Supply chain issues are affecting everyone industry wide. There is only so much material and parts to go around.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The last few years they have been producing around 150/yr. It was slower early on as there was concurrent development. Also don't be misled by the first flew date - that is somewhat meaningless. Real production only really began about a decade ago and even then it has been in "Low Rate Inital Production" (LRIP) since. Larger production rates could have been done especially if JPO (primarily the US Govt) allowed multi year production contracts. Remember also that something like 1000 have been produced to date.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
If only bleeding edge aircraft could be built out of BS. There's so much available.
cvairwerks
Staff Sergeant
The production rate was never envisioned to be over 175 a/c a year......
Admiral Beez
Captain
Good to know. Are they reaching or exceeding that?
cvairwerks
Staff Sergeant
Full rate production was designated as 156 aircraft delivered per year. Note, aircraft delivery and fly away is different. Delivery is defined by what's know as a DD250 document, meaning transfer of ownership from the company to the government. Some time after DD250, the a/c is then flown away.
Admiral Beez
Captain
Well, it took fifty-two years from 1972 until today to produce less than 2,000 F-15 Eagles of all sorts (F-15A/B/C/D/J/DJ/E).
So, if we can see the 2,000th F-35 by 2058, fifty-two years after the first production Lightning rolled off the line in Dec 2006 that will be on about par.
I'll be 87 years old then, if I'm lucky.
So, if we can see the 2,000th F-35 by 2058, fifty-two years after the first production Lightning rolled off the line in Dec 2006 that will be on about par.
I'll be 87 years old then, if I'm lucky.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I'll be 103 if I'm luckier, I think.
cvairwerks
Staff Sergeant
Ship # 2000 should be off the production line in 2029. Production has already surpassed 1000 aircraft.
Admiral Beez
Captain
I see that now. Good stuff.
Lockheed Martin Has Built The 1000th F-35
The 1000th F-35 Lighting II jet will be delivered once it receives the necessary TR-3 hardware and final TR-3 software. Lockheed Martin confirmed it has
theaviationist.com
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 660
- Mar 16, 2014
Looked at objectively*, the F-35B was a much better choice - offering a higher sortie rate; operability in higher sea states and worse weather; reduced training requirements for the "flying-off and landing-on" phases of carrier ops; significantly reduced personnel, materials, equipment, and maintenance costs by not installing the EMALS catapult system or the AAG arresting system; lower cost per airframe than F-35C; and a virtually eliminated need for extra "recovery tanker" aircraft to cover failed landings that almost never happen with the F-35B.
* Keeping in mind the UK's much smaller defense budget and their hard fight to even have and keep ANY aircraft carriers.
Admiral Beez
Captain
At over £20 billion for two carriers and forty-eight F-35s, not including the cost of rotaries and personnel, I think the Brits would have been better off with another six Astute class SSNs at £2 billion a piece (along with more Type 45s). It's below the surface where the RN can strike the greater terror upon Britannia's foes.
buffnut453
Captain
I can buy the reduced training requirements. However, not sure about the "signficantly" modifier for reduced personnel, materials, equipment and maintenance costs. Yes, they would likely be lower but not sure the delta is as substantial as you make out.
The key challenge from my perspective is that the F-35B has a considerably shorter range than the F-35C. That means the aircraft carrier must get more than a few hundred miles closer to the target. Given the pacing threat that China presents, that seems a rather short-sighted decision, IMHO...and puts these capital ships at considerably higher risk of being sunk.
If you're going to spend the all the cash the UK did on F-35s and 2 new, and rather large, aircraft carriers, scrimping on the catapult and arrestor gear smacks of spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar, IMHO.
Romania to buy F-35 fighter jets
Romania is set to enhance its defense capabilities with the acquisition of state-of-the-art F-35 fighter jets from the United States. Defense Minister Angel Tilvar announced that Romania aims to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. this fall for the purchase of these advanced...
That makes 22 countries now
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 660
- Mar 16, 2014
Combat radius (same payload):
F-35A 590nm (1,093km)
F-35B 450nm (833km)
F-35C 600nm (1,100lm)
That 450nm combat radius matches the AV-8B and exceeds the F/A-18C/D (400nm).
It also exceeds the 405 nm combat radius of the FA.2 Sea Harrier.
buffnut453
Captain
Comparing the F-35B to the SHAR FA2 or the F/A-18 is irrelevant. The QEII class carriers were designed from the outset for the F-35. Buying the B-variant that has 150nm shorter range than the C-variant means that those expensive carriers, that are high-value targets for any adversary, must get 150nm closer to the threat before they can launch. While those figures are for comparable loads, they fail to account for the fact that the B-variant has less weapon load capacity which means more sorties to deliver the same weight of weapons.
The whole point of aircraft carriers is power projection. With the F-35B, the UK can't project as far and it can't deliver as big a punch when the aircraft get to their destination. That's strategically short-sighted, IMHO.
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 660
- Mar 16, 2014
Comparing the F-35B to the FA.2 (and GR.7/9) is exactly what the RN did - those being their most recently-operated carrier aircraft, and thus what they had the most experience with planning missions/strikes for.
For the RN they still launch from the same distance, no problem.
buffnut453
Captain
The whole point of acquiring new military capabilities is to increase operational capability. Technical intelligence is used to estimate what the threat will look like in 20-30 years time. It's not a crystal ball but a best guess based on available information. There's no difference between planning a mission for 450nm or 600nm...unless you're in a shorter-ranged platform that requires AAR. Range is critically important when considering the threat posed by China. That 150nm delta in range could mean the difference between safe operation of aircraft or a launch-and-hope where the pilots may not know if their carrier will even be floating when they return from their mission.
Bear in mind that the USMC was planning to fly the F-35B from land-based forward-operating locations, supported by the V-22. The Corps has never performed such operations with the AV-8A or AV-8B, and yet they expected to do so with the F-35B, hence they could accept that the B-variant had a shorter range. For afloat ops, the USMC will likely be operating in concert with the F-35C and thus the force would have a mix of capabilities. The UK doesn't have that luxury and yet still went with the less-capable B-variant.
There is no doctrinal basis for the RAF/FAA needing STOVL combat aircraft and the force hasn't trained in done realistic Cold War dispersal exercises in decades (long before the GR7/9 was retired). A primary reason for the UK purchasing the F-35B was because the Harrier mafia (in both shades of blue uniforms) wanted to persist with the STOVL role, despite the lack of any officially-captured need for such a capability.
You can sugar coat it any way you like but, in today's fight, shorter range is BAD...and it was the job of intelligence and capability managers to evaluate the future threat environment. The CATOBAR decision was made in 2012...which was after President Obama "pivot to the Pacific." Failure to consider that operational environment in the UK's decision calculus is pretty telling. Yes, CATOBAR was massively more expensive than planned...but what cost the loss of a carrier and all its F-35s simply because it had to sail too close to threats?
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 660
- Mar 16, 2014
What cost the loss of one of the two carriers to budget costs before the first shot is ever fired?
And of the significant likelihood that your sole remaining carrier is unavailable when one is needed right now?
Remember, the RN has already had that happen.. remember when POW was scheduled for exercises with the USN in the western Atlantic but her starboard prop shaft failed and she went into drydock for repairs... but QE was sent instead?
And when QE was pulled from a NATO exercise with the same problem just fixed on POW - and POW went in her place?
Two carriers, even with slightly less-capable aircraft, is far better than only one with slightly more-capable aircraft.
And of the significant likelihood that your sole remaining carrier is unavailable when one is needed right now?
Remember, the RN has already had that happen.. remember when POW was scheduled for exercises with the USN in the western Atlantic but her starboard prop shaft failed and she went into drydock for repairs... but QE was sent instead?
And when QE was pulled from a NATO exercise with the same problem just fixed on POW - and POW went in her place?
Two carriers, even with slightly less-capable aircraft, is far better than only one with slightly more-capable aircraft.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
One of the biggest drivers of cost increases for the QEII class had nothing to do with CATOBAR. In 2008, a decision was made to delay the launches of both vessels. That one decision added GBP1.6B to the project costs. By comparison, CATOBAR was a bargain that would have expanded operational capability.
