The F-35 Lightning II Thread

[Boyle]

Looking that UAV up it only holds a 4,500 lbs of ordnance while the F-35 has a 25 mm Gatling gun with 180 rounds, 6 external hardpoints that can carry a combined max of 15,000 lbs, and two internals bays capable of carrying a combined 3,000 lbs. So, 18,000 lbs of ordnance for the F-35A.

[Warren Dew]

So, comparable amounts on stealth missions, but the F-35 can carry a lot more on nonstealth missions. On the other hand, the Navy already has the F/A-18 for nonstealth missions.

[Calilasseia]

Looking that UAV up it only holds a 4,500 lbs of ordnance while the F-35 has a 25 mm Gatling gun with 180 rounds, 6 external hardpoints that can carry a combined max of 15,000 lbs, and two internals bays capable of carrying a combined 3,000 lbs. So, 18,000 lbs of ordnance for the F-35A.

The AGM-114 Hellfire weighs 114 pounds or thereabouts. Therefore the UAV could easily carry 16 of them, and still have 2,676 pounds of spare capacity. You can inflict a hell of a lot of damage with 16 Hellfires.

If you want to give the X-47 a gun, then the M134 minigun provides a possible solution, especially if you go with the lightweight titanium version. Provide it with 1,200 rounds of ammunition, and that brings the total weight of the system to 1,650 pounds. Which means it won't run out of ammunition with a short burst of fire. Whoever thought a measly 180 rounds would be enough for a Gatling gun on an F-35 wants his head examining.

So, subtract the 42 lb weight of the gun from 1,650 lbs, and you have 1,200 rounds of ammunition weighing 1,608 pounds. You can carry close on 2,000 rounds of ammunition for the gun, and 16 Hellfires to make up the 4,500 lbs ordnance limit. Reduce the ammunition count to 1,500 rounds for DU tipped rounds, and that's still a decent amount of ammunition. There's a fair amount of scope for that combination to be used for ground attack.

Now take into account that the unit cost is likely to be a lot less than the F-35, you can berth more of them on a carrier, and therefore send them out in groups of 4 to do the job, and you're bringing 64 Hellfires to a ground attack mission in a stealthy package, plus 4 miniguns with 1,500 rounds each. The enemy will have 4 aircraft to deal with instead of one, and 4 aircraft that maintain stealth whilst bringing this ordnance collection to the party. Furthermore, you can take greater risks with the UAVs combat wise, because you're not going to have to send a SAR mission to rescue a downed pilot if one is actually shot down, which if you're fighting a particularly devious opposition with a propensity for posting gruesome murder videos on YouTube, is a big plus. It's also a big plus if you need to send in a couple of units as air combat escorts, because you can pull high-g turns that would be impossible for a manned aircraft. Fit the air combat escorts with something like 4 AMRAAMs and 4 Sidewinders in addition to the gun, and the resultant wing of 6 aircraft is a pretty potent combat unit.

You also have the ability to pursue politically risky missions with such a setup (e.g., a pre-emptive strike on North Korea's nuclear capability) if the need is deemed to arise, with enough plausible deniability to try and get away with it.

[Weaver]

External hardpoints on the F-35 destroy it's primary supposed purpose - stealth.

If you're going to talk about external stores loads and maximal ordnance available on an aircraft, look at the A-10 - or at BUFFs and BONEs.

[mrjonno]

Drones don't need to be as good, they just need to be pilotless, no one writes to their politicans about expensive drones being shotdown only dead pilots

[Weaver]

It's really a silly comparison - no fighter has the loiter time of a drone, the differences in capability with manned vs unmanned are too many to allow direct comparisons - just more bullshit from the F-35 lobby trying to justify their horrible budget-sucking abortion of an aircraft.

[Calilasseia]

External hardpoints on the F-35 destroy it's primary supposed purpose - stealth.

If you're going to talk about external stores loads and maximal ordnance available on an aircraft, look at the A-10

11 hardpoints, along with that fucking huge Gatling gun. Compare the weight fully fuelled but without weapons of a A-10, at around 30,000 pounds, with its CAS mission fully laden weight of 47,000 pounds, and that's 17,000 pounds of ordnance. It was also built to take a hell of a shit kicking and still fly afterwards. And on a CAS mission, it has a loiter time of close on two hours. Which is why the PBI love it so much - it may be old, but it gets the job done, and done well.

- or at BUFFs and BONEs.

In the case of a B-1B, it can carry 10 tons of bombs with ease internally alone, and still fly at close to Mach 1 at low level. Stick hardpoints on it, and you've a bomber with a 15 to 16 ton ordnance load with ease.

As for the venerable B-52, that has a faintly ridiculous 30 ton bomb load internally, and with hardpoints, you could push that to 40 tons. But I don't think anyone plans on using a B-52 as a CAS aircraft any time soon.

EDIT: Back in the days when the RAH-66 Comanche was still being developed, there was talk of it being a combined arms team with the A-10. Let the Comanche use stealth to get it close enough to the SAMs to destroy them, then call in the A-10 to cut loose and rip up what was left once the SAMs were dead.

You could probably pull the same trick with UAVs. Let a couple of stealth UAVs do the SEAD mission to clear the way for the CAS mission, then call in the A-10s and let them party to their heart's content over the AO, once the enemy's overhead is completely exposed and vulnerable. Two X-47s with Hellfires to take out the SAMs, two with AAMs to provide air cover, and the A-10s can then move in and start shredding things.

[Teague]

Looking that UAV up it only holds a 4,500 lbs of ordnance while the F-35 has a 25 mm Gatling gun with 180 rounds, 6 external hardpoints that can carry a combined max of 15,000 lbs, and two internals bays capable of carrying a combined 3,000 lbs. So, 18,000 lbs of ordnance for the F-35A.

The AGM-114 Hellfire weighs 114 pounds or thereabouts. Therefore the UAV could easily carry 16 of them, and still have 2,676 pounds of spare capacity. You can inflict a hell of a lot of damage with 16 Hellfires.

If you want to give the X-47 a gun, then the M134 minigun provides a possible solution, especially if you go with the lightweight titanium version. Provide it with 1,200 rounds of ammunition, and that brings the total weight of the system to 1,650 pounds. Which means it won't run out of ammunition with a short burst of fire. Whoever thought a measly 180 rounds would be enough for a Gatling gun on an F-35 wants his head examining.

So, subtract the 42 lb weight of the gun from 1,650 lbs, and you have 1,200 rounds of ammunition weighing 1,608 pounds. You can carry close on 2,000 rounds of ammunition for the gun, and 16 Hellfires to make up the 4,500 lbs ordnance limit. Reduce the ammunition count to 1,500 rounds for DU tipped rounds, and that's still a decent amount of ammunition. There's a fair amount of scope for that combination to be used for ground attack.

Now take into account that the unit cost is likely to be a lot less than the F-35, you can berth more of them on a carrier, and therefore send them out in groups of 4 to do the job, and you're bringing 64 Hellfires to a ground attack mission in a stealthy package, plus 4 miniguns with 1,500 rounds each. The enemy will have 4 aircraft to deal with instead of one, and 4 aircraft that maintain stealth whilst bringing this ordnance collection to the party. Furthermore, you can take greater risks with the UAVs combat wise, because you're not going to have to send a SAR mission to rescue a downed pilot if one is actually shot down, which if you're fighting a particularly devious opposition with a propensity for posting gruesome murder videos on YouTube, is a big plus. It's also a big plus if you need to send in a couple of units as air combat escorts, because you can pull high-g turns that would be impossible for a manned aircraft. Fit the air combat escorts with something like 4 AMRAAMs and 4 Sidewinders in addition to the gun, and the resultant wing of 6 aircraft is a pretty potent combat unit.

You also have the ability to pursue politically risky missions with such a setup (e.g., a pre-emptive strike on North Korea's nuclear capability) if the need is deemed to arise, with enough plausible deniability to try and get away with it.

Can this drone carry 16 hellfires internally though - that is the question and how much weight will the system have that extends them passed the fuselage to be able to fire them (and also lose it's "stealth" capability)?

BTW, unless we're going to war with a 1st world nation sometime soon, could someone remind me where the Taliban are hiding their radar arrays or where in the desert ISIS are keeping their SA-10 missile systems? The need for "stealth" is a complete misnomer and bollocks and I bet there's already radar out there that can beat it.

[Teague]

Almost a year later and this is the most info I can find so far

Why the F-35 is being built

The F-35 is also called the Joint Strike Fighter, because versions are not only being built for the Air Force, Navy and Marines but also for Great Britain and other allies. The most expensive weapons system ever built, about 500 of the aircraft have been completed so far in the program's 14 years of existence, although they have not yet been tested in combat conditions.

The Pentagon ultimately wants 2,457 of the aircraft, because the F-35 is supposed to replace a number of earlier-era fighter models - and because China and Russia are building their air capabilities.

The program is way over budget

The F-35 program cost is now nearly $400 billion. That's $163 billion more than anticipated, a price so high that, as Newsweek put it, industry wags call it "the plane that ate the Pentagon."

There are different ways to view this number. It unquestionably grew. But at the same time, the number of aircraft actually shrank, says a watchdog group called the Project on Government Oversight, or POGO. The Pentagon originally wanted 2,866 of the aircraft, not 2,457. When accounting for the budget on a per-plane basis, the price has nearly doubled.

The Pentagon and the program's prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, say that costs rose partly because they were developing, modifying and building at the same time. They say they now have a better handle on costs, and Lockheed Martin says the price has not changed in several years.

The F-35 has had problems

The F-35's problems have run deep.

The plane "is plagued by design flaws and cost overruns," concluded an in-depth piece in Vanity Fair in 2013. "It flies only in good weather. The computers that run it lack the software they need for combat. No one can say for certain when the plane will work as advertised."

Business Insider listed key problems that the Pentagon identified in 2014: software delays, the fuel tank design, lightning protection, problems carrying out attacks at certain angles, display issues in the computer-rigged pilot's helmet and reliability issues with ejection seat assemblies, among other things.

The Washington Post last October revealed that the Pentagon found serious problems with the plane's pilot-ejection system - despite warnings that Pentagon brass rejected earlier - that put the pilot's head at risk of snapping forward or backward. Lighter-weight pilots were therefore banned from flying the F-35 until the problems could be fixed.

An F-35 caught fire while taxiing down the runway at Elgin Air Force Base in Florida in June 2014, prompting Foreign Policy magazine to call the aircraft "the Pentagon's $399 billion plane to nowhere."

And more problems

Don't just take the media's word for it. Last April, the Government Accountability Office, which works for Congress, said the F-35's engine reliability "is poor and has a long way to go to meet program goals." Also, "Cost and affordability challenges remain."

The Department of Defense Inspector General found in 2013 that the F-35 program lacked quality-assurance systems to prevent hardware and software problems that could affect the plane's performance and reliability.

And in January this year, the Pentagon's director of operational testing and evaluation told Congress of his concerns about the plane's computer, design and testing program. Essentially, wrote J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's top official for testing, "every aircraft bought to date requires modifications prior to use in combat."

The problems are being addressed

Unforeseen problems pop up when you develop something new, especially an aircraft this technologically advanced, say the F-35's many proponents. The Pentagon acknowledges many issues of the past.

"Hey, you know what the good news is?" Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the executive director for the F-35 program, said at an air and space conference in 2014. He mentioned issues with the helmet, the plane's software, its inability to fly in lightning and the fact that if it had to dump fuel, the whole plane would be sopped. Those "are all past problems," he said. "We have solutions for those."

Bogdan did not deny the problems mentioned by the Pentagon's top tester recently. But he issued a statement saying the critical comments did not "fully address program efforts to resolve" the issues. "Our government and industry team has a proven track record of overcoming technical challenges discovered during developmental and operational testing and fleet operations, and delivering on program commitments," Bogdan said.

As for the GAO report on engine reliability, engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, a partner with Lockheed Martin, issued a statement citing substantial improvements. "Contrary to the GAO report," the company told cleveland.com, engine reliability "has improved across the board and will continue to improve as more engines are introduced into service."

This is a jobs program, too

It's a well-known and much-practiced strategy: If you want support, spread out the work. Or, as Lockheed Martin says on a website featuring a map of the United States, "See how the F-35 contributes to your state's economy."

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... rt_m-rpt-1

So it's over $400 billion now. So it can bomb arabs.

[Teague]

For the past several years, it had appeared that the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin had mended their once-strained relationship as they worked to fix the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, which had gone wildly off course, marred by schedule delays and massive cost overruns.

But now the world’s largest military and its largest contractor are at a significant standoff over the most expensive weapons program in the history of the Defense Department.

Unable to reach an agreement on the price of the latest batch of fighter jets, the Pentagon used a rarely used provision Wednesday that allowed it to unilaterally execute the contract and set the price at its last offer.

In a statement, the Pentagon’s F-35 program office announced Wednesday that it had finalized its contract with Bethesda-based Lockheed for 57 of the next-
generation, stealthy fighter jets for $6.1 billion. That deal represented a 3.7 percent price decrease from the last batch of F-35s the Pentagon purchased, and Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the program’s executive officer, hailed it as “a fair and reasonable deal.”

But 12 minutes later, Lockheed issued a statement, saying the contract was not “mutually agreed upon,” and that the company was “obligated” to produce the aircraft under “previously agreed-to items.”

It said it was “disappointed” in the government’s action and that while it would “continue to execute” on the program it would also “evaluate our options and path forward.”

That means that it is deciding whether to appeal the contract, said an industry official with knowledge of the negotiations who was not authorized to speak publicly about them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... 792abe2255

[Teague]

OTTAWA — Opposition critics accused the Liberal government of trying to manufacture a crisis Monday after the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force pulled back the curtain on Canada's apparent fighter-jet shortage.

Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood told the Senate defence committee the Liberals recently changed the number of jet fighters he is required to have ready at any given time for NATO missions and to defend North America.

The change was made after he testified in April that he was "comfortable'' with the air force's current fleet of CF-18s, Hood said, which he affirmed are able to fly to 2025 and even beyond.

As a result, Hood said, the current number of CF-18s available is insufficient and Canada will also need to buy more new planes than originally expected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/28 ... 88372.html

I assume Canada have pulled out from the program now.

[Calilasseia]

Trump's Twittersphere ramblings have now thrown a nice spanner in the works:

Trump Suggests Pulling The Plug On F-35

British defence experts expressed alarm yesterday after Donald Trump suggested he might undo a multi-billion dollar stealth fighter project that is to form a core part of the United Kingdom's defensive capabilities.

The president-elect took a casual shot at the F-35 programme for the world's most advanced fighter jet tweeting on Monday that the cost was "out of control".

"Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th," he wrote, indicating a change in strategy after his inauguration.

[Teague]

Well, he's right. They are wasting billions of dollars - remember the Commanche? Thing is, what do you do so late in the progam now? A lot of the issues are being addressed now but the cost is still massively high. The DOD should be audited and we already know that the pentagon tried to bury $125 billion of waste spending. That being said, what we do know is Trump is full of shit and whilst he's right he won't do the right thing.

[Teague]

Defence experts warn of 'disaster' for Britain after Donald Trump suggests undoing 'out of control' F-35 fighter jet project

British defence experts expressed alarm yesterday after Donald Trump suggested he might undo a multi-billion dollar stealth fighter project that is to form a core part of the United Kingdom's defensive capabilities.

The president-elect took a casual shot at the F-35 programme for the world's most advanced fighter jet tweeting on Monday that the cost was "out of control".

"Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th," he wrote, indicating a change in strategy after his inauguration.

But defence experts told this newspaper there would be disastrous consequences for Britain if Mr Trump were to put the plan on the scrap heap at this late stage.

"If the US were to cancel the programme in its entirety tomorrow, the UK would truly be up a creek without a paddle," Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, said.

Financially, Britain would lose the £2billion it has contributed to the research and development of the supersonic jet, which has been designed to avoid detection on enemy radar.

And, Mr Tusa said, it would leave the UK without a plane to put on its new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers: "This is the only plane with vertical landing".

Yeah, that would make the carriers the biggest waste of money this century but maybe that can be turned into cruise liners.

[Teague]

Trump's Twittersphere ramblings have now thrown a nice spanner in the works:

Trump Suggests Pulling The Plug On F-35

British defence experts expressed alarm yesterday after Donald Trump suggested he might undo a multi-billion dollar stealth fighter project that is to form a core part of the United Kingdom's defensive capabilities.

The president-elect took a casual shot at the F-35 programme for the world's most advanced fighter jet tweeting on Monday that the cost was "out of control".

"Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th," he wrote, indicating a change in strategy after his inauguration.

FFS you did it again

[Teague]

Pentagon predicts F-35 program costs to jump by $27 billion: report

The Pentagon’s F-35 fighter jet program, the most expensive program to date, is expected to jump by at least $27 billion in costs, Bloomberg reported.

The total acquisition cost for the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 is predicted to spike about 7 percent to at least $406.5 billion, according to a draft of the Selected Acquisition Report, to be submitted to Congress this week.

The uptick follows several years of declining estimates. The report expected the current cost of $379 billion from a previous high of $398.5 billion in early 2014.

F-35 program spokesman Joe DellaVedova didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg on the cost estimate increase. The Joint Strike Fighter program office typically waits until the report is formally released to Congress before commenting.

Delayed testing could be one reason for the increase. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in April released a report that said “cascading F-35 testing delays” could add more than $1 billion to the cost of the program.

An extended production of the Air Force’s 1,763 F-35A models could also add to the new cost estimate, as could additional Marine Corps and Air Force F-35 variants.

The program cost increase cited in the report for Congress does not mean higher costs for future aircraft contracts, but the findings are still likely to draw attention from the White House.

President Trump has spoken out frequently in trying to lower F-35 contract costs, and met several times with Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson.

Prior to his inauguration, Trump tweeted that the costs of the program were “out of control.” He then took credit for a price decrease in the Pentagon’s February agreement to buy 90 more planes for $728 million less than the last batch.

Experts have said the price per plane was already on the decline.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/34131 ... ion-report

[CarlPierce]

Can we move this to the teenage boy 'top trumps' thread.

[Teague]

Can we move this to the teenage boy 'top trumps' thread.

Why?