Lockheed Martin F-35A, B, C and other ideas

[RLBH]

slow burn or comfy cushions, I don't think the 7400 plus people saved by this companies products care

IIRC a successful ejection is often a career ender because it causes enough injury that repeating it is not advisable. A pilot who ends up grounded would definitely care about the quality of the ejection.

I have it on good authority (a family friend joined the Caterpillar Club last year) that one is allowed, if the medics approve, but the second ejection gets you transferred away from fast jets.

[Taiidantomcat]

ROKAF no longer a Whif.

[NARSES2]

Every time I read ROKAF my brain goes "since when has S Korea had a monarchy ?" and then it clicks

[McColm]

Would make a great drone in Whiffland .

[jcf]

 No. 100 and the 41st 'A' model:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131216/DEFREG02/312160018/Lockheed-Marks100th-Production-F-35

[PR19_Kit]

They've built a HUNDRED of them already??? 

[kitnut617]

Turkey has also just delivered it's first fuselage section to the assembly line in the States --- so which other countries are actually building parts for the F-35 now?

[sandiego89]

They've built a HUNDRED of them already??? 

No kidding, and that is the 41st A model, so that means a whole bunch of "B"s and a handfull of "C"s have come off the line as well.  With so many already built and on the assembly line, it would seem we are past the cancellation point that some seem to still be calling for/wondering about. Sure we may see fewer orders, but the A and B must be safer by now. 

Iv'e seen a few B's fly and taxi up close.  Definitely look better in person, and the noise is most impressive.

Waiting for a good B model in 1/72.  Got some WHIF ideas.     

[Chris Payne]

So far they have built 44x F-35A's, 42x F-35B's and 14x F-35C's.

[PR19_Kit]

.... so which other countries are actually building parts for the F-35 now?

We in UK are doing some, not the least being all the lift fan systems for the B models.

[rickshaw]

All those 100 are basically prototypes.  They forewent the idea of dedicated prototypes and instead started out with what was essentially production machines and used them, which means they have a 100 different machines, all in different stages of development which will, in theory all be brought up to the final production standard once they've decided what that actually will be.

This has been one of the criticisms of the entire project, however what people forget is that this was how they used to do it in the 1950s - they'd build a new aircraft and test it and modify it as a prototype while at the same time they were starting production.  This one of the reasons why they went quickly through the first couple of marks until they hit on one which was the real production standard.  In the 1960s-70s-80s they reverted to the time-honoured method of building a series of prototypes and once they'd ironed out the bugs, then starting production, having found the other method expensive and wasteful.

What they've been hoping to do, I think is speed up the design/production process (as they hoped in the 1950s) but the complexity has resulted in a lot of wastage still.  I think they've relearnt what their fathers/grandfathers did then.

[Chris Payne]

BAE Systems are building the rear fuselage of every F-35 off the production line.

[Thorvic]

OrangeHobby are doing their first injection moulded kit in 1/72nd of the F-35C Carrier version including folding wings and deck tug 

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=270957

[Captain Canada]

Nice !

Saw a pic in a mag today of a camo Korean ( I think ) bird. Also saw a nice, fully loaded die cast on the Flying Mule site :

http://www.flyingmule.com/products/HM-HA4401

[Taiidantomcat]

All those 100 are basically prototypes.  They forewent the idea of dedicated prototypes and instead started out with what was essentially production machines and used them, which means they have a 100 different machines, all in different stages of development which will, in theory all be brought up to the final production standard once they've decided what that actually will be.

The 100 produced so far, the majority of which are under the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phases are not prototypes!  They are going to enter service (or already have) with multiple air forces around the world.  There was a F-35 prototype (it was called the X-35) and like all such cases, the prototype varied significantly from the production variants.

Moreover, the 100+ produced so far are NOT all in different stages of development - they are largely produced in blocks of the same configuration with the differences (slight) understood and accounted for.  The job of eventually bringing them to similar standards (if even required) will be undertaken during maintenance periods of the most part...just as it is for most other platforms.  Speaking of which, anyone who has spent time around any real world military aircraft (or tanks or ships or...) knows that hardly are two of them alike in mod status.  Therefore, to try to paint the F-35 as being a special (bad) case in this regard is disingenuous and misleading.

This has been one of the criticisms of the entire project, however what people forget is that this was how they used to do it in the 1950s - they'd build a new aircraft and test it and modify it as a prototype while at the same time they were starting production.  This one of the reasons why they went quickly through the first couple of marks until they hit on one which was the real production standard.

In the 1960s-70s-80s they reverted to the time-honoured method of building a series of prototypes and once they'd ironed out the bugs, then starting production, having found the other method expensive and wasteful.

Not true all the teen fighters were put into production with plenty of "bugs" to be ironed out, despite prototypes.  both the F-22 and F-18E/F had LRIP runs and even the 135 produced Block I F-18E/Fs were in FULL PRODUCTION with the idea of upgrading them to block II standard in the future. F-18E/F also was undergoing flight testing and working toward operational capability while aircraft were being built in Low Rate (just like the JSF). The F-22 was drastically changed from its YF-22 form, and only two YF-22s were ever built. the first production version F-22 being produced in 1997 again there were "no series of prototypes" produced for either of these aircraft. the F-22 had 9 LRIP grade fighters used for testing, In fact by 1998 the YF-22 prototype had already been committed to a museum. F-22s were built in multiple different blocks LRIP blocks.  LRIP Blocks, or production groups typically based on fiscal year, are also being used on the F-35, so again 100 "different machines" is not even close to true.

If we go back further from there we Tomcats that were being produced with the idea of upgraded engines coming in later (despite a series of 12 prototypes, Tomcats still underwent large developmental changes throughout initial production, Early Tomcats were far from "frozen" in design work, and took decades to "perfect" in the mean time the attrition of the F-14 was nearly a full quarter.), and literally hundreds of F-16s produced in the low block numbers that were considered "unrepresentive" and "temporary" of the much more produced (C/D) variants of the original "production standard" (A/B) could be produced.


So the JSF is following the same LRIP model as the F-22 and F-18E/F, and same "unofficial LRIP" style from back in the old days when substandard aircraft were built with the idea that they might be fixed up later and just calling them "full production" when the reality was they weren't representative of the full scale plan and why we see "follow on"  versions of C/D teen fighters, made quickly after the production of the A/B Teens. You will also note the dramatic amount of crashes, accidents, and deaths that followed the "series of prototypes" then production method, as many of the problems were not ironed out. especially for the F-14. Things are much safer, more controlled, more measured, and more accounted for by using the LRIP method, with upgrades logically built in for future use instead of the hodge podge it once was, that then required whole new variants, after hundreds of fighters and dozens of prototypes produced. Another advantage of LRIP is getting the aircraft into the hands of the people that will use them and I don't just mean pilots but also maintainers and students and training squadrons.

Now whether you agree or disagree with LRIP is the subject for another thread, but suffice to say your impression of how things were done and how they are done now does not sync up.   You would have to look with some seriously rose colored glasses at the fighters procured and produced in the 1970s and all their problems even years into production and the need for follow up variants almost instantly and think thats the way to do business. Both have pluses and minuses, and say what you will about the F-35, F18E/F and F-22 their programs were relatively devoid of accidents, crashes, and deaths. I think one YF-22 crashed? No fatalities? So I guess wasteful is how you define it. Losing men and airplanes by the score was plenty wasteful