I saw this on the BBC, sounds like a turnaround by Trump.
US to buy more F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38862319
I saw this on the BBC, sounds like a turnaround by Trump.
US to buy more F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38862319
With aknowledgement to the National Interest.
(With thanks to ‘The National Interest’)
The United States Marine Corps has started to forward deploy its first operational squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters overseas to Japan. The unit, the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing’s Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121)a left its base in Yuma, Arizona, for its new home at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni on Jan. 9, 2017.
“The transition of VMFA-121 from MCAS Yuma to MCAS Iwakuni marks a significant milestone in the F-35B program as the Marine Corps continues to lead the way in the advancement of stealth fighter attack aircraft,” reads a Marine Corps statement. 
Permanently basing the F-35 in Asia for its first overseas posting not only highlights the United States commitment to Asia and to the security alliance with Japan, but it also serves as a deterrent against China’s growing power. In the coming years, as Chinese air defenses become increasingly potent, stealth aircraft such as the F-35 are going to be the only means of penetrating Beijing’s airspace in the event of a war. Moreover, the Marine F-35Bs will afford Japan—which is also buying the conventional takeoff version of the aircraft—an opportunity to operate alongside American forces before its own jets enter operational service.
The Marine Corps initiated plans to move VMFA-121 to Japan in 2012 when the service designated the unit to become the Pentagon’s first operational F-35 unit. In the inventing years, the unit transitioned from the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet to the short take-off/vertical landing STOVL) F-35B with initial operational capability being declared on July 31, 2015, with an interim configuration called Block 2B.
The Block 2B configuration offers marginal combat capability, with the ability to carry two AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles and either a pair of GBU-12 500lbs laser-guided bombs or a pair of GBU-32 1000lbs Joint Direct Attack Munitions. It also offers a limited flight envelope and limited software and sensor capability, but flying the interim configuration affords the Marines a chance to learn how to operate the jets in combat. Moreover, it allows the Marines—who skipped a generation of combat aircraft—to recapitalize a rapidly aging tactical aviation fleet.
Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is continuing development work on the final Block 3F configuration of the F-35 and the Pentagon is drawing up plans for the next upgrade, Block 4. The Marine Corps, the next step is to operationally deploy at sea onboard an amphibious assault ship in 2018. The Navy and the F-35 tested the aircraft onboard USS America (LHA-6) last October. “The final test period ensured the plane could operate in the most extreme at-sea conditions, with a range of weapons loadouts and with the newest software variant,” a Marine Corps statement reads. “Data and lessons learned laid the groundwork for developing the concepts of operations for F-35B deployments aboard U.S. Navy amphibious carriers, the first two of which will take place in 2018.”
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar
As alluded to in other posts , the President Elect has had a lot to say about many subjects but there is one that is causing undercurrents of dissent amongst the military and defence contractors.
He wants to ‘scrap’the F35 and will ask Boeing to produce a ‘Super’ F18. This reminds of other governments scrapping large projects, and then buying in something else years later when they realise they needed it after all. Need I say ‘Nimrod” and ‘Rivet Joint’ in the same sentence? Like our esteemed (no, not really) Tory government who scrapped the Nimrod MRA4 because of ‘cost overruns’ and extended development time, then five years later; bought an even older airframe (Nimrod Vs B707) to replace the Dimsod after leaving our shores unprotected for a considerable period; Trump says he wants to scrap the trillion dollar F35 and replace it with an airframe from the 70’s. As the website Foxtrot Alpha said:
The problem with wanting to go ahead and start saving money on the F-35 now is that, for the most part, the time to speak up was 20 years ago. Much of the trail of its bloated cost can be found in its tortured development, which itself was borne out of a deeply strange requirement. The one F-35 platform was supposed to replace a bountiful variety of planes, ranging from the fast and light F-16 Viper, to the hovering AV-8B Harrier II, to the massively armoured flying gun known as the A-10 Warthog.
So it seems they have a handle on what Trump is asking for. Of course to scrap the F35 now would be complete folly, especially as it has been ordered and partnered by 10 or more other countries besides the States, and Lockheed claim that ‘5000’ units will be ordered worldwide, which in anyone’s order book is a lot of hooley. One other side of international sales which hasn’t been taken into consideration is that the Department of Defense has stated that computer codes for the repair of the many the computer controlled equipments in the F35 would not be released to third parties, and that all such repairs would be carried out in US. This is in accordance with the ITAR codes which stipulate that any item of defence equipment sold abroad can not have any of its internal circuits available in workshop manuals for use by ‘foreign nationals’. This is because the US is maniacal about such information getting in to the wrong hands like the Russians or Chinese. It even affected the old Harrier fleet, in that ANY component which contained anything made or developed in the US, is subject to ITAR regulations. So, for example a British made component like a circuit board with for example a resistor on it that was made in the US; the whole board is subject to ITAR despite it being British made. This made it very awkward for the military and Defence Contractors who could get fined thousands of dollars for infringing ITAR. ITAR stands for International Traffic in Arms Regulations incidentally. So, the whole F35 program could be in jeopardy if 2nd tier repair organisations aren’t allowed to repair US sourced kit.
Back to Don and his fanciful ideas; it’s been stated by defense experts that the F18 would ‘never’ be able to upgraded enough to be a contender to compete with the F35s capabilities. Scrapping would cost the US economy, and any other country involved in its development and purchase a lot of angst, and also leave them without air cover for many years until an alternative can be introduced, which judging by the 20 year gestation of the F35 could leave many countries in a parlous position.
For better or worse the F35 HAS to go ahead and get into service for the sake of 1) employment in all the countries involved, 2) the horrendous cost of a replacement and most importantly 3) the lack of combat aircraft to protect ourselves.
Video of F35 taking off and landing on a US aircraft carrier:
So, the US Navy placed 12 F35Bs on a carrier and flew them off to show and test themselves how they would work within the context of carrier borne operations. Good for them, it looked successful and the aircraft seemed to perform to expectations.
One thing I don’t get though, watching the take offs, is what are the long term stresses which are placed on that forward intake door during take off? That panel is an accident waiting to happen. It’s too late now but the Harrier design had everything being used during all phases of flight, yet the F35 carries over a ton of dead hovering weight during forward flight. What possible design concept thought that this would be a good thing to do? We’re stuck with it now.All power to the USAF for getting this trial going. But I still wonder about that front intake door.
With thanks to business insider UK
Why the F-35 could ‘never in a million years’ out dogfight the RAF Typhoon or the Russian Su-35
In a recent interview with Business Insider, Justin Bronk, a research fellow specializing in combat airpower at the Royal United Services Institute, dropped a bombshell about the US’s $1 trillion F-35 program:
“The F-35 cannot out dogfight a Typhoon (or a Su-35), never in a million years.”
In earlier stages of the F-35’s development, some bad reports came out claiming it lost in simulated dogfights to the F-16, a legacy platform the F-35 intends to replace.
Lately, the news coming out about the F-35’s dogfighting ability has taken a visible turn to the positive, but dogfighting was never the main purpose or strong suit of the Joint Strike Fighter.
For that reason, older fighters, like the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Sukhoi Su-35, could likely outmaneuver and kill an F-35 in a close range confrontation.
While every credible report indicates that the F-35 will dominate in stealthiness, situational awareness, and beyond visual range confrontations, dogfights, or up close fights with opposing fighter pilots jockeying for position and a clean shot, depend on a different set of characteristics.
The Eurofighter Typhoon was made to dogfight, the F-35 was not. AP
Thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading, or the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wings, comprise some of the chiefly important factors in dogfighting.
“Typhoon and Su-35 both have positive thrust-to-weight ratios at combat loadings, meaning that they can accelerate vertically and generally both maintain and regain energy in a turn much more successfully than the F-35 (particularly the heavier B and C models),” explained Bronk.
The F-35 does have a positive thrust-to-weight ratio, but when loaded up with fuel and ordinance for combat, it’s unclear if that will remain.
Ultimately, having small wings and a design more geared toward stealth than kinematics hurts the F-35’s dogfighting prospects.
“A low wing loading means that Typhoon and Su-35 can sustain much tighter turns than the F-35 whilst also creating less induced drag and losing less energy,” said Bronk.
In the case of the Russian Su-35, an adversary infinitely more likely to face the F-35 than the Typhoon, the F-35 overcoming the Su-35’s supermaneuverability while dogfighting seems an insurmountable task.
“Su-35 also has thrust-vectoring engines, meaning that it can maintain control and continue to point its nose where the pilot wants even after the wings have stalled (called supermaneuverability) which is a potentially large advantage within visual range and at low speeds.”
Not only does stealth limit the F-35’s mobility, it also limits its capacity for ordinance.
The Su-35 sacrifices stealth to carry more missiles under the wings. The F-35 carries missiles in an internal bay to preserve stealth. Sukhoi
“Typhoon and Su-35 also carry larger missile loadouts than F-35 in normal combat configurations meaning that at close range they have twice as many infra-red seeking missiles to fire at their opponents,” Bronk said.
As Business Insider previously explored, infra-red tracking is key to finding and fighting advanced stealth aircraft like the F-35.
But none of this would be news to the US Air Force, who have intentionally sacrificed dogfighting abilities for stealth and situational awareness. The whole point of the F-35 is to see enemy jets from far beyond visual range and engage them with advanced missiles.
According to Bronk, neither an Su-35 or a Typhoon would see the F-35 until it is very close, at which point the legacy jets are completely at the mercy of the more advanced fifth-gens who can “avoid them, engage them, or position themselves for an engagement entirely on their terms.”
So while an F-35 most likely cannot win a dogfight against a Typhoon or an Su-35, it’s game-changing capabilities at long range all but guarantee it will never have to.
NOW WATCH: This is how pilots train to fly America’s most expensive fighter jets
F-35 Marks New Era For Stealth
With thanks to Aviation Week & Space Technology
U.S. Air Force F-35s could deploy in 18 months
Ready for War
It took the Air Force almost a decade to send the Raptor to a combat zone after declaring the stealth fighter ready for war. But after giving the green light to the first operational squadron in late July, the Air Force is signaling the fledgling fleet will deploy to fight Islamic State group terrorists in the very near future.
The Air Force’s eagerness to send its shiny new fighter into battle is a marked shift from years past, when deploying the radar-avoiding F-22 to the Middle East was viewed as provocative. But as the U.S. and its allies face a resurgent Russia and the proliferation of advanced weapons that can easily track and shoot down many legacy fighters, the service seems to be casting aside the Pentagon’s historically more cautious use of stealth aircraft.
declared its F-35A ready for war right on schedule Aug. 2
Senior leaders signal the JSF will soon deploy to Europe, the Pacific, and the Middle East
Despite the Air Force’s confidence, the F-35 will not reach full warfighting capability until 2018, at earliest
Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, the chief of Air Combat Command, says he hopes in the next 18 months to send the Joint Strike Fighter to Europe and the Pacific, suggesting that such a move would send a message in response to increasing Russian and Chinese military activity. And if U.S. Central Command asks for the F-35 in the Middle East, Carlisle says he would comply in a heartbeat.
“From my perspective, it sends a good signal,” Carlisle says. “I think it reassures friends and allies and is a deterrent to potential adversaries, so I don’t think it’s a provocative move at all.”
In rolling out the F-35, the Air Force may be taking lessons learned from the Raptor to heart. Although the F-22 entered service in 2005, the jet did not see its first combat deployment until the U.S.-led intervention in Syria in 2014. The F-22’s deployments to the Middle East to fight Islamic State insurgents and to Europe to counter Russian aggression did wonders for its public image. The Raptor is now so popular, Congress has inquired about what it would take to resurrect the production line.
Now as the F-35 comes online, our partners and allies are eager to see the jet in action, Carlisle says.
The current configuration of F-35A aircraft can carry the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, the GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition and the laser- guided Paveway missile. Credit: U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Madelyn Brown
When F-35s deploy to the European and Pacific theater, this will give our allies and partners confidence in the airframe, Carlisle says. “It will also give them a chance to see it in operation and in interoperability, working with their fourth-generation airplanes,” he adds.
Even though Carlisle lauded the F-35’s performance, the stealthy fighter jet is still immature and has limited capability to actually fight on today’s battlefield. Two U.S. F-35 variants—the’ F-35B and now the Air Force’s F-35A—have been declared ready for combat, but the jet will not be fully operational until it has completed a vigorous testing period that will not begin until August 2018, at the earliest. The initial aircraft will not have its full suite of electronic warfare, data fusion, automated maintenance capability or weapons capacity until the final warfighting software, Block 3F, is fielded in 2018.
For now, the F-35A in its 3i configuration can carry the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, GPS-guidedand laser-guided Paveway missile. Block 3F will add the short-range Sidewinder missile, Small-Diameter Bomb and main gun system—the 25-mm, four-barrel GAU-22/A.
The gun is key to one of the F-35’s primary missions: protecting soldiers on the ground, also called close-air support. Though a 2,000-lb. bomb is effective in destroying a target, a huge blast is not ideal when enemy and friendly ground forces are engaged in close combat.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester cautions that while it is the Air Force’s decision when to declare the F-35 ready for war, the Block 3i software is limited, and its deficiencies will impact mission effectiveness.
“While the USAF has determined that the F-35A with Block 3i mission systems software provides ‘basic’ capabilities for IOC [initial operating
capability], the limitations and deficiencies in performance for the F-35A with Block 3i discussed in the 2015 &E [Director, Operational Test and Evaluation] Annual Report largely remain and will affect mission effectiveness and suitability in combat,” says Pentagon spokesman Maj. Roger Cabiness.
Still, Carlisle says, the F-35 is equipped to carry out many missions U.S. forces are flying today in the Middle East, including pre-planned airstrikes, interdiction, and defensive and offensive counter air. airstrikes, interdiction, and defensive and offensive counter air. Even without its full potential, the Air Force would have no qualms about sending it into battle.
Rocket Testsairstrikes, interdiction, and defensive and offensive counter air. Even without its full potential, the Air Force would have no qualms about sending it into battle.
Marine Fighter Attack Sqdn. (VMFA) 121, the “Green Knights” based out of MCAS Yuma, Arizona, will be the first to deploy overseas; in January the squadron flies to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan. Meanwhile,Lakenheath in the U.K. is set to receive its first of 24 jets in 2021.
“The F-35A brings an unprecedented combination of lethality, survivability and adaptability to joint and combined operations and is ready to deploy and strike well-defended targets anywhere on Earth,” says newly minted Air Force Chief of Staff.
Ed’s note: this all presupposes that those F35 aircraft to be deployed to European airfirces: UK, Austria, Italy et al, will be based in their own countries as well as the USA aircraft. So which Force will have precedence? The US DoD obviously thinks they can do the job better than their European counterparts if they are already announcing deployment from 2018. Surely the home countries defence departments will have greater knowledge of the requirement than the good ‘ole US if A. After all their track record in similar circumstances has not always been good. Comments?