The Czech Air Force will be the next customer for the F-35, with the aim to purchase 24 F-35A's to replace their current fleet of 14 Saab Gripen fighters:

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ghter-jet/

WARSAW, Poland — The Czech government has decided to launch negotiations with the United States to buy 24 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets for the country’s Air Force.

The aircraft are to replace the 14 Saab JAS 39 Gripens currently operated by the Czech military, making the country the second Eastern European ally after Poland to order Lockheed Martin’s fighters.

“I was authorised to form an inter-ministerial negotiating team and commence negotiations with the United States government to procure 24 units of the F-35 Lightning II multirole fighters to equip two squadrons,” Czech Defense Minister Jana Černochová said in a statement.

One of the great things about the F-35 is the strong alliances it creates. The way that pilots train and exercise as a unit, across nations, builds a strong rapport and allows air forces to operate as a team.

The US has been really smart about inducting new nations in this way, allowing foreign pilots to be instructors and building up expertise and skills within each country. It's really the first weapons program to have done that, but makes sense in terms of the network capabilities of the F-35. They are designed to work together.

pretty soon it'll only been France, Spain and Sweden (and maybe a few smaller insignificant countries) left that don't have the F-35

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... id-stalls/

Greek Defense Minister Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos is visiting the United States this week as Athens continues its bid to join Lockheed Martin’s F-35 co-production program and lobby against a potential F-16 sale to Turkey.

bajs11 wrote:

smaller insignificant countries

Turkey and India come to mind.

The F-35 is definitely becoming the next F-16. As the years pass the F-35 will no longer be bleeding edge technology. The US will then become comfortable selling it to nations that aren't top tier US allies.

Czech lease for the Gripen ends in 2027.

https://www.flightglobal.com/czech-gove ... 40.article

I could see the some countries getting F-35 with some avionic features disabled.

mxaxai wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

smaller insignificant countries

Turkey and India come to mind.

sorry, I was talking about Europe and 99% of Turkey is in Asia

Pentagon suspends F-35 deliveries due to Chinese materials discovered:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/0 ... a-00055202

firemansparky wrote:

Pentagon suspends F-35 deliveries due to Chinese materials discovered:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/0 ... a-00055202

This is ridiculous. Lockheed's competition pulling some strings to give maximum punishment for a non issue.

"We have confirmed that the magnet does not transmit information"

I now believe that the negative F-35 news we have heard over the last decade was actually generated by a corporate entity that is threatened by the F-35. They were cherry picking data to make the general public think the program was underperforming.

The US better quickly purchase an extra Boeing F-15 eagle and Boeing Super Hornet to make up for this delay.

RJMAZ wrote:

firemansparky wrote:

Pentagon suspends F-35 deliveries due to Chinese materials discovered:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/0 ... a-00055202

This is ridiculous. Lockheed's competition pulling some strings to give maximum punishment for a non issue.

"We have confirmed that the magnet does not transmit information"

I now believe that the negative F-35 news we have heard over the last decade was actually generated by a corporate entity that is threatened by the F-35. They were cherry picking data to make the general public think the program was underperforming.

The US better quickly purchase an extra Boeing F-15 eagle and Boeing Super Hornet to make up for this delay.

It's a subcontractor, Honeywell that's in non-compliance.

And if the subcontractor, Honeywell can do stuff like this to Lockheed Martin, they sure as hell can do the same to Boeing.

ThePointblank wrote:

It's a subcontractor, Honeywell that's in non-compliance.

And if the subcontractor, Honeywell can do stuff like this to Lockheed Martin, they sure as hell can do the same to Boeing.

I am certain if the Chinese magnets were on a Super Hornet they would not suspend production.

RJMAZ wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

It's a subcontractor, Honeywell that's in non-compliance.

And if the subcontractor, Honeywell can do stuff like this to Lockheed Martin, they sure as hell can do the same to Boeing.

I am certain if the Chinese magnets were on a Super Hornet they would not suspend production.

Who is they, Boeing or the US government, that answer makes a huge difference.
So they identified that the magnet does not transmit any information, so if a business competitor placed it there we just assume that it was only to suspend production and it has no other purpose relative to the operation / maintenance of the aircraft? Battlestar Galactica springs to mind.....

RJMAZ wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

It's a subcontractor, Honeywell that's in non-compliance.

And if the subcontractor, Honeywell can do stuff like this to Lockheed Martin, they sure as hell can do the same to Boeing.

I am certain if the Chinese magnets were on a Super Hornet they would not suspend production.

You must be one of the guys of the conspiracy theory department against the F-35 ?
It's a non-complaint subcontractor that purchased a part produced in or by China for the F-35, violating the present rules.
And , by the way, a Super Hornet will not be anymore of high interest for that country, because it's a proven, low tech, non stealty aircraft designed in the nineties of the previous century and already matched by the (over weight) Shenyang J-15.

747classic wrote:

You must be one of the guys of the conspiracy theory department against the F-35 ?
It's a non-complaint subcontractor that purchased a part produced in or by China for the F-35, violating the present rules.
And , by the way, a Super Hornet will not be anymore of high interest for that country, because it's a proven, low tech, non stealty aircraft designed in the nineties of the previous century and already matched by the (over weight) Shenyang J-15.

Ahh...you miss the true meaning of this conspiracy, it is not about the capabilities of the aircraft, it is about the economic value of ensuring that production continues at a high pace so that the managers can get a good bonus, the workers are able to have high paying jobs and send their kids to Ivy League Universities, shareholders receive dividends on a timely basis, more clients are found for the aircraft, etc etc etc.
In terms of actual capability, look at the LCS boondoggle of the Navy, all those who pushed and promoted its game-changing aspects have long since arrived at the hills and are hiding in comfort.
Rant off.

Not to start an off-topic argument, but will just point out that LCS are currently serving all over the world. Many problems yes, some technical and some conceptual. But all are being worked on, and worked out.

The boondoggle label is applied all too freely, as is the conspiracy label. Truth is a lot of people work pretty hard to ensure all these programs are viable and successful. It demeans them to apply a simple label that masks the true complexities they face. They solve many problems, and many that are not of their own making. Nothing in this world is perfect. We all strive for the best possible outcome, with varying degrees of success.

Avatar2go wrote:

Not to start an off-topic argument, but will just point out that LCS are currently serving all over the world. Many problems yes, some technical and some conceptual. But all are being worked on, and worked out.

The boondoggle label is applied all too freely, as is the conspiracy label. Truth is a lot of people work pretty hard to ensure all these programs are viable and successful. It demeans them to apply a simple label that masks the true complexities they face. They solve many problems, and many that are not of their own making. Nothing in this world is perfect. We all strive for the best possible outcome, with varying degrees of success.

Sure, but we give too many people a pass who initially caused the major spends, example Navy ship with a primary weapon for shore bombardment for Marine landings, modular weapon systems capability being built into a ship while the modules have not yet been designed, no self defense because it is supposed to be littoral and operate under the protection of others, yet as you say, it is deployed all over the world. Why is the Constellation class required if the LCS is capable of performing the missions?

To stay on topic with the F-35, second engine got killed, and just when foreign sales are ramping up the US Airforce wants to change engines, imagine the logistical nightmare for those just purchasing? How about the idea of the Block upgrades, one would think that in terms of software (not physical changes to the a/c) the initial computer equipment had expansion in mind, but we have early models being assigned to training only as some cannot be upgraded. Read some interesting about a Block 3F (I think) upgrade which they want to skip and go straight to 4??
Even if the US Air Force did not want two engines, at the end of the day if things go the way they are going, more F-35's will be deployed by other countries, another engine could have spurred increased production. Monday morning quarterback, as usual.
https://www.flyingmag.com/usaf-official ... tagnating/
https://eurasiantimes.com/why-is-the-us ... alth-jets/

So just to provide some context on the points raised:

1. LCS was designed for two missions, stand alone in low-threat environments, and the littoral component of a task force for high-threat environments. This was deemed appropriate with the decline of the Soviet Navy. The Constellation-class was needed because the threat matrix is shifting again with the military rise of China. Constellation is much better able to stand alone in high-threat environments, but is still most effective as part of a task force. We can actually make use of both ships, there is no shortage of need.

2. The modular nature of LCS should become valuable with the increasing use of drone assets. Unfortunately that vision was very premature when the LCS was conceived. As with the Ford-class carriers, the concept was far in front of the technology, which is only now catching up. With the Zumwalt-class, the technology did not catch up, so they are repurposed to hypersonics, which they uniquely can support due to their very deep magazine wells.

3. The F-135 engine was always going to need an upgrade for Block 4, due to cooling and electrical requirements, and P&W has it ready. The new wrinkle is the AETP engines which are exiting development. The USAF cannot realistically afford that engine without buy-in from the other services and foreign customers. But you are correct that they can't afford two engines, so will have to decide between them.

4. The early block F-35's lack of compatibility with later blocks is a consequence of concurrency. Which for better or worse, love it or hate it, was the basis of the F-35 program. It creates stratification in the fleet capabilities, which they have to address (or not), based on cost & need. But it also brings new capabilities to the fleet rapidly.

5. F-35 purchases manufactured to the Block 3F standard have been deferred, to wait for Block 4 availability. The reason is that buying a new Block 4 is less expensive than buying a new Block 3F and upgrading it later. Some customers with smaller fleets will accept the upgrade cost to get the aircraft faster. The US would rather give those jets to foreign customers and wait for Block 4, to reduce costs.

I agree that when you look at many of these things in hindsight, it can be frustrating because there are costs that could have been avoided. But it's also true that a lot of capability is delivered for what is spent, as well.

Interesting decision, given the small numbers (15 aircraft each). Inter-service rivalry still going strong, I guess.

Joint but apart: Italian Navy and Air Force settle on F-35B plan

The Italian Air Force and Navy have finally figured out how to manage their small fleets of F-35Bs, and it goes something like “Joint training and operations, but separate bases.”
It envisages both services keeping separate land bases for their jets – the Navy at Grottaglie in southern Italy and the Air Force at Amendola, also in southern Italy.

But Air Force chief Gen. Luca Goretti told Defense News the jointness would kick in during training and operations.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... -35b-plan/

Canada is said to have approved the purchase of 16 F-35's as part of an initial block of aircraft, with a contract value of $7 billion, including spares, equipment and training:

https://globalnews.ca/news/9362086/f35- ... -military/

The F-35 is slated to get a new, significantly updated radar: the AN/APG-85 radar in Block 4 aircraft:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f ... initiative

Must be a pretty significant upgrade if they decided to go to a new designation number.

ThePointblank wrote:

The F-35 is slated to get a new, significantly updated radar: the AN/APG-85 radar in Block 4 aircraft:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f ... initiative

Must be a pretty significant upgrade if they decided to go to a new designation number.

Part of the Block 4 upgrade. Still parts of that which are unreleased or classified.

Deal signed by Canada for a total of 88 F-35's, with the initial batch of 16 to be delivered starting in 2026:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada ... -1.6707769

Per the delivery schedule, Canada will be getting Block 4 aircraft from Lot 18. First aircraft will remain in the US while pilot and crew training occur, and as infrastructure upgrades take place. First operational squadron is slated to be 2029.

Here is an article describing the first flight testing of F-35's with the TR-3 data processing refresh. The first production models are expected to begin with Lot 15, later this year. This is a prerequisite to begin implementing Block 4.

Since the F-35 is largely software-driven, the flight envelope for all 3 models has to be recertified with the new computer system and software.

The article claims TR-3 & Block 4 will be back-fitted to F-35's dating back to Lot 11. Other prior sources have said back to Lot 5. That's a major question going forward, as to the expense and feasibility of upgrading earlier models, and what other partner nations will choose to do.

The current TR-2 & Block 3F fighters are still very capable, but the improvements in Block 4 are substantial. Also before Block 4 can be fully implemented by the early 2030's, an engine upgrade will be required. That question is not yet settled, between the new AETP engine and an upgraded version of the F-135.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f ... first-time

Avatar2go wrote:

Here is an article describing the first flight testing of F-35's with the TR-3 data processing refresh. The first production models are expected to begin with Lot 15, later this year. This is a prerequisite to begin implementing Block 4.

Since the F-35 is largely software-driven, the flight envelope for all 3 models has to be recertified with the new computer system and software.

The article claims TR-3 & Block 4 will be back-fitted to F-35's dating back to Lot 11. Other prior sources have said back to Lot 5. That's a major question going forward, as to the expense and feasibility of upgrading earlier models, and what other partner nations will choose to do.

The current TR-2 & Block 3F fighters are still very capable, but the improvements in Block 4 are substantial. Also before Block 4 can be fully implemented by the early 2030's, an engine upgrade will be required. That question is not yet settled, between the new AETP engine and an upgraded version of the F-135.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f ... first-time

Quite interesting timelines, wonder how that will play out. The RCAF are supposed to receive our first aircraft, a Block 4, in 2026. Wonder how that would work regarding the need for an engine upgrade. At least an uprated version of the current engine should be pretty far along the way to make 2026 possible.

This article confirms more or less the info from the The Drive article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 9c6b64423f

stratable wrote:

Quite interesting timelines, wonder how that will play out. The RCAF are supposed to receive our first aircraft, a Block 4, in 2026. Wonder how that would work regarding the need for an engine upgrade. At least an uprated version of the current engine should be pretty far along the way to make 2026 possible.

This article confirms more or less the info from the The Drive article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 9c6b64423f

I would hope they would quickly make the production change to the modified F-135, to accommodate Block 4 as soon as possible. But as noted, the issue is not decided yet.

If the modified F-135 is selected, then it could be swapped during a scheduled engine overhaul, without much modification of the airframe, for all models.

The AETP would be more complex, and is still being researched and developed, so would have a longer timeline for either partial or full implementation across the models.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out across the international partners, who may make separate & different decisions.

GDB wrote:

A long discussion with an expert on Canadian defence, about the long F-35 saga;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uRt6OXF43c&t=113s

Thanks for posting this, a very insightful discussion. A good demonstration that politics and military acquisition don't necessarily mix very well.

Singapore to get 8 more F-35B fighters.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapo ... ce-3302941

From the budget request today, the USAF has decided to proceed with the F-135 engine upgrade for Block 4, rather than pursue the AETP for the F-35.

Which is probably the best use of resources for all three models of the F-35, given that there wasn't buy-in from the USN or Marines, or from foreign partners. The AETP was too expensive without complete support.

The AETP will instead evolve into the NGAP, for inclusion into future aircraft that are specifically designed around those engines. That seems like a much better use of the technology.

https://breakingdefense.sites.breakingm ... ontractor/

a 7% increase in range and thrust won't make a huge difference for the A model. The C will enjoy the range to be sure, but the B model will be the biggest winner as it's the most restricted in range and performance. That should be a notable performance and capabilities upgrade for users all over the world.

Romania to buy F-35s.

For sure the Russian war is pushing the F-35 sales in a way that is well beyond the wettest dreams that in LM they could have had!

https://theaviationist.com/2023/04/11/r ... -the-f-35/

LightningZ71 wrote:

a 7% increase in range and thrust won't make a huge difference for the A model. The C will enjoy the range to be sure, but the B model will be the biggest winner as it's the most restricted in range and performance. That should be a notable performance and capabilities upgrade for users all over the world.

For the B model, I assume a 7% increase in thrust means a 7% increase in vertical takeoff gross weight, and a substancial increase in takeoff gross weight coming off a ski jump. Thats's about 2,800 lbs in increase lift VTOL, more off a ski jump.

All of that increase lift can go to fuel. Thats gets you from ~7000 lbs VTOL payload + fuel to almost 10,000 lbs. Over 30% more, and it can be all fuel. A huge increase in range.

As for ski-jump operation, I've cannot find a weight-and-loadout for that. But still, I'd guess something close to a 30% increase in range with maybe 20% more fuel onboard and 7% less fuel consumed.

126 more F-35s.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/lockheed-martin-wins-7-8bn-contract-for-f-35-production-and-delivery/

777 wrote:

Romania to buy F-35s.

For sure the Russian war is pushing the F-35 sales in a way that is well beyond the wettest dreams that in LM they could have had!

https://theaviationist.com/2023/04/11/r ... -the-f-35/

An article that echoes that point quite well:

The F-35 Lightning II Fighter, In Europe, Wins Fans While Watching Russia

Suggests that the potential customers are impressed by the data gathering / sensor fusion capabilities of the system, and are finding its pricing and it's interoperability with other NATO members that use the system to be strong selling points.

So is the F-35 a fighter / strike fighter that will ultimately take the fight to the enemy and dominate the skies, or is it a sensor platform gathering masses of information and assigning that to unmanned drones or missile truck a/c that will engage the enemy?
If a nation the size of Germany for example is getting roughly a couple dozen a/c, considering training and maintenance, I think its clear how the a/c will be used, now we just need to see which OEM is producing a cheap complimentary a/c which will carry and deliver the weapons.

par13del wrote:

So is the F-35 a fighter / strike fighter that will ultimately take the fight to the enemy and dominate the skies, or is it a sensor platform gathering masses of information and assigning that to unmanned drones or missile truck a/c that will engage the enemy?

It's the combination of acquiring knowledge of the adversary, while denying that same knowledge about itself to the adversary, which makes the F-35 so effective.

At present, we are seeing only one side of that, acquiring knowledge. The F-35's are flying with radar reflectors that make them plainly visible. But if the gloves come off, the reflectors come off with them, and then it's a whole new ball game.

Also the advantage to the pilot, of having a mission package that clearly displays all the adversary threats, as well as safe zones and paths through them, is immense. That's why pilots would rather be in the F-35, over even the F-22. They can make much better decisions, and are more likely to come home.

The last advantage, as the article notes, is teaming. The F-35's share data with each other, and interoperate seamlessly. They are designed to fight together, like a pack. Thus the more nations that acquire them, the more incentive there is for others to do so.

The JPO has been really smart about this, including all nations in the flight and maintainer schools, training, and exercises. Especially at the instructor levels, which allows those people to go home and set up similar training structures. If you go to F-35 school, it's completely multinational, from top to bottom. Even the jets themselves are shared. A pilot just has to load their own mission package.

The advantage of that can't be overstated. If you purchase the F-35, your crews will have the same proficiency levels as the US. The F-35 is really the first program that ensures that from the beginning.

This is why the F-35 is such a compelling case, once a potential customer understands all of the advantages.

There may will be a GE engine for the F-35 after all:

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/06/aft ... daa-draft/

Following the Pentagon’s attempt to shutter the Adaptive Engine Transition Program in fiscal 2024, House authorizers would seek to keep the program alive to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, according to text of House Armed Services Committee chairman Mike Rogers’ markup [PDF] of the FY24 defense policy bill released Monday evening.

Considering the AETP is clearly superior to the simple engine core upgrade of the existing engine it would be a shame to not to keep pursuing it.
Read somewhere years ago that a much more efficient engine would enable the US carriers to stay outside the range of anti-ship ballistic missiles while still able to help the ROC defend itself against a possible invasion.

bajs11 wrote:

There may will be a GE engine for the F-35 after all:

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/06/aft ... daa-draft/

Following the Pentagon’s attempt to shutter the Adaptive Engine Transition Program in fiscal 2024, House authorizers would seek to keep the program alive to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, according to text of House Armed Services Committee chairman Mike Rogers’ markup [PDF] of the FY24 defense policy bill released Monday evening.

Considering the AETP is clearly superior to the simple engine core upgrade of the existing engine it would be a shame to not to keep pursuing it.
Read somewhere years ago that a much more efficient engine would enable the US carriers to stay outside the range of anti-ship ballistic missiles while still able to help the ROC defend itself against a possible invasion.

I don't think the AETP would end up in the F-35. The USAF had dialed the program back to idle budget-wise, but there was no intention of scrapping it, as it's needed for the NGAD fighter programs.

This is the House saying they want the engine developed now, rather than waiting for the aircraft. Not sure how wise that is, but it's not that much money relative to other programs.

Avatar2go wrote:

This is the House saying they want the engine developed now, rather than waiting for the aircraft. Not sure how wise that is, but it's not that much money relative to other programs.

If it prevents the "hanger on's" from placing additional demands or restricting some of their fancy bells and whistles on the jet it would bring forward IOC by years.
Only complication is whether the new jet will be a single or twin engine.....however if a twin, the additional years of having the engine would make downsizing somewhat simpler.

Avatar2go wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

There may will be a GE engine for the F-35 after all:

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/06/aft ... daa-draft/

Following the Pentagon’s attempt to shutter the Adaptive Engine Transition Program in fiscal 2024, House authorizers would seek to keep the program alive to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, according to text of House Armed Services Committee chairman Mike Rogers’ markup [PDF] of the FY24 defense policy bill released Monday evening.

Considering the AETP is clearly superior to the simple engine core upgrade of the existing engine it would be a shame to not to keep pursuing it.
Read somewhere years ago that a much more efficient engine would enable the US carriers to stay outside the range of anti-ship ballistic missiles while still able to help the ROC defend itself against a possible invasion.

I don't think the AETP would end up in the F-35. The USAF had dialed the program back to idle budget-wise, but there was no intention of scrapping it, as it's needed for the NGAD fighter programs.

This is the House saying they want the engine developed now, rather than waiting for the aircraft. Not sure how wise that is, but it's not that much money relative to other programs.

From a couple of articles that I read, the AETP won't fit in the B or C, just the A.


https://www.defensenews.com/industry/te ... rom-pratt/

Quite frankly, the B and C need the high speed delamination problem fixed before they get an engine upgrade. Lockheed has failed its contractual obligation to deliver mach 1.6+ for the B and C. As is they are barely supersonic and more thrust is only going to get them to their current mach 1.2/1.3 redline faster, adding to the pilot workload.

Also, based on the F119 and F135 over-delivering on thrust, I think its safe to say that the AETP will enter service at more like 50,000 lbs. That will really help the A model, which most people seem to forget is 3000 lbs overweight. (It was supposed to be 26,000 lbs OEW)

744SPX wrote:

Quite frankly, the B and C need the high speed delamination problem fixed before they get an engine upgrade. Lockheed has failed its contractual obligation to deliver mach 1.6+ for the B and C. As is they are barely supersonic and more thrust is only going to get them to their current mach 1.2/1.3 redline faster, adding to the pilot workload.

To clarify, the issue is heat transfer from the extended use of afterburner at higher altitudes, where there is insufficient cooling in the airstream due to lower air density. At lower altitudes, this does not occur.

Lockheed has made some adjustments to the surface coatings to improve the issue. But the restrictions on non-combat supersonic flight duration at those altitudes remain, to reduce maintenance and repair frequency.

However in combat situations, there are no restrictions and the pilot can utilize the full flight envelope.

Sancho99504 wrote:

From a couple of articles that I read, the AETP won't fit in the B or C, just the A.


https://www.defensenews.com/industry/te ... rom-pratt/

GE has said that their engine will fit in the F-35C.

GE and Pratt & Whitney’s adaptive engines will fit in the F-35A, which the Air Force flies. GE said its engine will also fit in the F-35C aircraft carrier variant, which the Navy and the Marine Corps operate. But the engines currently wouldn’t work in the Marines’ F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing aircraft.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/07 ... -at-stake/


and Lockheed seems to prefer a new engine

bajs11 wrote:

and Lockheed seems to prefer a new engine

Lockheed is looking at the long-term viability of the F-35, which is a cash cow for them, and seeing that it's enhanced with the AETP. Whereas if the AETP is deferred to the NGAD, they won't have the same potential for profit.

And the nice thing is, they don't have to pay for the AETP development, GE and the government do, but it potentially extends their program life.

As far as AETP applicability, GE said they believed it could be adapted for the C model. Then later said possibly for the B model as well. But the fact remains that it was designed at the outset only for the A model. So the other models would be shoehorning to some extent.

The bottom line is that there needs to be buy-in from all 3 services for the AETP, as well as from the other partner nations, to manage the cost. Further the infrastructure for the F-135 engine is finally being built out, after being neglected for some time. So that investment would need to be repeated for the AETP.

The most rational path is to continue the AETP for the NGAD, which can be designed for it specifically. Then as the AETP becomes mature, possibly it could be considered as a third future engine retrofit for the F-35, if it has shrunk enough to fit all 3 models. And at that point, the AETP infrastructure should also be already built out.

Avatar2go wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

and Lockheed seems to prefer a new engine

Lockheed is looking at the long-term viability of the F-35, which is a cash cow for them, and seeing that it's enhanced with the AETP. Whereas if the AETP is deferred to the NGAD, they won't have the same potential for profit.

And the nice thing is, they don't have to pay for the AETP development, GE and the government do, but it potentially extends their program life.

As far as AETP applicability, GE said they believed it could be adapted for the C model. Then later said possibly for the B model as well. But the fact remains that it was designed at the outset only for the A model. So the other models would be shoehorning to some extent.

The bottom line is that there needs to be buy-in from all 3 services for the AETP, as well as from the other partner nations, to manage the cost. Further the infrastructure for the F-135 engine is finally being built out, after being neglected for some time. So that investment would need to be repeated for the AETP.

The most rational path is to continue the AETP for the NGAD, which can be designed for it specifically. Then as the AETP becomes mature, possibly it could be considered as a third future engine retrofit for the F-35, if it has shrunk enough to fit all 3 models. And at that point, the AETP infrastructure should also be already built out.

Do we even know whether the AETP, either GE or P&W versions, for the F-35 are the same for the NGAD? It sounds more like they will share the adaptive engine technology but are not necessarily the same engine.

But, Wittman emphasized, it’s critical to keep AETP going whether it ends up on the F-35 or not, in order to support the Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, which will be powered by an adaptive engine. “That’s the same sort of technology that could be applied in NGAP,” he observed, referring to the Air Force’s Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion program.

Asked whether he was concerned appropriators might not provide funding for AETP, Wittman replied “I think in our conversations with appropriators … they understand the importance of AETP for a variety of reasons, not only for continuing to develop that technology, but also where that’s gonna go with NGAP.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/06/why ... r-funding/

The problem with the wait and see approach is that sure it's cheaper but can you wait another 10 years to put a much more capable engine in the F-35 when everything is currently very uncertain and we just don't know what will happen in the next 5 years with the ongoing war in Ukraine and especially with the PRC.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... na-in-2027

bajs11 wrote:

The problem with the wait and see approach is that sure it's cheaper but can you wait another 10 years to put a much more capable engine in the F-35 when everything is currently very uncertain and we just don't know what will happen in the next 5 years with the ongoing war in Ukraine and especially with the PRC.

The AETP program would require a decade before it rolls out to production aircraft. Especially if it has to be adapted for the B and C models. Even the modified F-135 will take more than 5 years.

Currently the Block 4 rollout is also expected to wrap up in 8 to 10 years. So schedule-wise, the AETP is really better aligned with the NGAD, and then possibly with Block 5 for the F-35.

Avatar2go wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

The problem with the wait and see approach is that sure it's cheaper but can you wait another 10 years to put a much more capable engine in the F-35 when everything is currently very uncertain and we just don't know what will happen in the next 5 years with the ongoing war in Ukraine and especially with the PRC.

The AETP program would require a decade before it rolls out to production aircraft. Especially if it has to be adapted for the B and C models. Even the modified F-135 will take more than 5 years.

Currently the Block 4 rollout is also expected to wrap up in 8 to 10 years. So schedule-wise, the AETP is really better aligned with the NGAD, and then possibly with Block 5 for the F-35.

What I said is still valid though
in 10 years we will likely see a new generation of stealth fighters from the PRC or at least much improved J-20 and FC-31/J-31
and more PLAN aircraft carriers and anti-ship missiles.

Also, the development of the AETP will very likely be sped up significantly if the PRC decides to invade the ROC in 2027

I don't think the F-35 will ever receive an adaptive engine. 30 years ago a $100 million fighter was the price of a typical high end fighter. A $50 million fighter back then was considered a budget fighter.

In 2030 $200 million will be the price of a typical high end fighter (Tempest, FCAS NGAD). So the F-35 will then be a true budget fighter in the exact same position that the F-16 was in 20-30 years ago. The F-16 received only minor thrust bumps in the last couple decades.

In 2050 the first F-35 will be retiring. I highly doubt they will be getting replaced with new build F-35 with adaptive engines.

bajs11 wrote:

Do we even know whether the AETP, either GE or P&W versions, for the F-35 are the same for the NGAD? It sounds more like they will share the adaptive engine technology but are not necessarily the same engine.

I agree completely.

I dont think the NGAD engine is suitable for the F-35. The NGAD engine won't be designed for optimised subsonic cruise which is the primary transit speed of the F-35. The low bypass and high pass modes of the NGAD engine would both be much lower for the NGAD mission profile.

Wikipedia lists the F-22 supercruise speed of Mach 1.82. I assume NGAD will set this speed as the benchmark for supercruising. The big difference is NGAD will have the fuel capacity to sustain this speed for 1,000nm not 100nm like the F-22. The AETP engine will be optimised for this high speed cruise which is far above the F-35 maximum speed.

The adaptive range of these engines is not that great. If the engine in low bypass mode need an ideal 0.1 ratio for mach 1.8 supercruise then in high bypass mode it might only be able to go up to 0.4.

The F-35 would want its high bypass mode ratio up towards 1:1 for maximum subsonic range. The higher the ratio the better the fuel efficiency for subsonic cruise. This would limit the low bypass mode to say 0.3 to 0.4 which is not ideal for mach 1.8 supercruise.

The AETP engine in NGAD when running in high bypass mode probably will have a lower bypass than the current F135 engine that is 0.57. So the NGAD engine won't improve the range of the F-35. The F-35 would need its own AETP engine and it couldn't even share the same core. The F-35 core would be smaller with a higher bypass. So very low commonality. This is why upgraded F135 engines is the best option for the F-35.

Avatar2go wrote:

To clarify, the issue is heat transfer from the extended use of afterburner at higher altitudes, where there is insufficient cooling in the airstream due to lower air density. At lower altitudes, this does not occur.

Lockheed has made some adjustments to the surface coatings to improve the issue. But the restrictions on non-combat supersonic flight duration at those altitudes remain, to reduce maintenance and repair frequency.

However in combat situations, there are no restrictions and the pilot can utilize the full flight envelope.

So if a war or some "conflict" breaks out, each F-35 is good for how many missions, a couple before the engines and the a/c need major repair, note I said major not the normal maintenance where for most military equipment 1 hour of operation requires multiple hours of maintenance.
I accept that military programs today are economic / financial engines first and combat weapon systems second.

par13del wrote:

So if a war or some "conflict" breaks out, each F-35 is good for how many missions, a couple before the engines and the a/c need major repair, note I said major not the normal maintenance where for most military equipment 1 hour of operation requires multiple hours of maintenance.
I accept that military programs today are economic / financial engines first and combat weapon systems second.

Yes, in combat the equation changes. If the pilot brings the aircraft back, that's a win. The pilot is the single largest investment. Some collateral damage is expected. Not so in peace time, if there is no good reason to blister the paint, then please don't.

RJMAZ wrote:

Wikipedia lists the F-22 supercruise speed of Mach 1.82. I assume NGAD will set this speed as the benchmark for supercruising. The big difference is NGAD will have the fuel capacity to sustain this speed for 1,000nm not 100nm like the F-22. The AETP engine will be optimised for this high speed cruise which is far above the F-35 maximum speed.

Just for comparison, The Mig-25M with R-15BF2-300 engines could cruise at mach 2.35 for 1000 nmi with 4 1000 lb AAM's (demonstrated) and that was in the early '70's