestion. The engine
was not installed for these tests.

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts
23 April 2015 LM Dept of Prop Agenda

"...Since December 2006, F-35s have flown more than 30,000 cumulative flight hours...."

Source: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... 2q2015.pdf (66Kb)

eskodas wrote:Anyone have the document for this

DOTE 2014 Live Fire Test and Evaluation
F-35B Full-Scale Structural System Vulnerability Assessment

AAA and missile fragment-induced damage stressed
the structural limitations of the forward fuselage fuel
tanks (F-1 and F-2). Cascading effects from the F-1 tank
damage included a large fuel release into the cockpit and
damage to the pilot seat mounting structure. To mitigate
the vulnerability to the pilot, the Program Office has
recently altered the F-35B fuel burn strategy so that the
F-1 tank behind the pilot empties sooner. Threat-induced
damage in these fuel tank tests also caused large fuel
discharge into the engine inlet, which would have likely
caused engine failures due to fuel ingestion. The engine
was not installed for these tests.

REPORT OF THE DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD TASK FORCE ON JOINT ADVANCED STRIKE TECHNOLOGY (JAST) PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 1994

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION
In 1993, with a new administration and significant changes in the national security environment, the Office of the Secretary of Defense initiated a Bottom-Up Review (BUR) to address the balance among budget priorities, national military strategy, and forces. Initially, the BUR defined a broad range of future contingencies that could require U.S. military forces-land, sea, air, and space-and a force level to meet those contingencies.

At that time, there were plans to acquire four new aircraft over the next decade and a half-the Air Force's F-22 and Multi-Role Fighter (MRF), and the Navy's F/A-18E/F and A/F-X. In addition, a Science and Technology program was under way at the Advanced Research Projects Agency focusing on the Marine Corps requirement for an Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) aircraft.

The Air Force's F-22 was envisioned as the means to sustain an adequate margin of air superiority capability over any future adversary. The MRF was designed to be the future mainstay multi-mission sortie generator in the Air Force inventory. The F-16-currently filling that role-is expected to reach the end of its useful service life 15 years hence.

The Navy's needs were more immediate. First was a more capable, longer-range variant of the F/A-18 for use by both the Navy and Marine Corps. The F/A-18E/F program was well into development. Second, the cancellation of the A-12 in 1991 left the Navy with the unfulfilled requirement for first-daysurvivable, stand-alone, longer-range strike capability. The AIF-X was to satisfy that requirement.

The ASTOVL program objective was to produce one or more test articles to demonstrate improved short/vertical take-off and landing capabilities that could satisfy the Marine Corps requirement more substantially than could the AV-8B. It might also fill some future Navy ship-based aircraft needs. A second conventional take-off and landing variant configured with additional fuel tanks in place of the ASTOVL's lift propulsion was envisioned for possible use by the Air Force.

The BUR's deliberations reviewed the need for these programs and whether they were affordable. The BUR found that there were not enough resources to support all these programs in the Future Years Defense Program. Still, there was a valid need for the diverse capabilities they were intended to provide. The decision was to continue with the F-22 and F/A-18E/F programs and to cancel the AIF-X and MRF. The decision on ASTOVL was to continue that research, but to require some commitment of resources by at least two of the three Services before building a flying prototype.

The BUR also confirmed the Services' continuing needs that were to be addressed by the cancelled A/F-X and MRF programs. That led to establishing the Joint Advanced Strike Technology Program in July 1993. Throughout the remainder of this summary and in the full report, this program is referred to simply as JAST.

In an Appendix to its November 1993 report on Tactical Air Warfare, the Defense Science Board (DSB) provided some early suggestions to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology) on the structure and focus for the JAST Program. Subsequently, in April of 1994, the Defense Science Board was asked to form a Task Force to examine several areas in more detail - “the structure of JAST; the schedule, sequencing of activities, emphases and levels of effort appropriate; innovative, high payoff concepts for inclusion in the program; and the acquisition strategy for aircraft that might result.” This report responds to that request and addresses the nine questions in the Terms of Reference (TOR) memorandum (signed 10 May 1994). The TOR is at Appendix A.

The Task Force saw the JAST organization and approach as a special situation in which the limited though important purpose was to address advanced next-generation strike systems needs. The Task Force went to some lengths to ensure that responses were focused on the terms of reference specifically for the JAST program. At the same time, most of the Task Force's work is applicable to a far wider range of acquisition policy and management issues. The Task Force strongly recommends that this work be used in that broader context as well as in support of the specific purposes of JAST.

The Task Force first convened in April of 1994 and met periodically through early September. The Task Force members are listed in Appendix B. The meeting schedule and other events are listed in Appendix C."
&
"2. Multi-Service Requirements
The Task Force reviewed the work of the Services, the BUR, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the JAST Program Office, and previous DSB efforts to gain appreciation and understanding of mission needs and requirements for next-generation strike systems. More definition of broad requirements is needed to lead to JAST products with characteristics that will provide useful military options to help meet diverse challenges to U.S. national interests in the post-cold war environment.

Analysis and the lessons of recent history suggest that key JAST requirements for new aircraft should include the capability to (I) operate with minimum support in the theater, (2) operate in small formations or a single aircraft with minimum or no close escort or penetrating supporting elements, (3) operate in high threat areas with minimum attrition, and (4) deliver precision weapons that provide high lethality against a variety of targets, while precluding unwanted collateral damage. Further, noting the diversity and global nature of the possible future challenges to U.S. interests, we stress the importance of a family of advanced strike capabilities available from land- and sea-based options.

The Task Force considered requirements from two perspectives-sustaining force levels (quantity) and force modernization (quality). Needs are grouped into three time periods; near-, mid-, and far-term, with JAST-based products addressing the mid-term. There are shortfalls in sustaining force levels in the near-term before the planned IOC of a JAST-based aircraft (2007-2010), but the magnitude of that problem is not compelling, as there are procurement, remanufacture, or service life extension options that can meet Services’ needs to sustain the force.

The key need for JAST-based products is force modernization in the mid-term. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps presented diverse needs. The Navy requirement is for a “first-day-survivable, stand-alone, strike fighter” - a capability they need today. However, in the absence of a near-term solution, that is a need to be addressed by JAST. The Air Force requirement is for a future replacement for the F-16, their current “multi-role sortie generator.” The timing of that need is consistent with a plausible IOC for a JAST-based next-generation strike fighter. The Marine Corps is seeking a STOVL aircraft with better payload and survivability than that of the AV-8B. As with the Air Force, the timing of the Marine Corps’ requirement fits the achievable JAST schedule.

These diverse requirements are difficult to reconcile in a multi-Service vehicle. The Task Force supports the need for the FA-18E/F to fill the near-term need for a Navy multi-mission, sortie producer. However, that solution defers satisfying the Navy’s need for a “high-end” strike aircraft. We are concerned with the projected 15-year wait for a Navy strike aircraft that would have adequate first-day survivability while delivering precision weapons.

The Task Force did not attempt to present a particular solution or to stipulate particular requirements. The Task Force did emphasize that there will be no solution to multi-Service strike system needs until joint requirements are better defined.

The Task Force found that the numbers of new aircraft needed to sustain force levels in all three Services require that there be revolutionary improvements in aircraft affordability. Figure ES-2 summarizes findings and recommendations."
&
"...• JAST-based aircraft should be designed to leverage the strike architecture to include off-board systems

• The Services should consider subordinating the marginal safety issues of one vs. two engines to affordability and commonality

• JAST should quickly sort out the relative merits of incremental improvements from the two person crew and the added affordability of a single cockpit design

• JAST also should quickly sort out the need for internal vs. external carriage of weapons against the range of scenarios, threats, and targets addressed..."
&
"......The issue of one vs. two engines also will be difficult to resolve with convincing logic. There have been many studies on the subject. Most show a safety edge for two engines given rough equality in mission and operating conditions but none of the studies is conclusive. So, one versus two engine decisions have been primarily based on thrust needs rather than on safety. The F-14, F-15 and F-18 needed the thrust from two engines. The F-16 did not. The STOVL design virtually dictates a single high-thrust engine. In any case, the Task Force concluded that, with modem engine reliability, the one vs. two engine question is not a conclusive flight safety issue. Affordability and performance should be the drivers.

Given the range of thrust output of available modern engines, it might be wise to consider simply mandating single engine designs because of affordability...."
&
"...The perception is that stealth designs are fragile and expensive to maintain. The past decade has seen significant progress in creating more durable, environmentally friendly materials. Similarly, enhanced designs have been developed to reduce the maintenance of openings and apertures in LO systems.

Limited resources have not allowed any significant updates to the F-117 to reduce the supportability cost due to LO. The B-2 was designed to further reduce the cost of LO maintenance, and its performance is just beginning to emerge as the system gains operational experience. The F-22 is being designed to even further reduce the LO maintenance cost while significantly reducing the overall supportability burden.

The JAST should support demonstrations in both laboratory and operational environments that will validate the robustness of today's most promising LO materials and designs...."

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a292094.pdf (5.1Mb)

"F-35 Delivery Status
162 F-35s have been delivered to the Department of Defense as of Oct. 20:
• 142 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Aircraft
o 81 F-35As (including four international aircraft)
o 43 F-35Bs (including three international aircraft)
o 18 F-35Cs

• 20 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft complete the test and development fleet:
o Edwards AFB, Calif. - four F-35As.
o PAX River NAS, Md. - five F-35Bs and four F-35Cs.
o This count includes six static aircraft and AA-1 stationed around the world."

"...Given the significant increase in military capabilities provided, it is reasonable to expect F-35A to cost more to operate and sustain than 4th generation legacy aircraft."

"...F-35s have flown nearly 60,000 cumulative flight hours since Dec. 2006...."

F-35 LIGHTNING II COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY ANALYSIS
July 2016 Aviation News, Tom Kaminski

"Lockheed Martin has developed the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to fulfill multiple missions. It is produced in three basic versions: the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A, the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B and the carrier variant (CV) F-35C. So far 12 customers have announced plans to acquire the Lightning II, as Tom Kaminski explains....

...Production deliveries began in 2011 and by the end of March 2016, Lockheed Martin had delivered 162 aircraft comprising 92 F-35A, 28 F-35B and 22 F-35C models with 229 F-35s currently under contract. More than 250 pilots and 2,400 maintainers from six nations have been qualified through the F-35 training units..."

Source: Aviation News July 2016

bojack_horseman wrote:Is there video transmission to ground troops?
Like the ROVER system?

spazsinbad wrote:Latest 3rd Quarter LM F-35 Fast Facts dated 13 Sep 2016 attached

"F-35s have flown more than 68,000 cumulative flight hours since Dec. 2006."

Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... q2016_.pdf

zero-one wrote:Just a few things on the specifications table,

Dragon029 wrote:

zero-one wrote:Just a few things on the specifications table,

The Lockheed figures are just the threshold minimum requirements of the airframe; the SAR and DOT&E reports have the actual current performance / spec figures.

neptune wrote:

Dragon029 wrote:

zero-one wrote:Just a few things on the specifications table,

The Lockheed figures are just the threshold minimum requirements of the airframe; the SAR and DOT&E reports have the actual current performance / spec figures.

...do you care to add those links???? please.....

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts [ATTACHED]
30 Jan 2017 LM PR

"...LRIP 9 Aircraft Costs (including jet, engine and profit):
o 42 F-35As CTOL - $102.1 million/jet
o 13 F-35B STOVL - $131.6 million/jet
o--2 F-35C CV-- - --$132.2 million/jet...

...F-35s have flown more than 80,000 cumulative flight hours since December 2006.

Current as of Jan.30, 2017

Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... n_2017.pdf (86Kb)

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts
30 Jan 2017 LM PR


F135-PW-100
40,000 lbs Max.
25,000 lbs Mil.
Vertical N/A

F135-PW-600
40,000 lbs Max.
25,000 lbs Mil.
40,500 lbs Vertical


Current as of Jan.30, 2017

Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... n_2017.pdf (86Kb)

Dragon029 wrote:This was brought up literally on the previous page of this thread; they're minimum spec values.

"...“F-35s have flown more than 85,000 cumulative flight hours since December 2006.”

The latest F-35 GM weekly update PDF is not the right one. It is an old - one year out of date - PDF. The date is supposed to be 3/13/17 however the link is to one dated 3/17/16. Someone has dyslexia.

AT: https://www.f35.com/resources/general-m ... kly-update:

RONG PDF: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... _17_16.pdf (0.67Mb)

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts
12 May 2017 LM PR

"F-35s have flown more than 90,000 cumulative flight hours since December 2006."

Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... _2017_.pdf (0.37Mb)

F-35 Lightning II Program Status [ATTACHED]
June 2017 Created 13 Jul 2017 Alison Orme

United States Marine Corps
Program of record: 366 F-35Bs/67 F-35Cs

United States Navy
Program of record: 260 F-35Cs

United States Air Force
Program of record: 1,763 F-35As -------- [Grand Total = 2,456]

Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... (june_2017).pdf (0.5Mb)

LM F-35 Fast Facts 08 Jun 2017 [ATTACHED]
13 Jul 2017 "Rein, Michael J (US)"

"...F-35s have flown more than 95,000 cumulative flight hours since December 2006....

...Program of Record
USAF 1,763 F-35As DoN (USN/USMC) 693 F-35B/Cs" [= 2,456 total]

Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... _2017_.pdf (0.34Mb)

"F-35 Unit Cost Dec 2016 SAR
The DoD average F-35 Aircraft Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost consists of the Hardware (Airframe, Vehicle Systems,
Mission Systems, and Engineering Change Order) costs over the life of the program. The URF assumes the quantity
benefits of 132 FMS aircraft and 609 International Partner aircraft.

The current estimate for F-35 total procurement quantity increased from 2443 to 2456. This is the result of an increase of 13 F-35B aircraft to be procured by the United States Marine Corps (USMC). The increase is reflected in both the aircraft and engine subprogram and results in a change from 680 to 693 in the Department of Navy Aircraft Procurement accounts. The USMC validated this requirement through the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council (MROC). The additional aircraft are fully funded and the funding is reflected in the FY 2018 President's Budget submission. The additional aircraft were added after the completion of the congressionally directed Department-wide fighter mix study. The strategic review will assess future tactical fighter force inventory requirements across the Department.

F-35A (Conventional Take Off and Landing) URF - $67.7M (BY 2012)
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $77.1M (BY 2012)
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $78.1M (BY 2012)"

SpudmanWP wrote:Wait.. the A2G Combat radius is now LONGER for the F-35A??

[SAR Dec 2016] "Change Explanations
(Ch-1) Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Change 3 dated August 19, 2008 as modified by JROC Memorandum 040-12 dated March 16, 2012. For Demonstrated Performance, extensive flight test data was used to calibrate the aero-performance model. The values listed herein as “Demonstrated Performance” are based on the final aero-performance model (up-and-away) for the F-35A and F-35B."

spazsinbad wrote::doh: This li'l lot snuck in late I reckon - probably juggling the USMC upgraded numbers of F-35Bs I reckon.

F-35 Lightning II Program Status [ATTACHED]
June 2017 Created 13 Jul 2017 Alison Orme

United States Marine Corps
Program of record: 366 F-35Bs/67 F-35Cs
.....
Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... _2017_.pdf (0.34Mb)

Total Acquisition Estimate for F-35 Rises to $406.5 Billion
12 Jul 2017 Bill Carey

"...In a summary of the SAR released on July 11, the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) provided cost estimates in both 2012 base-year and current—also known as then-year—dollars, with the latter metric containing inflationary increases expected over the duration of the program. The SAR estimates represent only U.S. costs, but take into account cost efficiencies gained from the contributions and procurements of F-35 partner nations and foreign military sales, the JPO said. The latest SAR reflects program cost, schedule and performance as of June 2016.

F-35 acquisition cost, a figure that includes the cost of research, development, test and evaluation, procurement and military construction, rose by $11.3 billion to $324.6 billion in base-year dollars. Total program cost, which adds operating and support costs over the life of the fighter, increased from $934.1 billion to $945.4 billion in base-year dollars.

The Air Force has reduced its maximum annual rate of F-35A procurement from 80 fighters to 60, which extended its timeline of planned purchases by six additional years to Fiscal Year 2044. The reduced annual buy and time extension drove the total acquisition cost increase, caused the uptick in unit recurring flyaway (URF) cost and also slightly increased average procurement unit cost (APUC) and program acquisition unit cost (PAUC) metrics, the JPO said.

In current-year dollars, the estimated URF cost of the F-35A increased from $100.6 million in SAR15 to $111.3 million in SAR16. The estimate for the U.S. Navy’s F-35C increased from $110.7 million to $112.4 million, and the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B from $122.9 million to $123.4 million...." [NO MENTION OF INCREASED USMC F-35B BUY BY 13]

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 65-billion

spazsinbad wrote:F-35 Weapon System Overview Doug Hayward - Deputy Director F-35 Vehicle Systems - Lockheed Martin Aeronautics

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/T ... ayward.pdf (4 Mb) Public Release JSF 10-205 4/14/10

viper12 wrote:


Is there any information available about a possible integration of the CBU-99/100 Rockeye II internally ? I'm asking this specific question because I was discussing (for a video game) a scenario where the F-35 would be used to stealthily drop leaflets while collecting ISR data over a reclusive dictatorial country...l

viper12 wrote:Sorry for resurrecting this very old post :

SpudmanWP wrote:There is a thread for that:
viewtopic.php?t=27643&p=296946

SpudmanWP wrote:That is a list of everything that has ever been found. It in no way represents what needs to be updated on each airframe as many of the fixes are folded into the production line as they are found.

The modification funding requested in the 2017

cavok wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:LM F-35 Fast Facts dated 14 Sep 2017 PDF attached from: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... t_2017.pdf (0.3Mb)

Canada 65 F-35As

...

Current as of September 14, 2017
Produced by Lockheed Martin F-35 Communications Team

These guys are really excellent jokers...

cavok wrote:you sure?

F-35 Lightning II Starting Worldwide Sustainment
Nov 2017 David C Isby

"David C Isby spoke with Admiral Mat Winter, the new F-35 Program Executive Officer, about sustaining the fifth-generation fighter

Before his retirement last July after a gruelling five-year tour of duty as the F-35 Program Executive Officer (PEO) in charge of the Joint Program Office responsible for the development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, US Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan issued a warning that the programme could still go “off the rails”. Bogdan identified the biggest single risk: “I am worried about our ability to sustain these airplanes globally, with the numbers and locations we’ll have in 10-15 years … there’s going to be an awful lot of airplanes in an awful lot of places in an awful lot of configurations.” Sustainment will account for most of the F-35’s costs – 66 to 75% of the total – over the life of the programme.

Speaking in Washington DC on September 6, Bogdan’s successor as F-35 PEO, Vice Admiral Mat Winter explained that to manage costs, the United States, international F-35 partners and Foreign Military Sales customers are linked in to a global sustainment enterprise that will grow to provide repair, sustainment and support capability for a global F-35 fleet that will eventually number over 3,000 aircraft. He said: “We are sustaining aircraft right now. F-35s will be operating from 13 new operating locations worldwide in the next four years, with aircraft numbers increasing to almost 1,000.” It will be, Winter said, “an exciting time to be the PEO”.

Earlier this year, Lockheed Martin’s Vice President of F-35 business development and strategic integration, Jack Crisler said: “By the end of the year F-35 flight operations would be under way in Italy, Israel and Norway, with the transition from CONUS-based [continental United States-based] sustainment to an international capability … An ADM [acquisition decision memoranda] signed last year describes how global sustainment is going to work.”...

...Speaking at the Air Force Association convention at National Harbor, Maryland on September 19, Lieutenant General Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition officer said: “For F-35 sustainment, we have put rules in place that everyone agreed to, so they can’t say there are problems. Our biggest focus is to drive down the F-35’s operating cost. We continue to work with Lockheed Martin and their partners to keep cost under control.”...

...Until 2017, F-35 operational logistics and sustainment experience had primarily been with the US armed services. US Marine Corps F-35Bs, participating in Exercise Red Flag this summer, were able to fly 67 of 70 scheduled sorties. US Navy F-35Cs completed 41 sorties in 19 days on board the aircraft carrier USS George Washington. In the final round of developmental testing sea trials in 2016, F-35Bs completed 60 sorties in 21 days on board the amphibious warfare ship USS America. Commenting on the at sea periods, Jack Crisler said: “Lockheed Martin worked with the Marine Corps on how the service can manage its own deployable spares during shipboard deployments.”..."

Source: AIR International Nov 2017 Vol.93 No.5

F-35 Aircraft Sustainment: DOD Needs to Address Challenges Affecting Readiness and Cost Transparency
26 Oct 2017 GAO

"What GAO Found
The Department of Defense (DOD) is sustaining over 250 F-35 aircraft (F-35) and plans to triple the fleet by the end of 2021, but is facing sustainment challenges that are affecting warfighter readiness (see table). These challenges are largely the result of sustainment plans that do not fully include key requirements or aligned (timely and sufficient) funding. DOD is taking steps to address some challenges, but without more comprehensive plans and aligned funding, DOD risks being unable to fully leverage the F-35's capabilities and sustain a rapidly expanding fleet."

FULL REPORT PDF: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687982.pdf (3.1Mb)

Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-75

white_lightning35 wrote:Am I missing something or did they reduce the range and thrust values? Didn't other SAR's put the A and C models range above what this says. And regarding thrust, perhaps LM just decided to round a lot?

spazsinbad wrote:Probably an error or new information caused the LM F-35 Fast Facts to be updated to the fifth of February 2018 edition.

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... 018__2.pdf (1.1Mb)

playloud wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:Probably an error or new information caused the LM F-35 Fast Facts to be updated to the fifth of February 2018 edition.

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... 018__2.pdf (1.1Mb)

Maintainers went from 5000+ to 5600+.

130,000 hours

spazsinbad wrote:

130,000 hours

The F-35 is currently in low-rate initial production, with 280 aircraft delivered as of April 2018. At least 250 of those were in U.S. service. Four to five aircraft are currently delivered each month, with the production rate scheduled to increase to 120 per year by 2019. In keeping with the acquisition plan that overlapped development and production (known as “concurrency”), the F-35 was also in system development and demonstration (SDD), with testing and software development ongoing, from October 2001 until April 11, 2018. The SDD phase will formally continue until the end of Initial Operational Test and Evaluation, when a “Milestone C” full-rate production decision will be made.

Congress Maintains Support For F-35 Production And Modernization
Jun 14, 2018 Jen DiMascio | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Despite lingering concerns about development of the Pentagon’s $406 billion F-35, the U.S. Congress is poised to pour money into production, retrofits and a new set of software upgrades. The fifth-generation fighter manufactured by Lockheed Martin is rapidly approaching a series of important milestones. Initial operational test and evaluation (IOTE) is scheduled to start in September or October and run through the summer of the following year. Meanwhile, the Navy’s F-35C variant ...

doge wrote:http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/congress-maintains-support-f-35-production-and-modernization

Congress Maintains Support For F-35 Production And Modernization
Jun 14, 2018 Jen DiMascio | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Despite lingering concerns about development of the Pentagon’s $406 billion F-35, the U.S. Congress is poised to pour money into production, retrofits and a new set of software upgrades. The fifth-generation fighter manufactured by Lockheed Martin is rapidly approaching a series of important milestones. Initial operational test and evaluation (IOTE) is scheduled to start in September or October and run through the summer of the following year. Meanwhile, the Navy’s F-35C variant ...

GAO...

Meanwhile, the Navy’s F-35C variant is to be declared operational by February 2019. And by October of 2019, the Pentagon intends to declare the F-35 fully operational.

But it faces challenges in getting there. The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) 2018 report on the program points out that before it hits that final production decision, the Pentagon will need to “resolve critical deficiencies.”

Congress is likely to provide money to help that effort. The House Appropriations Committee is so flush it has approved $674.6 billion for the Defense Department in fiscal 2019. And while times are good, the committee plans to allot even more money for F-35 procurement and development than the government requested—$9.4 billion to buy 93 F-35s, which is 16 more aircraft than the administration asked for. And the defense subcommittee, led by Republican Rep. Kay Granger, who represents the Fort Worth, Texas, district where the Joint Strike Fighter is made, recommends spending $1.2 billion for continued development and modernization of the F-35. The bill, approved by the full appropriations committee June 13, must still be passed in the House and reconciled with a companion bill in the Senate.

With that money, the Defense Department still has a lot of work to do. The Pentagon did not initially agree to “fix” all deficiencies with the fighter until after the production decision. Instead, the Pentagon agreed to “resolve” the issues raised in the report. The semantic difference between “resolve” and “fix” allows the Pentagon more flexibility to find alternative solutions rather than simply technical corrections, the military says. “Accordingly, we revised our recommendation,” the GAO noted, urging that the program “resolve” the issues before full-rate production.

Vice Adm. Mat Winter, program executive officer of the F-35 program, elaborates, saying that the U.S. and its international partners track and prioritize the program’s difficulties. “The Department of Defense expects the F-35 program to resolve all critical deficiencies prior to entering Initial Operational Test and Evaluation, with either a fix, a Service Operational Test Agency-approved work-around or a formal acceptance of the deficiency,” Winter says. After operational test and evaluation, the Defense Acquisition Executive will review the program for full-rate production, which would include a plan for any issues that would be deferred until after development of the program officially ends.

Even the hint of allowing potential design flaws to linger into full production gives good-government organizations such as GAO pause, given the F-35’s history. The program embarked on initial production before testing was complete. That practice, known as concurrency, has cost the government at least $1.4 billion. Already, 213 F-35s need retrofits to fix issues spotted during training, and by the time IOTE is completed, the program office estimates 501 aircraft will have been produced. Failing to fix deficiencies before full-rate production could add additional costs, the GAO said.

The GAO wants the F-35 Joint Program Office to identify the steps needed for the combat aircraft to meet reliability and maintainability requirements. The program is close to meeting targets for four of its metrics, but it is still not measuring up, and its performance changed little over the last year, according to the GAO.

Greg Ulmer, general manager of the F-35 program for Lockheed Martin, says the F-35’s reliability keeps improving. “Newer aircraft are averaging greater than 60% availability, with some squadrons consistently at or above 70% availability,” he says. “All variants of the F-35 are currently exceeding the reliability specifications at this point on the maturity growth curve. We support the need for a robust reliability and maintainability program to ensure improvements stay on track to enhance readiness and reduce cost.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee version of a defense policy gives the program a gentle scolding—seeking quarterly updates on the program as it faces sustainment, modification and modernization issues, since the number of aircraft is planned to triple over the next three years. And although the committee is “concerned by the enormous retrofit costs required on the program,” it will authorize additional funding.

In addition to ongoing technical issues, the GAO is urging Congress to withhold money for the start of the F-35’s next big software upgrade, known as Block 4. The Defense Department is asking for $273 million for the modernization effort. The GAO would like Congress to fence funding to compel a report that would provide an independent cost estimate for the upgrades, technology readiness assessments, plans for test and evaluation and systems engineering, a preliminary design review and an approved acquisition strategy.

The Senate is not withholding money to compel the F-35 Joint Program Office to provide information about Block 4 modernization, saying it has received the business case information from the Pentagon. Retrofits to aircraft produced through the first eight production lots would cost $16 million each; F-35s produced in lots 9 and 10 would cost $13 million to upgrade. With that cost in mind, the Senate is now asking which F-35 the services intend to upgrade to the Block 4 configuration.

The F-35 is the most advanced fighter aircraft ever built. With stealth technology, advanced sensors, weapons capacity and range, the F-35 is the most lethal, survivable and connected fighter aircraft flying in the skies today.

For the first time ever, the F-35 Lightning II – From Concept to Cockpit speaker series, held at AIAA AVIATION FORUM, will provide a comprehensive, behind-the-scenes look at the government and industry effort to deliver the F-35’s transformational capabilities to men and women in uniform.

With 18 papers, presentations, videos and more, the team will tell the entire story behind what it took to design, develop, demonstrate, test and deliver the F-35.

rheonomic wrote:I don't know if this is the right thread to post this or not, but there's going to be a special track at the AIAA AVIATION conference next week on the F-35 design: F-35 Lightning II – From Concept to Cockpit

I believe each talk has a corresponding paper.

The F-35 is the most advanced fighter aircraft ever built. With stealth technology, advanced sensors, weapons capacity and range, the F-35 is the most lethal, survivable and connected fighter aircraft flying in the skies today.

For the first time ever, the F-35 Lightning II – From Concept to Cockpit speaker series, held at AIAA AVIATION FORUM, will provide a comprehensive, behind-the-scenes look at the government and industry effort to deliver the F-35’s transformational capabilities to men and women in uniform.

With 18 papers, presentations, videos and more, the team will tell the entire story behind what it took to design, develop, demonstrate, test and deliver the F-35.

"Tune in LIVE at 8 AM ET on June 26 as Skunk Works lead Jeff Babione gives a behind-the-scenes look at @thef35 during the @aiaa Forum: https://lmt.co/2trSdzC 24 Jun 2018 "

spazsinbad wrote:

"Tune in LIVE at 8 AM ET on June 26 as Skunk Works lead Jeff Babione gives a behind-the-scenes look at @thef35 during the @aiaa Forum: https://lmt.co/2trSdzC 24 Jun 2018 "

• A/C share the same engine
• OFP is the same across all aircraft - it detects what version it is in
• 2/3rds of LRUs are the same across all versions.
• Global parts pool saves 30% in costs

• Air Superiority was planned from the beginning

• Most powerful fighter radar

• Final Test Program numbers
• 9,200+ Test Flights
• 65,000 Test Points
• 183 Weapon Separation Tests
• 46 Weapon Accuracy Tests
• 33 Mission Effectiveness Tests
• 140,000+ Flight Hours so far (Program Wide)

• $80mil Flyaway by 2020
• 150 F-35s in 2020

• Over the next 10 years {Block 4+} there are 60 new hardware & software capabilities
• New EODAS unit has 5x the resolution of Gen1 EODAS {at 55% of the cost & 5x reliability}
• Auto-GCAS coming {before 2020}

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That explains double the range. Damn.

hornetfinn wrote:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That explains double the range. Damn.

It sure does which is really amazing since DAS is already has very unique capabilities that pretty much nobody else has. This upgrade might allow some totally new things to be done by the system. If nothing else, it will gather even more information as the system will cover eight times the air space (volume) than before...

SpudmanWP wrote:Gen1 EODAS is only good in the WVR rangeband for fighter-sized objects, think 10 miles.

Based on what source though

SpudmanWP wrote:That is all that has ever been claimed. Remember that this is being able to ID & track a fighter. AIMs & SAMs will obviously get picked up further out. TBMs will bet picked up even further out than that (bigger engine = hotter engine). Arty, rockets, etc are relatively easy due to it only needing to be a single point of IR light.

The 1200nmi AMRAAM track is BS for one simple reason, it is physically impossible. If the F-35 was at 40k feet then the AMRAAM would have to be at over 800k feet in order for it to get above the horizon at a range of 1200nmi (1380 miles).

Dragon029 wrote:When I say 1000x1000, I'm talking about the current DAS; in the "Of DAS, EOTS etc.." thread it was discussed a couple of years ago how the DAS sensors were almost certainly using one of two FPAs from L3, one being a 1k (1000x1000) FPA (this one is most likely imo), the other being a 4k (2000x2000) FPA. Even if it were neither, you certainly wouldn't get the DAS imagery we've seen from a 200x200 sensor covering 90+ degrees.

A 5x resolution sensor would therefore be approximately 2240x2240.

L3 Cincinnati Electronics is the industry leader in large-format MWIR with a decade of experience in providing IR technology for major programs such as the F/A-18 and F-35. In addition to our compact 1280 x 1024 and 2048 x 2048 pixel MWIR HD cameras, we are the only manufacturer with IR sensors of 16Mp (4096 x 4096 pixels) currently in use by U.S. assets in overseas combat zones.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:How well would the Nikon hold up to 9G. Or buffeting? Mil-Spec gear is, by necessity, more robust and trails the civilian market.

F-35 Program History – From JAST to IOC (AIAA 2018-3366)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3366

F-35 Air Vehicle Configuration Development (AIAA 2018-3367)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3367

F-35 Air Vehicle Technology Overview (AIAA 2018-3368)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3368

F-35 Production – Advanced Manufacturing and the Digital Thread (AIAA 2018-3369)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3369

F-35 Weapons Design Integration (AIAA 2018-3370)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3370

F-35 System Development and Demonstration Flight Testing at Edwards Air Force Base and Naval Air Station Patuxent River (AIAA 2018-3371)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3371

F-35 Structural Design, Development, and Verification (AIAA 2018-3515)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3515

F-35 Flight Control Law Design, Development and Verification (AIAA 2018-3516)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3516

F-35 Propulsion System Integration, Development & Verification (AIAA 2018-3517)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3517

F-35 Subsystems Design, Development & Verification (AIAA 2018-3518)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3518

F-35 Mission Systems Design, Development & Verification (AIAA 2018-3519)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3519

F-35 Information Fusion (AIAA 2018-3520)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3520

F-35 Carrier Suitability Flight Testing (AIAA 2018-3678)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3678
download/file.php?id=27706 [Courtesy of Spazsinbad]

F-35 Aerodynamic Performance Verification (AIAA 2018-3679)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3679

F-35 Weapons Separation Test and Verification (AIAA 2018-3680)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3680

F-35 STOVL Performance Requirements Verification (AIAA 2018-3681)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3681

F-35 Climatic Chamber Testing & System Verification (AIAA 2018-3682)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3682

Podcast: Hidden Gems at AIAA Aviation 2018
29 Jun 2018 Guy Norris and Graham Warwick

"Aviation Week’s Guy Norris and Graham Warwick have been in Atlanta, Georgia, for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Aviation 2018 conference. They talk about insights from the many panels and presentations and some hidden gems in the exhibition hall."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/future-aerospac ... ation-2018

spazsinbad wrote:PODcast at AvWeak by those who bin there talking about it - this one all about the F-35 - other things in later podcast

Dragon029 wrote:I've found another means of downloading them all; I'll clean them up and upload them here later today.

Dragon029 wrote:I've found another means of downloading them all; I'll clean them up and upload them here later today.

Dragon029 wrote:And that's all 17 released F-35 papers from the 2018 AIAA Aviation forum; still haven't seen any trace of that 18th paper about high angle of attack testing (not to be confused with one released back in 2014).

Dragon029 wrote:Air System Design Papers:
...

F-35 Mission Systems Design, Development, and Verification 6.2018-3519.pdf

...

Dragon029 wrote:Just a heads up; I got messaged (nicely for the record) by a representative of Lockheed today, asking that the AIAA papers be removed for copyright reasons. I can't delete the posts because they're too old / other posts have since been made, but I've contacted the mods, so the documents / links to the non-paywalled versions should be deleted soon.

I imagine anyone reading this already has a copy of all of them, but if someone hasn't manages to read this, the documents will still be available at the links mentioned in this post: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=12237&start=310

If you work for a major aerospace company, or if you attend or work for a university, or if you just have access to a local library, check to see if they have free (legal and licensed) access to AIAA's library.

If not, and if you choose to buy some papers, get a membership if you plan on buying multiple; you'll likely save money (depending on the membership type) as members get decent discounts on papers.

"Total Aircraft Quantities LRIP 1-11: 499 - Flight Hours 165,000+

• Assessment

- Based on F-35A gun testing through September 2018,
DOT&E currently considers the accuracy of the gun, as
installed in the F-35A, to be unacceptable.

- F-35A gun accuracy during SDD failed to meet the
contract specification. Although software corrections were made to the F-35 mission systems software to improve the stability of gun aiming cues, no software or hardware corrections have yet been implemented to correct the gun accuracy errors.

- Investigations into the gun mounts of the F-35A revealed misalignments that result in muzzle alignment errors. As a result, the true alignment of each F-35A gun is not known, so the program is considering options for re-boresighting and correcting gun alignments.

- During air-to-air gun testing, F-35A operational test pilots received intermittent “unsafe gun” cockpit alerts while attempting gun attacks. These alerts occurred with two different aircraft; the root cause is under investigation.

- F-35B and F-35C air-to-ground accuracy results to date
with the gun pod have been consistent and meet the
contract specifications. They do not show the accuracy
errors of the internal gun on the F-35A.

Recommendations:

• The program should:
...
5. Determine the cause of the accuracy problems with the F-35A gun firing and implement a solution for increasing gun accuracy for the fielded aircraft.
...

"...The Navy approved the use of the F-35 Integrated Power Package (IPP) in the hangar bay for maintenance
purposes, on an interim basis, just prior to the SGR testing onboard CVN 72. This approval will enable more efficient maintenance during deployments, increasing the options for providing electrical power and cooling air to aircraft undergoing maintenance. Squadrons will use temperature sensing devices to ensure that the IPP exhaust, which vents upwards on the F-35C, does not damage hangar bay overhead equipment, cabling, and structure while in use...." p.5

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:My Google-Fu is failing me. I know we have seen charts that showed conditions flown by all three F-35 variants with multi colored dots for different test conditions. Anyone have a copy of that?

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That's the one! Thanks botsing!

botsing wrote:P.s., that linked image was originally posted by doge.

marsavian wrote: So the F-35A can do Mach 1.55, F-35B/C Mach 1.5 when loaded with external sidewinders. No real degradation.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That's the one! Thanks botsing!

marsavian wrote:Interesting, so the F-35A/C hit Mach 1.6 at 25kft but the F-35B does it only at 30kft. Why, less thrust ?

wrightwing wrote:We know the F-35C went between M1.1+ to M1.2 with 6 GBU-31, 2 AIM-120, and 2 AIM-9X. The A should be even faster. With an A2A only load, there shouldn't be much degradation at all, on top end speeds.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

wrightwing wrote:We know the F-35C went between M1.1+ to M1.2 with 6 GBU-31, 2 AIM-120, and 2 AIM-9X. The A should be even faster. With an A2A only load, there shouldn't be much degradation at all, on top end speeds.

Do we know it went past 1.1M? AFAIK it was 1.0+M. Could have been 1.01M for all I know.

DoD inspector general slams F-35 program office for allowing Lockheed to manage government property
15 Mar 2019 Valerie Insinna

"WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office has not adequately tracked government property leant or leased to Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, an oversight that a new investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general said could impact readiness. Building the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter requires the use of government property such as materiel, special tooling like molds used to form the jet’s structure and unique test equipment.

Over the lifespan of the program, the F-35 JPO has not followed the mandated procedures used to manage government-furnished property, or GFP, and instead depended on Lockheed and its subcontractors to keep track of such equipment, stated a DoD IG report released Friday. [see link in 'marsavian' post immediately above here]

“As a result, the DoD does not know the actual value of the F‑35 property and does not have an independent record to verify the contractor‑valued government property of $2.1 billion for the F‑35 program,” the report said. “Without accurate records, the F‑35 Program officials have no visibility over the property and have no metrics to hold the prime contractor accountable for how it manages government property.

“The lack of asset visibility restricts the DoD’s ability to conduct the necessary checks and balances that ensure the prime contractor is managing and spending F‑35 Program funds in the government’s best interest and could impact the DoD’s ability to meet its operational readiness goals for the F‑35 aircraft.”...

...The IG, in its report, said it was satisfied with the corrective actions proposed by the JPO, but that it would review their implementation at a later date. Creating a record of government property will not be as simple as copying over Lockheed Martin’s record.

Lockheed estimates there are 3.45 million pieces of government property used for the F-35 program, and that equipment is worth an estimated $2.1 billion. However, its records are not written to the same standard that the Defense Department mandates. For instance, federal regulations require that government records keep track of the contract number associated with a given piece of GFE, while Lockheed did not include that information. Other data recorded by the company — such as the name of a part or its quantity — were incomplete by Pentagon standards."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03 ... -property/

However, its records are not written to the same standard that the Defense Department mandates.

GAO - WEAPON SYSTEMS ANNUAL ASSESSMENT [2 page summary PDF attached - part of text excerpted below etc.]
May 2019 GAO

"F-35 Program - Technology Maturity and Design Stability
All of the F-35’s critical technologies are mature and the baseline engineering drawings are complete for all three aircraft variants. The program office completed the final development test flights for the baseline program in April 2018, but continues to address over 900 deficiencies identified with the aircraft’s performance prior to the end of development testing. For example, the program is developing a new helmet mounted display, which will resolve an existing green glow effect that can distort a pilot’s vision during night time carrier landings. Program officials expect installation of some of the new displays in 2019. The program office is also testing and integrating software updates to resolve other deficiencies, but it did not fully resolve over 800 other deficiencies prior to the start of operational testing. The program obtained a waiver from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to start operational testing prior to fully resolving these deficiencies. Program officials stated that they expect to continue resolving these deficiencies through the start of full rate production in October 2019.

Program officials continue to identify and address technical risks, some of which are specific to individual variants of the F-35. For example, we reported last year that a problem with the F-35’s main fuel throttle valve caused the aircraft to move suddenly and without stopping until the engine is shut down. In 2018, the program implemented software changes to fix this problem. Also, across all variants, pilots have reported experiencing extreme pressure in the cockpit during certain flight maneuvers. Contractor representatives told us they have identified the root cause of the excessive cockpit pressure and will implement a minor hardware change in 2019 to address the issue. Recently, following the crash of an F-35B in October 2018, the program grounded the F-35 fleet to inspect all of its engines. An investigation determined a manufacturing defect caused an engine fuel tube to rupture during flight, resulting in a loss of power to the engine. The program office reported that it identified 117 aircraft with the same type of fuel tubes that it must replace. According to program officials, the grounding generally did not impact the delivery of the aircraft, as the contractor has provided replacement fuel tubes that were installed on a majority of the affected aircraft by the end of 2018.

Production Readiness
As of December 2018, the prime contractor has delivered 264 production aircraft. Since the start of production, F-35 contractors have refined their production processes to improve manufacturing efficiency and quality. However, the prime contractor has identified quality control and late radar deliveries as the top production risks in the program. For example, because of supplier identified limitations, the prime contractor continues to fix gaps between adjacent aircraft surface panels attached to the airframe. These fixes are needed to meet low observable (stealth) performance requirements. The contractor is working with its supplier to resolve the problem through improved production processes as the program approaches its full-rate production decision in October 2019...."

Source: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698933.pdf (9.4Mb)

"...4. Measures:
(1) For the likely cause of "spatial disorientation", implement measures:
A. Spatial awareness education for F-35A pilots.
B. Training with spatial awareness training equipment and simulators for F-35A pilots.

(2) For the very unlikely, but still possible, causes of G-LOC unconsciousness,
or problems with aircraft engine control, maneuvering or electrical systems:
A. Education for all F-35A pilots on loss of consciousnes due to G-LOC.
B. Perform special inspections of F-35A fighters (engine controls, steering and electrical systems)…."

hornetfinn wrote:So next year F-35s will outnumber EF Typhoon also which is the most produced Eurocanard. Year after that it will outnumber Super Hornet... Pretty incredible production rate.

spazsinbad wrote:LM F-35 Fast Facts 12 Dec 2019 - only 240,000+ hours: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... r_2019.pdf

spazsinbad wrote:LM posts Government to LM buy letters / somesuch official documentation via US gubmint? Anyway they are slack for sure.

spazsinbad wrote:LM F-35 Fast Facts 02 Jan 2020 attached below:

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... 1_2020.pdf

Dragon029 wrote:2019 DOT&E report has been released: https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 115432-173

charlielima223 wrote:

Dragon029 wrote:2019 DOT&E report has been released: https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 115432-173

Does anyone really care at this point? Does really matter anymore what the DOT&E report says? Every year the DOT&E says there are deficiencies. Every year people say there are or find new problems for the aircraft. Yet every year more are built, more are flown, more enter operational status.

International F-35 sales [Five page PDF of article attached below]
Mar 2020 AFM Alan Warnes

"Fifth-generation fighters are a priority requirement for many of the world’s leading air forces. As Alan Warnes explains, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the weapon of choice for the US and many of its allies.

Almost 30 years after development commenced in 1992, 491 F-35s had been delivered by the end of 2019 – 123 of them to international customers...."

Source: AirForces Monthly March 2020 Issue 384

Contracts For March 31, 2020
NAVY

"Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $4,708,927,970 modification (P00033) to previously-awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm-target, firm-fixed-price contract N00019-17-C-0001. This modification is for the procurement of 78 F-35 combat aircraft (48 F-35A combat aircraft for the Air Force, 14 F-35B combat aircraft for the Marine Corps, 16 F-35C fighter aircraft for the Navy) and associated aircraft red gear. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (63%); El Segundo, California (14%); Warton, United Kingdom (9%); Orlando, Florida (4%); Nashua, New Hampshire (3%); Baltimore, Maryland (3%); San Diego, California (2%); and various locations within and outside the continental U.S. (2%). Work is expected to be complete by March 2023. Fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Air Force) funds in the amount of $2,723,463,387 will be obligated at time of award and fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $1,985,464,583 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $202,800,000 cost-plus-incentive-fee, undefinitized contract that provides engineering, maintenance, logistics manpower and material support to continue to develop, sustain and produce software builds as well as carryout developmental flight tests in support of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. Work will be performed at Edwards Air Force Base, California (40%); Patuxent River, Maryland (39%); Fort Worth, Texas (12%); and Orlando, Florida (9%). This contract action also provides unique sea trials on aircraft carriers for non-Department of Defense (DoD) participants. Work is expected to be complete by September 2020. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $23,962,188; fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force) funds in the amount of $23,962,189; fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $11,380,036; fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Air Force) funds in the amount of $11,380,036; and non-DoD participant funds in the amount of $14,860,313 will be obligated at time of award, $22,760,072 of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-20-C-0037)."

Source: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contra ... vDelivery/

275,000 hours & 1,000 pilots+ & 9,025+ maintainers

Actions Needed to Address Manufacturing and Modernization Risks
12 May 2020 GAO-20-339

"FAST FACTS
The F-35 program produced more aircraft and negotiated lower prices in 2019. However, the program is not meeting standards aimed at ensuring consistent, high-quality products, and fielded aircraft do not meet reliability goals.

Also, the cost to modernize aircraft systems went up about $1.5 billion (14%) since the program’s May 2019 annual report to Congress. Due to development delays, this reporting requirement will expire before the effort is complete. We suggest Congress consider extending it.

We made 5 recommendations, including some to help the Defense Department make its modernization cost estimate more comprehensive and credible."

PDF: https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/706815.pdf (2Mb) & HIGHLIGHTS: https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/706816.pdf (184Kb)

PODCAST: F-35 Annual Program Review - DOWNLOAD.MP3: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/ww ... ayout=none (6Mb)

Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-339

"Sustainment Definitions
Mission Capable (MC):
Systems and equipment are considered MC when they are safe and have all mission essential subsystems installed and operating as designated by a Military Service.

Non Mission Capable Maintenance (NMCM):
NMCM is a materiel condition indicating that systems and equipment are not capable of performing any of their assigned missions because of unit level maintenance requirements.

Non Mission Capable Supply (NMCS):
NMCS is a materiel condition indicating that systems and equipment are not capable of performing any of their assigned missions because of maintenance work stoppage due to a supply shortage.

Cannibalization Rate:
The extent to which units of the armed forces remove serviceable parts, supplies, or equipment from one aircraft in order to render a different aircraft operational. Cannibalization is practiced when it is faster to remove a needed part from one aircraft and install it in another than to obtain that part from the supply system."

mixelflick wrote:I know it's been a long time coming, but the pace at which the F-35 is proliferating now is truly extraordinary IMO. It's seemingly in every part of the globe, and things only seem to be accelerating. To the point where even if it wasn't stealth, it's creating a large asymetrical advantage for western air power.

spazsinbad wrote:F-35 Sustainment LM PR Jul 2020 PDF below: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... inment.pdf

Pentagon and Lockheed Martin Agree to $1.28B F-35 Sustainment Contract
06 Jan 2021 LM PR

"The F-35 Joint Program Office has awarded the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] industry team a $1.28 billion Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA) to support operations and sustainment of the global F-35 fleet through June 30, 2021....

...The UCA provides initial critical sustainment activities for a worldwide fleet while negotiations continue on a long-term contract to build enterprise capacity and affordability to support the future fleet of more than 3,000 F-35 aircraft. The UCA funds industry sustainment experts supporting operations worldwide, individual bases, depot maintenance, pilot and maintainer training, and sustainment engineering across the globe. It also covers fleet-wide data analytics and supply chain management for part repair and replenishment to enhance overall supply availability....

...The F-35’s reliability continues to improve, and newer production aircraft are averaging greater than 70% mission capable rates, with some operational squadrons consistently near 75%. Cost Per Flight Hour has decreased by more than 40% during the last five years.

To further improve readiness and cost stability, the enterprise is conducting supply chain competitions and building supply capacity, synchronizing spare buys, improving parts reliability and maintainability, implementing advanced analytics tools, accelerating modifications of earlier aircraft, and supporting the stand-up of government-led regional warehouses and repair depots.

More than 600 F-35 aircraft have been delivered and are operating from 26 bases around the globe. More than 1,200 pilots and 10,000 maintainers have been trained, and the F-35 fleet has surpassed more than 345,000 cumulative flight hours."

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/pentago ... t-contract

spazsinbad wrote:LM F-35 Fast Facts 05 Jan 2021: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... y_2021.pdf (3Mb)