• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

I don't believe its an access panel. You got such panels on top and in front of it. They clearly have a line you can see all around the panel. Moreover, the zig-zaggy lines in the middle would make no sense as an access panel.

Could it be the location of an embedded antenna or sensor system that they are testing the flexing of during a cat shoot? Yes, BTW RyanHealy29, that is not a USAF logo - it's a US military airplane logo. In this particular case, this is a US Navy plane, a F-35C, and you can see it is in catapult launching testing ashore and set to be shot a few seconds after the picture is taken. 
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
BTW RyanHealy29, that is not a USAF logo - it's a US military airplane logo.

Just as the Canadian roundel is not now, and never was, an RCAF marking. It is a NATIONAL military aircraft marking and was formerly applied to Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Army aircraft.
 
MarkOttawa said:
DOT&E report:

1) War Is Boring:

2) Norwegian fighter pilot responds:

Mark Collins
Well,  probably a good thing canada isn't buying it.
 
Right on re: the markings. I just went with USAF since "US military aircraft insignia" is a pain in the *** to type and I definitely didn't notice the launch bar and cat. Good pickup.

I'm pretty sure that isn't an access panel as some have noted. Here's a pic of it lit up (or painted?) green. It's from Facebook, and I can't remember whose page I got it from so apologies to the photographer for not crediting it. It's also definitely not present in all photos of F-35s. Very curious as to what its purpose is.

 

Attachments

  • 12805899_10205946866692276_3096224465397510905_n.jpg
    12805899_10205946866692276_3096224465397510905_n.jpg
    16.1 KB · Views: 206
All I could get off their site, plus comments, but the full article has some interesting info...... available from a library near you?

Canada To Discuss New Fighter At Farnborough
James Drew and Lara Seligman  |  Aerospace Daily & Defense Report  Jul 8 2016

As the Royal Canadian Air Force struggles to meet its military commitments to Norad and NATO with 77 worn out CF-18 Hornets, the government in Ottawa is reaching out to fighter aircraft manufacturers and other nations such as Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden to figure out the best way to replace its 34-year-old fighter ...

http://aviationweek.com/defense/canada-discuss-new-fighter-farnborough


 
Yes, the orange jigsaw in the F-35 pic is an access panel. No more.

BTW apropos the video link in the previous page, the only person in history who's done a Short Rolling Vertical Landing to a carrier deck is Dave Morgan, who did just such a thing during the Falklands. He'd taken an Argie 20mm round through the tailfin while at zot feet over Stanley airport and couldn't do a conventional VL to the deck. The roll from TD to stop was +/- 250ft. The landing was uncleared, and has not been done by anyone since. That list of operators includes the RN, RAF, USMC, Italian, Spanish and Indian navies since. Anyone claiming to have done so is talking weapons-grade BS.

Underway F-35B SRVL trials are currently scheduled for Autumn 2018. Until then it's sim-only.

 
BurmaShave said:
From my understanding, that's the F-35's game.
Indeed.

After this, it's a a shipborne livefire test.

Intro to a lengthy report from USNI follows. This changes one or two things if, down the road, it works in USN SAG/ARG service.


Successful F-35, SM-6 live fire test


By Sam LaGrone
September 13, 2016


A Monday test pairing a Lockheed Martin F-35B with an Aegis Combat System armed with a Raytheon Standard Missile-6 is the latest step in expanding how the Navy and Marine Corps will share data on future battlefields.

Using targeting information transmitted from the Marine Corps F-35B, the Navy’s Aegis test site at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico launched an SM-6 anti-air missile and struck a Beechcraft MQM-107 target representing an adversarial fighter.

The unmodified F-35 picked up the target with its own sensors and routed the track via the fighter’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL pronounced: MAHdel) to the Navy’s USS Desert Ship (LLS-1) test platform running the Baseline 9 Aegis Combat System. Lockheed and the Navy attached a MADL antenna to the combat system to receive the track information that fed the information to the SM-6.

The test is an expansion of the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air concept (NIFC-CA) – a scheme designed to tie together data from the ships and aircraft in a carrier strike group to create a network of sensors and shooters – a proverbial kill web.

For example, targeting data collected from a Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye can be beamed to a guided missile cruiser or destroyer in the strike group. That ship could then launch an SM-6 at the target only using the E-2s track and not its own radar.

For now, the E-2D remains the key node in the NIFC-CA program-of-record acting as the quarterback for the carrier’s air war but Monday’s test shows the Navy the art of the possible, said Anant Patel, major program manager for future combat systems in the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) said in the conference call.

“This was a demonstration to show that within the NIFC-CA architecture we can add another sensor. As long as it meets the quality of service, we can engage the target,” Patel said. “We have F-18s, F-35s all of those sensors we have to consider and that’s a future effort we’re going to have to do as part of our NIFC-CA capability growth.”

The addition of the MADL to the mix of the program of record links NIFC-CA now uses – like Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and Link-16 – the test is a move away from a carrier-centric construct.

F-35 and NIFC-CA

While the F-35 is billed and branded as a strike fighter, it also possesses a little discussed electronic warfare capability that gives it an exceptional awareness of its surroundings.

To that end NIFC-CA has included F-35 as a planned sensor node in carrier strike group model – acting as a stealthy forward arm but that would route targeting information back to the CSG through the E-2, USNI News reported in 2014.

However, using MADL direct to the Aegis ships weren’t part of the plan.



Link to the whole article, with images and a video, here - https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video-successful-f-35-sm-6-live-fire-test-points-expansion-networked-naval-warfare#more-21593
 
Does this make an arsenal ship more likely?

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-air-force-is-getting-a-flying-arsenal-ship-and-that-1756856445

Airborne and submarine are both near term / in-service.

How about surface and semi-submersible?
 
OTR1 said:
Yes, the orange jigsaw in the F-35 pic is an access panel. No more.

BTW apropos the video link in the previous page, the only person in history who's done a Short Rolling Vertical Landing to a carrier deck is Dave Morgan, who did just such a thing during the Falklands. He'd taken an Argie 20mm round through the tailfin while at zot feet over Stanley airport and couldn't do a conventional VL to the deck. The roll from TD to stop was +/- 250ft. The landing was uncleared, and has not been done by anyone since. That list of operators includes the RN, RAF, USMC, Italian, Spanish and Indian navies since. Anyone claiming to have done so is talking weapons-grade BS.

Underway F-35B SRVL trials are currently scheduled for Autumn 2018. Until then it's sim-only.

Interesting. Is there a reason that it doesn't have a clear seam like the other nearby access panels? Also what's the purpose behind the bright green lighting/paint in the one pic? Is there something special about that one panel?
 
Chris Pook said:
Does this make an arsenal ship more likely?

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-air-force-is-getting-a-flying-arsenal-ship-and-that-1756856445

Airborne and submarine are both near term / in-service.

How about surface and semi-submersible?

That's not really what I was thinking of when I touched on arsenal ships. To me, what they're talking about is just a further evolution of Bomber CAS, being served targets from a BACN or direct via Link 16. That's here and now.

What I meant about arsenal ships is mentioned later in the article, talking about loading up a bomber with AMRAAMs or SM-6s. In that article, as it has been for 50 years, it's mentioned as a good idea, no more.
 
Att are 2 Photos from Luke AFB open house in 2014.
 

Attachments

  • 2014 Photo Luke Days.JPG
    2014 Photo Luke Days.JPG
    110.6 KB · Views: 171
  • 2014 Luke Days 2 (resized).jpg
    2014 Luke Days 2 (resized).jpg
    347 KB · Views: 167
Here is a pic with the panel removed.

As to the green tape.  Perhaps it is used to maintain the stealth characteristics during troubleshooting.  Meaning they are accessing whatever is behind the panel more frequently than normal so they use the tape (cheaper).  Just my guess..
 

Attachments

  • F-35.jpg
    F-35.jpg
    139.5 KB · Views: 191
As for problems in fighter development, see this 1999 US GAO report on the Super Hornet:

Progress of the F/A-18E/F Engineering and Manufacturing Development Program
...
According to the Navy, the F/A-18E/F is meeting all performance requirements. We do not agree with the Navy’s assessment.  The Navy based its assessment on the E model’s performance and assumed some improvements to the aircraft that have not yet been demonstrated.  Without that assumption, the F model, which makes up over half of the E/F planned buy, is not meeting the interdiction range requirement—a primary justification for the program.

The Navy’s OPEVAL schedule, combined with unresolved aircraft deficiencies, could cause the E/F to fail OPEVAL.  The Navy maintained its original schedule and started OPEVAL on May 27, 1999, even though completion of the development effort slipped from November 1998 to April 1999.  Because the Navy is maintaining its original OPEVAL schedule, the contractor has insufficient time to correct some critical deficiencies in the aircraft that, according to Navy criteria, should be corrected prior to OPEVAL.  Department of Defense (DOD), Navy, and contractor personnel
have stated that there is a medium risk that OPEVAL might find the E/F not operationally effective and/or suitable.  Such a conclusion could result in a delay or postponement of the full-rate production decision and the need to
conduct additional operational testing.

Corrections of some deficiencies have been shifted to later in the program. This will help the Navy stay within the congressionally mandated developmental cost cap; however, correcting these deficiencies will increase the procurement costs of the aircraft.  Congress is considering the Navy’s request for multiyear procurement of the F/A-18E/F.  A key criterion for obtaining congressional approval for multiyear procurement is design stability.  Correction of some E/F deficiencies could result in contract modifications and design changes to the aircraft, which increases the risk associated with Congress’s approving the Navy’s multiyear procurement request for the E/F at this time.  We recommend in this report that the Secretary of Defense defer multiyear funding for the E/F program until all corrections of deficiencies have been incorporated into the aircraft design and successfully tested...

We reported in June 1996 that current F/A-18s are not as deficient as the Navy reported and that the F/A-18E/F would provide only a marginal improvement in capability over the older F/A-18s at a significantly greater cost. We recommended that DOD reconsider its plan to buy the E/F and instead buy additional F/A-18C/Ds.  DOD did not concur with our recommendation and continued to believe that procuring the E/F was the more cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy’s tactical aviation fleet...
http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/227381.pdf

Hmm.

Mark
Ottawa
 
F-35B is back at sea: seven embarked in brand-new USS America, off California, for DT-III.

A big bunch of RAF/RN dudes are also part of the group.

First video released, here - https://youtu.be/PInLkXgYVIk

USN reports two items of note;
(1) Deliberately chasing bad weather, and
(2) Plan to pull one to pieces in the hangar for full reassembly.

 
USAF F-35As being fixed:

Repaired F-35s Return To Flight

Repaired U.S. Air Force F-35As are beginning to fly again after the discovery of faulty insulation inside the fuel tanks grounded 15 operational jets in September, the service confirmed to Aviation Week.

Two F-35s at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, returned to flight Oct. 24, and work on three more will wrap up by Nov. 4, according to Air Force spokesman Micah Garbarino.

News of the grounding came less than two months after the Air Force declared its Lockheed Martin F-35As ready for war, a setback that left Hill’s 34th Fighter Squadron, the service’s first operational F-35 squadron, scrambling for additional flying capacity. Altogether, 10 of Hill’s 15 F-35As were affected by the temporary flight restrictions, leaving the fighter wings with only five operational jets.

... Lockheed apparently has the problem under control.  Work on the affected jets is progressing faster than anticipated, and all 15 operational F-35s—13 U.S. and two Norwegian aircraft—are expected to fly by the end of the year.

In total, 57 operational and in-production F-35s were affected by the problem, which comes down to faulty cooling lines that were installed in the wing fuel tanks. Due to a supplier mistake, the tubing insulation on the polyalphaolefin (PAO) coolant tubes was not compatible with the fuel, which caused the insulation to crumble and peel off the tubing. This left residue in the fuel that could potentially obstruct fuel flow in and out of the various tanks...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/repaired-f-35s-return-flight

Mark
Ottawa
 
OTR1 said:
F-35B is back at sea: seven embarked in brand-new USS America, off California, for DT-III.

A big bunch of RAF/RN dudes are also part of the group.

First video released, here - https://youtu.be/PInLkXgYVIk

USN reports two items of note;
(1) Deliberately chasing bad weather, and
(2) Plan to pull one to pieces in the hangar for full reassembly.

Interesting to see that there's still a Canadian Flag on the side of the "Partner marked" airframe.

I guess we're still 'in'??

 
Navy Shooter: Indeed Canada is still part of F-35 JPO:

Liberals pay $33 million to stay in F-35 program, despite not committing to buy them
Canadian firms have secured US$812 million in contracts since Canada's first F-35 payment in 1997

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-stealth-fighter-jet-1.3696269

More on big factor sure to affect Liberal government's further actions, esp. with Quebec in mind:

Avions F-35: une manne de 1 milliard au Canada
http://affaires.lapresse.ca/economie/canada/201610/27/01-5034810-avions-f-35-une-manne-de-1-milliard-au-canada.php

Mark
Ottawa
 
Back
Top