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

[Diamondback]

C has a bigger wing, no internal gun, a tailhook, more rugged gear, and probe/drogue refueling. A has a smaller wing, internal gun, and is outfitted with a slipway for Flying Boom.

[sandiego89]

where is the whole program at atm?
do any of them work yet or is there still loads to sort out?
whats the difference between the a and c variant?

Over 100 have been built, mostly A and B, a few C. Several have been delivered to export partners, but I believe all these remain in the USA for training/trials.

All 3 versions are flying, moslty in test and a few in early training.  Much software remains to be progrmmed/installed, and only a few weapons have been cleared to date. Some significant issues: cost (all) weight (all), cracking in frames (B), tailhook problems (C)

[Thorvic]

The first fix on the F-35B driveshaft has also been rejected so that issue is ongoing, as are some actuator heat issues which is why were seeing a STOVL aircraft not doing a great amount of STOVL. Its getting there but their is still quite a few major issue fixes to be applied on the production line and flight testing and systems integration have a way to go yet but much of that is tied to the software which is why its now the issue of greatest concern.
They will get there just not quite as quickly as some would have you think, expect to see F-35A in full operational service with the USAF and a few allies before the end of the decade, the F-35C should join the active USN airwing at the start of the next decade and STOVL F-35B should hopefully before the turn of the decade.

[Thorvic]

On a brighter note before KittyHawk announced the 1/48th F-35C they said last month that they will be issuing all three variants in 1/72nd, so thats another set of models to compare with the current crop. The fun part will be getting somebody with enougth experience with the aircraft and with the permission of LM to say which company has correctly captured the size and shape as i have found all 3 F-35A kits in 1/72nd to be quite different when compared close up !.

On a sour note for UK modellers, i have seen it mentioned that with Joint Force Lightning (JFL) the aircraft will be carrying pretty much the markings the three test aircraft are carrying and no user/squadron markings, so the 'polo mint' roundels will stay and there will be no 617 or 809 markings to speak of. A shame from a modelling point of view but understandable when you think about it so that it keeps the Carrier Strike aspect at 48 aircraft rather than those 12 are FAA or those are RAF as the units themselves will be mixed manned.

[Spey_Phantom]

the F-35 was doomed from the start because they wanted 3 different aircraft for different services and requirements.
the poor performance of the aircraft is a result of contradicting requirements from both the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

they should have developed the F-35 the same way they did the F-16, a simple airframe without all the fancy gadgets.
from all the JSF Variants, in my opinion, the X-35A/C development prototype were the best. it was light, nothing fancy and simple. they way the F-35 should have been.

get rid of the STOVL requirement, and the costs could have been half they are now.
my ideal JSF would be based on the X-35A, with the wings of the X-35C, canopy of the F-35A/C, a single weaponsbay like the F-22.
they should go back to the rules of "Not a pound for air to ground"

the X-35 based airframe would not only be cheaper and lighter then the current F-35, but also more slimmer and nimble (like an F-5 or F-16).

compare this to the testbed and the fat & obese production machine.








also, compare the F-35B with the X-35B  
"my gosh you gotten fat!" -Edna Mode

[PR19_Kit]

get rid of the STOVL requirement, and the costs could have been half they are now.
my ideal JSF would be based on the X-35A, with the wings of the X-35C, canopy of the F-35A/C, a single weaponsbay like the F-22.
they should go back to the rules of "Not a pound for air to ground"

You can't just '....get rid of a requirement.....'

If the various operators, in this case the RAF/FAA and the USMC, decide they need an aircraft with a STOVL capability, that's what they want. Doing that with a single, dedicated aircraft type would have been MORE expensive overall than going with the various F-35 versions.

[sandiego89]

get rid of the STOVL requirement, and the costs could have been half they are now.
my ideal JSF would be based on the X-35A, with the wings of the X-35C, canopy of the F-35A/C, a single weaponsbay like the F-22.
they should go back to the rules of "Not a pound for air to ground"

You can't just '....get rid of a requirement.....'

Agree, the JSF was never intended to be a pure air-to-air machine, so it needed to have air-to-ground form the start.  Remember it was decides to replace or augment the F-16, A-10, AV-8B/GR7/9, F-18 and A-10.  All of those aircraft have extensive air-to-ground capabilites.  I think the days of pure lightweight (or even heavy) fighers with zero air-to-ground capabilites are over. 

[kitnut617]

the X-35 based airframe would not only be cheaper and lighter then the current F-35, but also more slimmer and nimble (like an F-5 or F-16).

compare this to the testbed and the fat & obese production machine.

also, compare the F-35B with the X-35B  
"my gosh you gotten fat!" -Edna Mode

Well Nils, if the models that are available are anything to go by, it's the other way around.  I've got the X-35, F-35A and F-35B kits in front of me as I'm building a couple. The overall plan view they are very similar, but the forward fuselage on the 'A' & 'B' are slimmer than the X-35.  Optically, it would appear that the F-35's are fatter but really what you're looking at is a slimmer forward fuselage and the same width across the outside of the air intakes on all of them.
Also the main u/c gear has been moved outwards on the F-35's so the top end of the legs are in the wing root and not on the edge of the fuselage.

[jcf]

 Ummm, Nils, the aircraft has from the start been the Joint Strike Fighter, the whole
point of the damned project was a primary role as an attack aircraft, not an A-to-A fighter.

[ChernayaAkula]

the F-35 was doomed from the start because they wanted 3 different aircraft for different services and requirements.
the poor performance of the aircraft is a result of contradicting requirements from both the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

Doomed? What poor performance? 

<...>
they should have developed the F-35 the same way they did the F-16, a simple airframe without all the fancy gadgets.<...>

Oh, yeah! A "simple airframe without all the fancy gadgets". And look how well that worked out for the F-16, right? 
Started off as a light fighter with only a few IR-guided AAMs and a gun. Until they wanted to add BVR missiles. And then they wanted to add a ground-pounding capability. Hey, a night and adverse weather precision-attack capability would be cool, right? Oh, and a little more range would be nice. Oh, oh, and some electronic warfare stuff, please, yeah?

Which is how they got from this....



to this:



What was that again about the slim and nimble testbed and the fat & obese production machine? 

The F-35 can do everything the F-16 can - and more. Better than an F-16I, with the clean looks of the F-16A. It can carry as much as an F-16 can, over the same range - carrying both armament and fuel internally, giving a clean and stealthy airframe. Yeah, it might look a bit portly, but carrying gasbags and the boomstuffs doesn't actually add a whole lot of "sexy" to the F-16, does it? It certainly doesn't help in the drag arena either. A weighed-down F-16 sure isn't as nimble as a clean one. A clean F-16 might be more impressive at an airshow than an F-35, but with both types sporting an effective warload, I'm not sure I'd put my money on the F-16.
And on the F-35, you could even add more boomstuffs on the outside. Sure, it won't be as stealthy as a clean F-35, but still much more stealthy than a F-16 carrying a smaller warload.

[Taiidantomcat]

Also worth noting that 1800 F-16s were built before they got to the definitive Block 30 with BVR and All weather strike. That was 13 years of production later.

Most test/prototype aircraft look vastly different from their production models anyway. Look at the T-10 compared to the production flanker. or YF-22, F-22. If you want to really stretch it YF-17 compared to F-18.

the missions each service has for the F-35 are all very similar, and not contradictory, (IE the USAF wasn't looking for a fighter, with the USMC a bomber, and Navy an ASW platform)  its just how it gets into the air and back onto the ground/ship that differ (AKA the tough part). Once airborne its all the same missions.

Full rate production is expected by 2019, with Fiscal year 17 in "low rate" production expected to be in triple digits along with FY18 hitting similar numbers. according to the latest GAO report the Tail hook is good to go, and just waiting for a carrier to free up so it can be tested. Helmet is fixed as well, and the USMC plans on declaring IOC with it in 2015, and deploying to japan ASAP, the USAF IOC is expected in 2016. and full capable in 2017 with the block 3F software. The USN is taking their time and wants to deploy with the most capable software rather than the rolling upgrade the USAF and USMC are going for and is going to declare IOC in 2019.

[PR19_Kit]

Most test/prototype aircraft look vastly different from their production models anyway. Look at the T-10 compared to the production flanker. or YF-22, F-22. If you want to really stretch it YF-17 compared to F-18.

In Brit terms the Spitfire, Meteor, Hunter, Lightning and Harrier all showed VAST differences from their prototypes to the final production variant. It's called 'Development Work'.......

[wuzak]

Ummm, Nils, the aircraft has from the start been the Joint Strike Fighter, the whole
point of the damned project was a primary role as an attack aircraft, not an A-to-A fighter.

Which is where I have the problem with Australia's purchase of F-35s. To my mind the first job of the RAAF is to defend our airspace, not to invade that of other countries.

But I guess the mission profle is little different to the F-18s we already have.

[Thorvic]

Ummm, Nils, the aircraft has from the start been the Joint Strike Fighter, the whole
point of the damned project was a primary role as an attack aircraft, not an A-to-A fighter.

Which is where I have the problem with Australia's purchase of F-35s. To my mind the first job of the RAAF is to defend our airspace, not to invade that of other countries.

But I guess the mission profle is little different to the F-18s we already have.

Actually it can do that aspect as it should be a fair interceptor with its advanced radar, advanced AMRAAM and low radar profile head on making counter detection harder, its the close in dogfighting against more agile aircraft getting in close where it may struggle to dominate, but thats where tactics or weapons will be developed to either reduce the chance of that style of encounter or give the aircraft an edge with its sensor suite to make up for the lack of agility.

BTW talk of comparing it to the F-16 or Spitfire are completely pointless, the spitfire was developed evolved and ceased production in the time the F-35 gets into operational service to give an insight to the complexity and time required to develop a modern advanced combat aircraft, the F-16 was designed as a light agile fighter with secondary strike role which it fitted the bill, the advancements and changes came about from user requirements over time to get yet more out of a rather minimal airframe which is why the F-35 was developed as they shoved the bolt on stuff inside to take over those F-16 roles.

The F-35 advances won't be airframe related bar to resolve flaws in the design/manfacturing, it will be propulsion, avionics and software led, the later being the bugbear due to its sheer complexity - every change, structureal, propulsion, sensors or weapons have to be tested and checked against the the software coding so that it can be revised accordingly and reverified before it can be released. Thats why its a long and costly process, and why we won't see a great deal of big changes but rather software version updates, firmware updates or remanufacturing to apply structural or hardware updates that are implemented on the production line

[PR19_Kit]

BTW talk of comparing it to the F-16 or Spitfire are completely pointless, the spitfire was developed evolved and ceased production in the time the F-35 gets into operational service to give an insight to the complexity and time required to develop a modern advanced combat aircraft, the F-16 was designed as a light agile fighter with secondary strike role which it fitted the bill, the advancements and changes came about from user requirements over time to get yet more out of a rather minimal airframe which is why the F-35 was developed as they shoved the bolt on stuff inside to take over those F-16 roles.

Pointless?

Not in the slightest. My point was that all aircraft are developed through their lives, and I didn't say HOW they'd be developed.

Time scales are not part of the issue here, it took Supermarine a matter of weeks to to change the shape of the prototype Spitfire's rudder.

It took Rolls-Royce a some YEARS to change the way they made the F-35B's lift fan. Both were radical changes but many decades apart. Development will always be needed, it just takes longer these days.