F-35 Lightning/JSF (Joint Strike Fighter)

[Guest whairdhugo?]

I know it's ever-changing, but what exactly is the JSF expected to replace? (equipment, model, block, etc.) Is it expected to trickle down to the Reserve/Guard?

[Guest ILLiniFlyer16]

whairdhugo~~

I was just reading the Air Force Magazine where it had a huge article covering the future of the JSF project. To answer your question: there will be 3 JSF's, the Air Force's F-35A will be (CTOL) to replace the F-16s and A-10s. The navy plans to replace the F-18A/C's and introduce stealth into its fleet with the F-35C for a carrier variant (CV). Finally the Marine Corp., F-35B will be STOVL to replace the AV-8 Harriers and early F/A-18's. Hope that helps.

-hopefully future AF pilot

[Guest Dirt Beater]

Correction please, sir.

According to the latest Air Force Times, the AF is now planning to acquire the F-35B (STOVL) variant to better fit into the whole "Battlefield Airmen" theme that we're slowly adopting.

[Guest AirGuardian]

Yes, there will be some "B" models - but not all of them for the greater payloads and range sake of the "A's". The AF is intending on giving the Army the much needed quick CAS that the Marines enjoy and we may also be hedging on some Marine action just to be more Joint in the future... With A-10s and some 16 losses in the future, the VSTOL platform will give a much needed quick response to the infantry/mech div on the ground, rather than having B-52/B-1's orbiting overhead for crazy amounts of time... I wonder if our F-35B flyers will be getting per-diem while being with the Army in real tents... hmmmm.

[Guest egghead]

F-35 replacing an A-10. That is the epotime of wishful thinking...

[Guest Siscojoe]

What size gun will the JSF be firing when she comes out of production?

[Guest egghead]

Same one thats in the 15/16 I believe. M61A1 20 MM gatling.

[Guest AirGuardian]

Wishful thinking or not egghead,

You are not that naive to think they wouldn't replace a weapon system that may still be viable in the future. Aren't our contractor looking out for us with the bigger and better deals... And we always buy the highest, no I mean looooowest bidder... and than cancel the program if it is showing promise or not depending on budgetary concerns, killing a few folks here and there regarded as mere growing pains... What a grand view we have wondering what's the next cut or major upgrade we will never see... or doesn't even work. With that said, we have had some successes with many aircraft, but how the bull gets hyped and chopped on the way to the bullpen is beyond me. They make'm, you just keep fly'n them like me... Pawns baby, mere pawns...

[Guest sprint]

Dirt Beater,

Which Air Force Times had the article about the Air Force buying the "B" version of the JSF? Thanks

[Duck]

New article about the 35.

Luke pilots selected for F-35 Joint Strike Force initial cadre

by Senior Airman TONG DUONG

56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

1/23/2009 - LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. -- Two Airmen of Luke Air Force Base's F-16 Fighting Falcon family were selected Jan. 9 to become part of the initial training cadre for the F-35 Lightning II.

Lt. Col. Stephen Pieper, 310th Fighter Squadron director of operations, was selected to be a squadron commander and Maj. Chad Lewis, 56th Operations Support Squadron assistant director of operations in weapons and tactics, was selected to be one of the first instructor pilots for the Air Force's newest fighter aircraft.

Since only a handful of test pilots currently fly the F-35, the Falcon duo will need to learn to fly the aircraft from them, Major Lewis said.

"This initial qualification training ... will take approximately two to three months," he said. "Once we're qualified, we'll be responsible for training the next pilot in line. The United States Air Force plans to buy more than 1,700 of these aircraft, so we have a lot of pilots to train."

The two aviators will be part of the 10 initial instructors in the F-35 training program and will be responsible for training all the subsequent instructors. Along with FTU instructor responsibilities, the initial cadre will develop tactics and assist with systems development in future F-35 variants. They will also be developing methods of force application that will revolutionize warfare, the major said.

To find suitable applicants to become initial cadre, the Air Force sought pilots with A-10 Thunderbolt II, F-16, F-22 Raptor and F-15E Strike Eagle experience. Colonel Pieper and Major Lewis submitted applications through their chain of command to be assigned a rank order number. Once the applications left the base, they were reviewed by a selection board chaired by Maj. Gen. Anthony Przybyslawski, Air Education and Training Command vice commander.

The selection board evaluated multiple criteria including flying hours and fighter experience. Major Lewis believes these areas gave him an advantage above other applicants.

"I am a weapons instructor course graduate with more than 1,500 F-16 Fighting Falcon and 500 instructor pilot hours," he said. "I also have combat experience in Operations Northern Watch and Iraqi Freedom. I think these are some of the biggest things that helped me get selected."

Along with Major Lewis' background, Colonel Pieper and the others bring similar combat experiences to benefit future Lightning II pilots they take under their wing.

"The combat experience that a number of us have will prove valuable as we attempt to marry the additional capabilities the aircraft bring and the tasking the Air Force has for us to fill and uphold," Colonel Pieper said.

Though Colonel Pieper will be filling a different position than his current job, he is confident his experience will transition well as an F-35 squadron commander.

"As a director of operations, I know how scheduling meshes with aircraft and airspace availability," he said. "The leadership skills that I also possess will come in handy down the road."

For Major Lewis, the opportunity the new assignment provides is two-fold.

"One is to be among the first pilots to fly the F-35," he said. "Number two is to be involved in the development of a program that will have a long lasting impact on future airpower application."

There are challenges associated with any new weapon system, he said, along with opportunities.

"This aircraft and weapons system is drastically different than any other in the Air Force," Major Lewis said.

[theat6bisasham]

They're still building this? I thought we were giving all that money to poor people for free gas?

I'd double check my sources on that...and tell those two Luke dudes not to buy get any new mortgages just yet....

[Guest Krabs]

Agreed on the B-variant being mostly a waste. It's basically a really cool technology demonstrator.

Personally, I give a thumbs down to replacing the A-10 with the 35. I think we need to look into a replacement, but a dedicated replacement -- just my opinion.

[Duster]

In my opinion the F-35B (STOVL variant), is a complete and total waste of money. Why do you need a STOVL aircraft in the US inventory? I can understand the Brits since they only have carriers that support STOVL aircraft, but even for them I think it is a waste. The airplane is already underpowered and under armed. I think the money that went to designing that 18,000 lbs "thrust column" could have been much better spent. STOVL capability is a novelty.

STOVL aircraft are a carryover from the Cold War where we would be fending off the hordes of the "Iron Curtain" in Europe. Harriers would be able to land just behind the FEBA, rearm, and reattack the masses. If you think that the F-35B is going to land in a grass field or desert sand trap with the Marines and rearm then you are sadly mistaken.

You're not getting a "quick response" with an F-35B. How many Harriers are landing and employing from a dirt field in the desert of Iraq or Afghanistan?

Dude, Spot on.

To add, what real advantage does a jet get from taking off vertically? Is it worth the cost of less power? Fewer weapons? It really does not make sense.

Besides, isn't the JSF way over budget anyway?

Would only producing the A/C model cut any cost (at this point)?

[MD]

STOVL aircraft are a carryover from the Cold War where we would be fending off the hordes of the "Iron Curtain" in Europe. Harriers would be able to land just behind the FEBA, rearm, and reattack the masses. If you think that the F-35B is going to land in a grass field or desert sand trap with the Marines and rearm then you are sadly mistaken.

You're not getting a "quick response" with an F-35B. How many Harriers are landing and employing from a dirt field in the desert of Iraq or Afghanistan?

Cheers,

BeerMan

Even the A-10 likely wouldn't be operated from dirt/austere fields like it was touted to be at the beginning, and even operated as from the Bicycle Lake AAF at Ft Irwin. With all it's fancy upgrades, I doubt it'd ever be seen doing this.....granted, a holdover from the Cold War as you mention.

Only time overseas I saw Harriers operating in a VSTOL mode was during their FCF flights or for currency; since they were operating out of the main airfields, not some FOB; and likely wouldn't.

Edited January 29, 2009 by MD

[Guest Gumps]

In my opinion the F-35B (STOVL variant), is a complete and total waste of money. Why do you need a STOVL aircraft in the US inventory? I can understand the Brits since they only have carriers that support STOVL aircraft, but even for them I think it is a waste. The airplane is already underpowered and under armed. I think the money that went to designing that 18,000 lbs "thrust column" could have been much better spent. STOVL capability is a novelty.

STOVL aircraft are a carryover from the Cold War where we would be fending off the hordes of the "Iron Curtain" in Europe. Harriers would be able to land just behind the FEBA, rearm, and reattack the masses. If you think that the F-35B is going to land in a grass field or desert sand trap with the Marines and rearm then you are sadly mistaken.

You're not getting a "quick response" with an F-35B. How many Harriers are landing and employing from a dirt field in the desert of Iraq or Afghanistan?

The Marines should only fly the F-35A/C variants. Get rid of the B. They can do CAS from the bo-at, or from land based fields like the Air Force does now. Let me caveat this with the the statement that I've only ever "dropped" a JDAM, but I'd be interested to hear Toro or Hacker's opinion on the subject. I'd also like to hear what the Viper and Hornet guys think. Still...why you would ever land an expensive LO aircraft in a field is completely foreign to me.

Cheers,

BeerMan

Take this reply with a grain of salt. I am a lowly B-Course grad, and have only dropped inert JDAM, MK-82s and blue death. My take on the JSF is that it will accomplish what the Viper does now...and then some. As for replacing the Hog, dude, the Hog guys know better, but I'm gonna go wtih "no". I also do not think the JSF will EVER land in a grass field. Not only because of the risk, but also the lack of necessity. That is the job of a hog or helo. Not a 4th/5th gen fighter. But, who knows, maybe there is a more important reason to have the STOVL that we all aren't privy to. I have no idea.

[summe32c]

We are slated to recieve the F-35 in 2028 to replace our "newly aquired"STS A-10C's. I do not know which variant we will get, but I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be a more than suitable replacement for the Hog, and so far....I dont see the JSF being the winner at this point.

Just my $.02

-summers

[Guest CAVEMAN]

In my opinion the F-35B (STOVL variant), is a complete and total waste of money. Why do you need a STOVL aircraft in the US inventory? I can understand the Brits since they only have carriers that support STOVL aircraft, but even for them I think it is a waste. The airplane is already underpowered and under armed. I think the money that went to designing that 18,000 lbs "thrust column" could have been much better spent. STOVL capability is a novelty.

STOVL aircraft are a carryover from the Cold War where we would be fending off the hordes of the "Iron Curtain" in Europe. Harriers would be able to land just behind the FEBA, rearm, and reattack the masses. If you think that the F-35B is going to land in a grass field or desert sand trap with the Marines and rearm then you are sadly mistaken.

You're not getting a "quick response" with an F-35B. How many Harriers are landing and employing from a dirt field in the desert of Iraq or Afghanistan?

The Marines should only fly the F-35A/C variants. Get rid of the B. They can do CAS from the bo-at, or from land based fields like the Air Force does now. Let me caveat this with the the statement that I've only ever "dropped" a JDAM, but I'd be interested to hear Toro or Hacker's opinion on the subject. I'd also like to hear what the Viper and Hornet guys think. Still...why you would ever land an expensive LO aircraft in a field is completely foreign to me.

Cheers,

BeerMan

I never thought I would agree with you but I do on this.

The Marines like to fantasize with the idea of being at the FEBA. Launching and striking targets deep inside enemy territory just sounds cool. Like a commander will really let his birds land on some clearing made by the SEABEES.

They are also passionate about their stake in the Air Dominance piece. I am not sure they want to let go that part of their identity.

If the F-35B fails, they will only have one aircraft for their TACAIR. Remember the Osprey program, great concept that took a lot of money and lost lives. I hope this will not be the case.

[StoleIt]

As long as the Marines still operate the pocket carriers (forgot what they are called) they will need the STOVL capability.

Wikipedia informs me that are Tarawa class amphibious assault ship (wouldn't dare use the AAS acronym). So as long as Marines still fancy using those ships they will want the some fixed wing support on it.

I'd be interested to hear what other countries are buying the -B model. Since Britain doesn't have full sized carrier either I would think the -C isn't an option for their Navy.

[Steve Davies]

Gents

Stoleit has nicely summarised why the B-model variant's STOVL is needed - without it, you cannot get back on the boat. At the moment there are three customers that want the F-35B (USMC, Royal Navy, Italian Navy), and there are no wires or angled decks on any of their carriers. Looking forward, and considering additional export potential, India, Brazil and others may also purchase the type, and they will also require STOVL to get the jet back on the boat. It's as simple as that.

As for the idea that landing at a FARP is a notion that made sense only during the Cold War, I believe that USMC AV-8Bs were doing exactly that - vertically - during OIF. They certainly did it in 1991, as did the A-10.

[busdriver]

As mentioned above, the Marines need the B model to operate off their little ships. As to the JSF replacing the Hog, good luck performing the Sandy mission. JSF as Sandy basically means Rescue must self escort.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

The USMC is not getting STOVL so it can get on ships. The STOVL is based on their concept of operation and ability to project littoral power. This is a doctrinal issue more than anything else. I understand they need to land on small decks however, the need to project power in austere conditions inland is what really drives this. Afterall, the US Navy is responsible for carrying the Marines and they are not talking of buying the STOVL variant.

The ship is going to have to park and drop anchors and this is sometimes far from the battle. They like to have a clearing deep in bad mans country for their FARP.

Some Harrier guy on here will jump on this

[Chuck17]

They are also passionate about their stake in the Air Dominance piece. I am not sure they want to let go that part of their identity.

Huh?

The Marines dont give a CRAP about air dominance. They care about CAS, pure, clean, deadly CAS. Air Dominance or Air superiority or air supremacy or whatever moniker you want to hang on it is the rhelm of the USAF and to a degree the USN. The Marines care about Marines... if thats what you meant by their piece of the air dominance pie, then Im with you.

'the need to project power in austere conditions inland is what really drives this'

Again we see ignorance of capes. This is not a personal attack CAVEMAN, Im speaking in regards to the Marines, not you. LO aircraft are made to be stealthy. If they are DIRTY, dinged, bent, or covered in mud and sh!t with ordinance hanging all over them (thats what happens when jets go and land in the dirt) then why buy the B model? Because its new? Because its going to be STOVL? It sure is going to spoil the look of the thing to arm it to the gills and get it nice and dirty doing semi-prepared airfield ops in the wilds of Afghanistan... The Marines dont care about stealth, they care about putting iron in the mud.

My .02

And regardless of what the services say, I still dont trust that this thing isnt the next F-111 that the USAF get stuck holding the bag for... especially the B model...

Chuck

Edited January 29, 2009 by Chuck17

[jango220]

And regardless of what the services say, I still dont trust that this thing isnt the next F-111 that the USAF get stuck holding the bag for... especially the B model...

I seem to remember reading a while back that the Air Force was looking into buying a few of the B-models just to keep the costs down for the Marines and allies for that variant. I'll search around and see if I can find a no-kidding source.

EDIT: the only credible source I could find during a 6-9 sec search was one from Gen. Jumper saying the AF was going to buy "more than a handful" of the B-models back in 2004. Who knows if that has changed. Link

Edited January 29, 2009 by jango220

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Huh?

The Marines dont give a CRAP about air dominance. They care about CAS, pure, clean, deadly CAS. Air Dominance or Air superiority or air supremacy or whatever moniker you want to hang on it is the rhelm of the USAF and to a degree the USN. The Marines care about Marines... if thats what you meant by their piece of the air dominance pie, then Im with you.

Yeap. The ability to support the Marines that has to make the final assualt.

[Jenkspaz]

I seem to remember reading a while back that the Air Force was looking into buying a few of the B-models just to keep the costs down for the Marines and allies for that variant. I'll search around and see if I can find a no-kidding source.

God I hope that's not true. We already can't afford planes that we need. Now we're going to buy a plane that we DON'T need? If we want to keep the costs down for other services/allies, let's just convince some other country that they're "really cool" so that they'll buy a few more.