some F35 info (1 Viewer)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Supply chain issues are affecting everyone industry wide. There is only so much material and parts to go around.

 

[GTX]

For an aircraft that first flew 17 years ago, the production rate does seem abysmal. Is the F-35 made of unobtanium ?

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.

 

[SaparotRob]

Supply chain issues are affecting everyone industry wide. There is only so much material and parts to go around.

If only bleeding edge aircraft could be built out of BS. There's so much available.

 

[cvairwerks]

The production rate was never envisioned to be over 175 a/c a year......

 

[Admiral Beez]

The production rate was never envisioned to be over 175 a/c a year......

Good to know. Are they reaching or exceeding that?

 

[cvairwerks]

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]

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.

 

[SaparotRob]

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.

I'll be 103 if I'm luckier, I think.

 

[cvairwerks]

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.

Ship # 2000 should be off the production line in 2029. Production has already surpassed 1000 aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Ship # 2000 should be off the production line in 2029. Production has already surpassed 1000 aircraft.

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]

I do agree, though, that the UK (in reality the RAF/FAA) were overwhelmingly led by former Harrier mates who wanted to keep doing the STOVL thing. Looked at objectively, the F-35C was a much better choice, offering more weapons carrying capacity and longer range. Sadly, the UK didn't opt for it and instead went with the F-35B which lugs around an entirely separate lift engine as dead weight that's only used during take-off and landing.

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]

* Keeping in mind the UK's much smaller defense budget and their hard fight to even have and keep ANY aircraft carriers.

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]

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.

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.