Thursday, January 7, 2016

Fifth Generation Fighter Pics 2

This futuristic fighter jet will probably be unveiled to America during the Super Bowl

By Dan Lamothe February 6 at 11:43 AM

They zip and dart across the sky in a three-jet formation, a six-second apparition in a 30-second commercial touting the achievements of defense contractor Northrop Grumman. Unlike modern jets, such as the F-22 Raptor or F-16 Fighting Falcon, they have no tail and are likely to be armed with lasers that are straight out of a science-fiction movie.
They’re sixth-generation fighters, and Northrop Grumman appears poised to show them off during Super Bowl Sunday. The defense titan released a new commercial online Friday that touts its achievements and includes a glitzy glimpse at a plane whose fielding is likely decades away.
Here’s the clip in question:

The contractor has not announced that the new commercial will air during the game, when a 30-second spot can cost $5 million. But its release follows on the heels of Northrop Grumman airing what is believed to be the first Super Bowl ad ever produced for a defense contractor last February. In that game, the company focused on its entry in the Air Force’s Long Range Strike Bomber competition, which went on to win the $60-billion contract in October.
[This mysterious Super Bowl ad highlights a new bomber plane plane you’re not allowed to see]
Northrop Grumman provided a first look at its vision for the sixth-generation fighter to a handful of reporters in December. One of the most complicated parts, analysts have noted, is that if the stealthy planes include lasers, they will need to be built in a way in which the heat doesn’t give them away on enemy radar.
Here’s Northrop Grumman’s new commercial in its entirety. It appeared on several websites Friday, including Popular Science:

By Elias Groll 1 hour ago

If the gleaming red-and-white X-2 plane unveiled this week in a Mitsubishi hanger delivers on its stated capabilities, Japan has just joined the United States, Russia, and China in a very exclusive club to have developed a stealth fighter.
With China investing heavily in its military and throwing its weight around in the region, and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sticking to his belligerent behavior, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to strengthen his armed forces: He has approved a controversial law allowing Japan’s military to engage in “collective self-defense” on behalf of its allies — a move that many of his critics argue violates the country’s pacifist constitution.
Unveiling the X-2 prototype sends a clear signal Tokyo wants to be taken seriously as a military-industrial power, said Jeffrey Hornung, a fellow at the security and foreign affairs program at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.
“This may be Japan saying, ‘We can do the technology, so consider us for international consortium projects’” such as the one that developed the F-35 stealth fighter, Hornung said.
The X-2 hasn’t flown yet, and it’s unclear whether it will ever be fielded in combat. Some analysts believe its engines are underpowered, and the plane hasn’t yet been equipped with weaponry. Japanese defense officials told the Wall Street Journal they will decide by 2019 whether to domestically build a fighter or seek international partners to do so. And by the end of the quarter, they hope to test fly the X-2.
The plane bears the hallmarks of a stealth fighter, like angular geometry designed to deflect radar away from the jet. It also includes canted vertical stabilizers similar to those on American stealth jets.

The panels that extrude from the exhausts below appear to be a thrust-vectoring system, which would make the fighter highly maneuverable. Thrust vectoring may be less sexy than stealth technology, but is of key importance for a fighter jet hoping to tangle with China’s top pilots.

The mastering of complicated stealth technology may boost Japan’s participation in an international consortium to develop a next-generation fighter plane. At the least, the X-2 could serve as a blueprint for Japanese engineers to follow in designing a newer, more refined jet. More than 200 companies participated in developing the X-2, a program that has so far cost $340 million.

And as Japan continues its stand-off with China over disputed islands in the South China Sea that Beijing has significantly fortified and is using as military outposts, the X-2 sends a message that Tokyo does not plan to back down. “This is going to play big in China as yet more evidence of Abe’s militarism,” Hornung said.

Though Japan has already purchased several stealthy American-made F-35 jets, Tokyo pushed hard to be allowed to buy the F-22, the premier U.S. fighter plane. Congress banned the export of that fighter, much to Tokyo’s chagrin.

So the X-2 photo-op served as a public declaration that Japan wants to be considered a serious player in the stealth fighter game and the development of other military hardware. Japan is currently bidding on a huge military contract with Australia to supply attack submarines. It is marketing radar systems and search and rescue planes as key military exports.

At the center of the revival of the Japanese defense and aerospace industry stands its premier contractor, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The company supplies wings for Boeing’s Dreamliner, and in November, a passenger airliner developed by the company made its first test-flight.

TOSHIFUMI KITAMURA/AFP/Getty Images

Look Out, China: Japan’s New Stealth Fighter Is Just the Start

Dave Majumdar

January 28, 2016

Japan publicly unveiled its Mitsubishi Heavy Industries X-2 stealth fighter demonstrator earlier today in Toyoyama. If all goes as planned, the prototype aircraft will take to the air in the middle of February for a series of flight tests—making Japan the fourth nation to demonstrate such capabilities. This comes after a year in which Prime Minister Abe has sought to broaden his nation’s military capabilities and reach.
Unlike the Pentagon’s Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the X-2—which until recently was called the ATD-X—is optimized for high agility and boasts three-dimensional thrust vectoring. The aircraft incorporated a series of three paddles to vector thrust in the desired direction—similar in concept to the German-American Rockwell/Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm X-31 testbed of the 1990s.
The F-35 “is not that maneuverable, but the X-2 is stealthy while boasting high maneuverability,” Takahiro Yoshida, project director at the Japanese defense ministry's acquisitions agency told the Nikkei Asia Review.
Once the X-2 starts flight-testing next month, it will be flown for about two hundred hours to gather aerodynamic performance data. After the tests are complete, the demonstrator will be handed over to the Japanese defense ministry next March. Japan will make a decision by March 2019 on either developing the X-2 into an operational warplane or using the knowledge gleaned from the program to partner with another country such as the United States for a joint development effort.
The X-2 is demonstrator aircraft—it does not currently incorporate full stealth capability. Rather, it features shaping and technologies roughly approximating a stealth aircraft. Basically, it’s similar in concept to the Lockheed Martin X-35, which was eventually developed into the current F-35.
A lot of work remains to be done to develop the avionics, engines, materials, weapons bays—which the X-2 does not have—and thrust vectoring system before it could be applied to an operational aircraft. The thrust-vectoring panels—as they are currently mounted—are not conducive to stealth. Even though Japan has spent $331 million on the X-2 thus far, that’s just a fraction of the roughly $60 billion price tag needed to develop and field a modern stealth combat aircraft.
Japan is not likely to develop the X-2 into a fully operational stealth aircraft—the cost is just not worth it for a limited production run. Instead, the country is likely setting itself up to participate in a future co-development effort with an international partner. The most likely partner would be the United States, which is gearing up to develop the F-X and F/A-XX follow-ons to the F-22 Raptor and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
The Japanese have long coveted the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, but U.S. law prevented the export of the stealthy air superiority fighter. As with the U.S. Air Force, Tokyo will eventually need to replace its current fleet of Boeing F-15 Eagles. That means that Japan might try to partner with the United States on whatever emerges from the U.S. Air Force’s F-X analysis of alternatives in the coming years. Having demonstrated that Tokyo has useful technical capabilities to share might help to convince Washington to allow Japan to participate in that sixth-generation fighter project from the outset.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar

The National Interest

Unready for War: America’s F-35 Gets a Bad Report Card

Dave Majumdar

February 2, 2016

Last July, the United States Marine Corps declared their short takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) version of the stealthy Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter operational. However, a new Pentagon operational test and evaluation report shows that the jet is far from ready. Even at the time, many had suspected that the service’s initial operational capability (IOC) was more hope than reality—now there is data to back that up.
In his annual report, the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Dr. J. Michael Gilmore summarized:

“The program terminated Block 2B developmental flight testing in May 2015, delivering Block 2B capability with deficiencies and limited combat capability. The Marine Corps declared IOC at the end of July 2015. However, if used in combat, the Block 2B F-35 will need support from command and control elements to avoid threats, assist in target acquisition, and control weapons employment for the limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs, two air-to-air missiles). Block 2B deficiencies in fusion, electronic warfare, and weapons employment result in ambiguous threat displays, limited ability to respond to threats, and a requirement for off-board sources to provide accurate coordinates for precision attack. Since Block 2B F-35 aircraft are limited to two air-to-air missiles, they will require other support if operations are contested by enemy fighter aircraft. The program deferred deficiencies and weapons delivery accuracy (WDA) test events from Block 2B to Block 3i and Block 3F, a necessary move in order to transition the testing enterprise to support Block 3i flight testing and Block 3F development, both of which began later than planned in the program’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).”

According to Gilmore’s report, the problems with the Block 2B software were so difficult that those technical hiccups were transferred to the subsequent Block 3i software, which the U.S. Air Force needs for its initial operational capability date later this year. The Block 3i was originally intended to be a simple port of the Block 2B software to avionics hardware onboard newer F-35s, but the deficiencies were so severe that the Air Force refused to accept the code as is.
“The Air Force insisted on fixes for five of the most severe deficiencies inherited from Block 2B as a prerequisite to use the final Block 3i capability in the Air Force IOC aircraft; Air Force IOC is currently planned for August 2016 (objective) or December 2016 (threshold),” states the DOT&E report.
“However,” Gilmore’s report adds, “Block 3i struggled during developmental testing (DT), due to the inherited deficiencies and new avionics stability problems. Based on these Block 3i performance issues, the Air Force briefed that Block 3i mission capability is at risk of not meeting IOC criteria to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) in December 2015.”
According to the report:

“The Five mission systems deficiencies were identified by the Air Force as ‘must fix’ for the final Block 3i software release, while the Marine Corps did not require the deficiencies to be fixed in Block 2B. These deficiencies were associated with information displayed to the pilot in the cockpit concerning performance and accuracy of mission systems functions related to weapon targeting, radar tracking, status of fused battlespace awareness data, health of the integrated core processors, and health of the radar. Another deficiency was associated with the time it takes to download files in order to conduct a mission assessment and debriefing.”

Moreover, the final Block 3F software is almost certain to be late. The DOT&E report states:

“Full Block 3F mission systems development and testing cannot be completed by May 2017, the date reflected in the most recent Program Office schedule, which is seven months later than the date planned after the 2012 restructure of the program. Although the program has recently acknowledged some schedule pressure and began referencing July 31, 2017, as the end of SDD flight test, that date is unrealistic as well. Instead, the program will likely not finish Block 3F development and flight testing prior to January 2018.”

Meanwhile, the F-35B Block 2B and the other two variants face severe flight envelope restrictions. “Fleet F-35B aircraft are limited to 3.0 g’s when fully fueled and the allowable g is increased as fuel is consumed, reaching the full Block 2B envelope of 5.5 g’s at roughly 63 percent of fuel remaining,” the report states. The F-35B’s full 7g envelop won’t be released until 2017. The other two variants face similar but slightly different restrictions.
Gilmore’s report also reveal another bit of insight which the F-35 Joint Program Office does not readily admit—the development effort is deferring capabilities in an attempt to meet its schedule: “JSF follow-on development will integrate additional capabilities in Block 4, address deferrals from Block 3F to Block 4, and correct deficiencies discovered during Block 3F development and IOT&E.”
While Gilmore’s report is gloomy—it’s still a fact of life that the F-35 is here to stay. Despite the jet’s many problems and myriad schedule slips, the Pentagon is accelerating the program and launching a block buy even before testing is complete. In recent days, the Pentagon has ordered a reluctant U.S. Navy to convert its Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike aircraft into an aerial refueling tanker while accelerating F-35C purchases. As ever, the $400 billion F-35 Goliath awkwardly stumbles forward.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Air Force.

By Martin Matishak 17 hours ago

The F-35 Stumbles Again as Test Chief Find a New Weakness: Cyberattacks

The software onboard the Pentagon’s multi-billion dollar F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might make the next-generation aircraft so vulnerable to cyberattacks that its pilots end up wishing they were flying something a bit less sophisticated.

The F-35's logistics system "continues to struggle in development with ... a complex architecture with likely (but largely untested) cyber deficiencies," according to a memo written last month by the Pentagon’s top weapons tester that was obtained by IHS Jane’s 360.

The official also raised concerns about possible delays in the aircraft's combat software development. When completed, the fighter is supposed to run on more than eight million lines of code, according to Lockheed Martin, the plane’s manufacturer.

The development is a sign that despite recent positive steps by the F-35 program -- including the news that it would make its debut at two major United Kingdom air shows this summer after a two-year delay -- the world’s most expensive weapon is not turbulence-free just yet.

The news of software problems is likely to put even the fighter’s most ardent supporters on edge. In 2009, Chinese hackers are suspected of stealing the F-35’s blueprints. U.S. officials claim no classified information was taken in the breach, but concerns have lingered that the jet’s software was laid bare.

A spokesman for the Pentagon’s F-35 joint program office told Jane’s that the agency had conducted over 2,000 cyber tests on the aircraft, including 300 last year, but admitted there is a potential for the software schedule to fall behind, for up to four months.

Defense officials still plan to get the plane with the most advanced software ready by summer 2017, but as of this month development flight testing has completed only half of its test, the F-35 office told Jane’s.

http://nextbigfuture.com/

January 29, 2016

F35 stealth fighter program resorting to systemic cheating and lying to pretend a bad project is not really worse

To try and get around software-associated delays, the F35 test program is being revised: some test points are being eliminated, reducing the total number of test points remaining for Block 2B from 529 down to 243; and some fixes are being deferred to the Block 3 program.

Skipping and deferring tests that were previously deemed to be necessary translates to a more sloppy and rushed effort to still meet deadlines.

A major operational test series planned for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been abandoned in an attempt to protect the schedule for delivering a fully operational aircraft.

Previously reported improvement in reliability was due to changes in how failures were reported. ie. They started lying in how they reported failures

The Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation also notes that an apparent improvement in a major reliability metric — "mean flight hours between failure – design controllable" — up to late summer 2014 may be due to changes in reporting. More failures were reported as "induced," or due to maintenance actions, and fewer to "inherent" design problems. Also, once a redesigned version of a failure-prone part is introduced into the fleet but before 100% of the fleet has been retrofitted, the program stops counting failures of the previous version, improving the system’s on-paper reliability even though failures are occurring.

One of the F-35’s distinctive features, the Distributed Aperture System, is still problematical, the report says, continuing "to exhibit high false-alarm rates and false target tracks, and poor stability performance, even in later versions of software.

Well over $100 billion has been spent on the F35 program so far and it is well on its way to total program costs of over $1.5 trillion.

The lifetime cost of each F35 (procurement and operation and maintenance) will make each 32000 pound plane cost more than its equivalent in gold by weight.

F35 program is cheating on its scheduled milestones
F35 program is lying about reliability failures
F35 program is costing $30+ billion every year
F35 fighter jet is really not combat ready yet after over $100 billion
There are serious questions about the military effectiveness of the F35 even after its gets working versus lower cost improvements that could be made to other planes

SOURCES- Aviation Week

The National Interest

This Nation Wants America's Most Lethal Stealth Warplane Ever

David Axe

February 1, 2016

Retired Royal Australian Air Force wing commander Chris Mills doesn’t like the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that Canberra is buying from the United States. Noting the new plane’s sluggishness and poor results in simulated air combat against the latest Russian fighters, Mills has called for Australia to lobby the United States for F-22 Raptors.
It’s a problematic suggestion. The U.S. Congress banned export of the Raptor and would have to reverse its legislation in order to sell the plane abroad. Lockheed Martin shuttered the F-22 assembly line in Georgia in 2012, although the company did preserve the tooling. As recently as mid-January, U.S. Air Force secretary Deborah Lee James called another round of Raptor production “pretty much a non-starter” owing to the high cost—as much as $17 billion for seventy-five fresh aircraft.
Mills is undeterred. “Air combat is the most important single capability for the defense of Australia, because control of the air over our territory and maritime approaches is critical to all other types of operation in the defense of Australia,” Mills wrote in testimony he recently submitted to the Australian parliament.
The one hundred F-35s Australia plans on buying will be “irrelevant” in air combat, Mills claimed.
Australia has lost regional air superiority in the past, Mills explained—and it can lose it again as China and other Southeast Asia countries acquire new jets. Mills wrote that his own experiences as a fighter pilot in the 1975 underscore his concern.
“I was flying an air combat mission in a Mirage near Butterworth, Malaya at the moment this happened,” Mills recalled. “The RMAF had re-equipped 12 Squadron with the F-5E Tiger, and invited RAAF’s 3 Squadron to a four versus four (mock) air combat engagement. Our lead was the squadron’s operations officer and I was his wingman. As we merged, it quickly became apparent that we were inferior: the F-5E [pilots] could out-turn and the Mirage [and] they had much more modern air-to-air missiles and a better gunsight. We could out-climb and out-run them, advantages useful for escaping, but not for killing the enemy. The F-5E had a very small cross-section, and was difficult to spot on radar or visually.”
Likewise, the Su-30s, Su-35s and other fighters that China, Malaysia, Indonesia and other regional countries are buying can fly farther and faster and haul more weapons than can Australia’s current F/A-18s and its future F-35s. A new “F-22C”—in essence a refreshed version of the current F-22—is the only feasible counter, Mills asserted. Mills advised the United States, Australia and their allies together to acquire 420 F-22Cs then quickly develop a two-seat F-22E.

“At a production rate of 100 per year, building this world-dominance
fleet would require 4.2 years for the F-22[C] and a further six years for the F-22E.”

David Axe is a contributor to War is Boring, in which this article first appeared.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/ U.S. Air National Guard/Senior Airman Justin Hodge.

The National Interest

Get Ready, China and Russia: America's Armed Forces Want 'Swarm' Weapons

Harry J. Kazianis

February 3, 2016

America’s greatest potential military competitors—namely Russia and China—are developing game changing capabilities to deny U.S. forces the ability to enter into contested military theaters. Moscow and Beijing are also spending billions of dollars to modernize and upgrade their armed forces, while at the same time Washington underfunds, undertrains and underappreciates the threats of the future. While there are many possible solutions to this growing great power challenge, one seems almost too incredible to imagine, seemingly pulled from the pages of your favorite comic book to be real. This potential solution: drone swarms.
OK, stick with me here for a moment—and no, I haven’t been watching too many Terminator movies. U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, speaking recently at the Economic Club of Washington, previewed the idea. A special endeavor is being championed by the recently created Pentagon Strategic Capabilities Office: small, swarming drones that are being built mostly from parts created by 3D printers. Carter noted that "they've developed micro-drones that are really fast, and really resilient." Carter added that the machines “can fly through heavy winds and be kicked out the back of a fighter jet moving at Mach 0.9. . . or they can be thrown into the air by a soldier in the middle of the Iraqi desert."
Seen a version of this idea before, loyal National Interest readers? Paul Scharre, Senior Fellow and Director of the 20YY Future of Warfare Initiative at the Center for a New American Security has been working on this concept for a while now and has written one of the most comprehensive essays on the topic in these very pages back in 2014.
Scharre, who worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and played a key role in crafting policies on unmanned and autonomous systems, not only gets the problems:

“The U.S. military is at a crisis point. We are staring down the barrel of a future where U.S. military technological superiority may no longer be a given where the military strength that has undergirded global security since World War II may be in question. The technologies that have given the U.S. military its edge stealth, long-range sensors, communications networks and precision-guided weapons are proliferating to other actors. As a result, so-called “anti-access” challenges threaten traditional modes of power projection. While individual U.S. ships, planes and tanks remain more capable one-on-one, the pernicious “death spiral” of rising costs and shrinking procurement quantities means that the United States has increasingly fewer and fewer assets to bring to the fight. The U.S. military will have to fight significantly outnumbered, and even the qualitative advantages U.S. assets have will not be sufficient. Quality matters, but numbers matter too. At a certain point, U.S. aircraft and ships will simply run out of missiles.”

But he sees a big-think solution:

“Swarms of low-cost robotic systems can overwhelm enemies, saturating their defenses. Cooperatively, they can operate with greater coordination, intelligence and speed on the battlefield than manned systems.”

And this might be the best part:

“Perhaps most significantly, they can help to bend the cost curve downward [think about expensive systems like the F-35, for example], allowing the United States to field large quantities of systems that, in aggregate, retain qualitative superiority. Disaggregating complex, multimission systems into larger numbers of lower-cost systems is a potential way to increase resiliency, diversity and impose costs on adversaries—and to do so affordably. But harnessing the advantages of this approach will require a new paradigm for how we build next-generation military systems.”

If crafted in the way Scharre lays out, Russia and China would surely have something to worry about:

“As the United States begins to grapple with possible responses to the anti-access challenge, a ‘flood the zone’ approach should be an option in the U.S. toolkit. Large numbers of low-cost, uninhabited and autonomous systems can overwhelm enemy defenses and act as decoys, scouts and “missile trucks” for human-inhabited systems. Because of their greater persistence, uninhabited systems could be seeded into the battlespace weeks or months ahead of time where they lurk unseen, allowing an early toehold in gaining access.”

Scharre, to his credit, does list some of the potential challenges—like some military positions becoming obsolete—but clearly the benefits outweigh the downsides:

“Swarms of uninhabited and autonomous systems will open up new ways of fighting, and new doctrine, training and organization will be needed. Uninhabited and autonomous systems need not replace every function of a human or human-inhabited system in order to be useful. Rather, they can help warfighters perform their missions better by absorbing some tasks, so that warfighters can focus on what only humans can do. In some cases, this may mean some military jobs are eliminated or changed beyond recognition, just like we no longer field archers today, and infantrymen, sailors and cavalrymen all look very different from their counterparts of old who shared the same names. While this may generate some discomfort, there is an imperative to moving quickly. Much of the innovation in robotics comes from the commercial sector, and will be widely available. If the U.S. military is to maintain its technological edge, it will need to harness the advantages of the robotics revolution and build the swarm.”

Revolutionary weapons that can change how the United States fight wars are a tough thing to recognize and seem to be proclaimed just about every day. However, I am willing to bet, if done right and given the proper resources to succeed, swarm weapons could be a game changer for the U.S. military. What good are anti-access strategies when you can simply overwhelm your enemy—and potentially on the cheap? Russia and China should be worried, very worried indeed. Can you say Air-Sea-Swarm Battle? I can.
Harry Kazianis (@grecianformula) is the former Executive Editor of The National Interest. Mr. Kazianis presently serves as Senior Fellow (non-resident) for Defense Policy at the Center for the National Interest as well as a Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Potomac Foundation. All opinions are his own.
Image: Courtesy of Raytheon

HAL AMCA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft)

Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

Role	Stealth multirole fighter
National origin	India
Manufacturer	Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Designer	Aeronautical Development Agency, Defence Research and Development Organisation
First flight	2023–2024 (planned)^[1]
Status	Under development
Primary users	Indian Air Force Indian Navy

The HAL Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) is an Indian project for a fifth-generation fighter aircraft being developed and designed by India's Aeronautical Development Agency and to be manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).^[2] It is a single-seat, twin-engine, stealth supermaneuverable all weather multirole fighter aircraft. Unofficial design work on the AMCA started in 2008 with official work started in 2011 and completed in 2014.^[3]^[4] In 2008 Indian Navy joined the programme for the naval variant optimized for the aircraft carriers operation.^[5] The first flight is scheduled to occur in 2023–2024.^[1]
It is a multirole combat aircraft designed for the air superiority, ground attack, bombing, intercepting and other types of roles.^[6] It combines supercruise, stealth, AESA radar, maneuverability, and advanced avionics to overcome and suppress previous generation fighter aircraft along with many ground and maritime defences. It will complement HAL Tejas, Sukhoi/HAL FGFA, the Su-30MKI, and Rafale in the air force service and HAL Naval Tejas and Mikoyan MiG-29K in the naval service. The AMCA is intended to be the successor to the Sepecat Jaguars, Dassault Mirage 2000H, MiG-23 and MiG-27 in the Indian airforce.^[6] The aircraft along with its naval variants are intended to provide the bulk of the manned tactical airpower of the Air Force, Navy over the coming decades. AMCA would be the third supersonic jet of Indian origin after HAL Marut and HAL Tejas.

Development

AMCA Program

The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) fifth-generation stealth fighter program evolved out of Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) programme, was initiated to fulfill several requirements for a common fighter to replace different types of existing fighters aircraft which included Dassault Mirage 2000, Sepecat Jaguars, Mikoyan MiG-23 and Mikoyan MiG-27. The actual development contract for the aircraft programme was signed on 8 March 2008. The MCA program was created to replace various aircraft while keeping development, production, and operating costs down. In October 2008, the Indian Air Force asked the ADA to prepare a detailed project report on the development of a Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) incorporating stealth features.^[7] In the same month the aircraft's name was changed to Next Generation Fighter Aircraft (NGFA) by the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy, but ADA and DRDO still used the MCA designation for the aircraft.^[8]^{[verification needed]}

"Our requirement is to look for a fighter aircraft which will be required after 2020 and that aircraft should have all capabilities in the terms of agility, maneuverability, load carrying capacity, low radar cross-section (stealth features), super cruise.

DRDO's chairman VK Saraswat.^[9]

In February 2009, ADA director PS Subramanyam said at an Aero-India 2009 seminar that they were working closely with the Indian Air Force to develop a Medium Combat Aircraft. He added that according to the specification provided by the Indian Air Force, it would likely be a 20-ton aircraft and would be powered by two GTX Kaveri engines.^[10]^[11] In March 2010,the aircraft was renamed as Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
In April 2010, the Indian Air Force issued the Air Staff requirements (ASR) for the AMCA, which placed the aircraft in the 25-ton category.^[12]^[13]^[14] Full-fledged support for the AMCA project was approved by Indian Air Force and Indian Navy on 16 July 2010 by the Joint Review Committee of the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy.^[15]^{[verification needed]} The first flight test of the prototype aircraft was scheduled to take place by 2017.^[16]

Funding

In November 2010, the ADA sought ₹9,000 crore (approximately €1.5 billion/US$2 billion) of funding for the development of the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA).^[16] PS Subramanyam subsequently stated, "We have just started working on this fifth-generation aircraft, for which we had already received sanctions to the tune of ₹100 crore. The way the government is cooperating, I am able to say that we will receive the funding (₹9,000 crore) in the next 18 months".^[16]^[17] Funding was utilised to develop two technology demonstrators and seven prototypes. Design funding of ₹ 100 crore was approved in March 2011.^[18]^[19] AMCA project also contributed to the universities and start-up, with more than ₹ 700 crore was contributed from AMCA's funding to the various start-up and ₹1,000 crore to the various universities and IITs.^[20] Full funding for the research and development was approved by MoD in March 2015 along with the procurement of the first batch of 200 AMCA which includes 150 for the Indian Air Force and 50 for the Indian Naval Air Arm.^[21]^{[verification needed]}

Design phase

The design development phase of the aircraft occurred from October 2008 to February 2013 during this phase design and configuration were confirmed. Five design proposal emerged after intensive wind tunnel testing. The proposal of the aircraft was finalised in October 2012 and was shown at Aero India 2013.

Previous designs

The first design of the AMCA was a pure triple delta wing configuration with two V-shaped tail wings with tailless configuration and only two air brakes with a total length of 13.9 metres with a wing span of 11.4 m and an empty weight of around 12 tonnes with advance stealth capability.^[22] The only empennage-mounted control surfaces are the single-piece rudder and two air brakes located in the upper rear part of the fuselage, one each on either side of the fin.
AMCA's second design proposal was first showcased at Aero India 2009.^[23] The previous proposal which was shown as a part of Multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) included cantilever wings with a V-shaped twin tail and a medium-sized tail-wing with serpentine air intake and blended large leading-edge root extension (LERX), total length was 13.9 m and wing span of 10.8 with empty weight of around 12 tonnes, with overall nose on low obserbility design.^[24]^[25] The previous design boosted design based stealth featrue which were further optimized by the use of airframe shaping, composite material, edge matching fuselage, RAPs, body conforming antennae and engine bay cooling, RAMs, weapons bay, special coatings for polycarbonate canopy and other stealth features, the aircraft had a weight of 16–18 tonnes with 2-tonnes of internal weapons and four-tonnes of internal fuel with a combat ceiling of 15-km, max speed of 1.8-Mach at 11-km.^[24]^[26]^[27]
A third design proposal for AMCAs was shown in 2011 at Aero India 2011 with a near complete re-designed aircraft with only Tail-wing from the previous design remained constant.^[28]^[29] Trapezoidal wings in a semi shoulder-mounted cantilever state. The total length of aircraft around 15.7 m and a wingspan of 11.6 m, much greater than previous design. The aircraft had a serpentine air intake. By August 2011. The AMCA's broad specifications stated that the aircraft will have a weight of 16–18 tonnes with 2-tonnes of internal weapons and four-tonnes of internal fuel with a combat ceiling of 15-km, max speed of 1.8-Mach at 11-km.^[30]
The fourth proposal for AMCAs was shown in 2012 with a complete re-designed aircraft with only Tail-wing from the previous design remained constant.^[31] The aircraft had a shoulder-mounted Trapezoidal wing sharing similarities with Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor wings with the total length of aircraft was around 16.9 m and with a wingspan of 11.7 m much greater than previous design which had given it a larger wing area ratio, a larger weapons bay with an increase range and greater maneuverability.^[32] A major difference from second and third design was the use of S-duct rather than the serpentine air intake. The aircraft previous proposal was in the preliminary design phase and in June 2012, with aerodynamic design optimisation of previous proposal was in near complete stage, the AMCA's broad specifications stated that the aircraft will have a weight of 16–18 tonnes with 2-tonnes of internal weapons and four-tonnes of internal fuel with a combat ceiling of 18-km, max speed of 2.2-Mach at 11-km.

Finalised concept

The aircraft concept was finalised and shown to the air force in 2012, after which full-scale development on the project was started.^[33] In February 2013, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) unveiled a 1:8 scale model at Aero India 2013, to show the finalised proposal.^[34]

Project Definition phase

Project Definition commenced from February 2013 to March 2014, started immediately after the design was finalized with intensive development on the finalised design. The wind tunnel testing of the aircraft occurred at National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) wind tunnel testing facility at Bangalore and some testing at Calspan wind tunnel facility at Boston.^[4] In April 2013, Ministry of Defence had put the project on hold, wanting to make up for the protracted delays incurred by the ADA and DRDO's Labs and establishmentes during the development of HAL Tejas.^[35]^[36]^[37] According to the Defence of Ministry, This decision was taken recently to let the ADA and DRDO's Labs to focus on the HAL Tejas.^[35]^[38]^[39] AMCA design team leade by Dr. A K Ghosh had completed Low-speed Wind tunnel test, supersonic wind tunnel test and Radar Cross-Section(RCS) test from 2008–2014 during which all the five design proposal have gone under the intensive Air flow testing, design development and improvementes.^[40]^[41]^[42]
Design Research and Development was done by NAL of the finalized design which occurred from October 2012 to September 2014. The R&D efforts led to the current configuration of the aircraft and a structurally efficient wings layout with four bending attachment brackets and two shear attachment brackets. For the AMCA's, structural design, analysis and size optimization was carried out to cater for all critical symmetric and un-symmetric load cases. Finite element models were built separately for each of the fuselage segments and then integrated to build a full fuselage finite element model which also incorporates a new design for the air intakes, which is one of the key elements to maintain the aircraft's low observation lineament (Stealth characteristics).^[43]^[44] Project definition phase was fully completed by February 2014.^[45] New and various types of simulation models, software and programming languages were created and developed by ADA, HCL Technologies, Wipro, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and various other firmes for Aircraft modeling, simulation, simulation testing, simulation running and aircraft programme languages.^[46] Various model simulation and testing was carried by Advanced Numerical Research and Analysis Group from February 2013 to September 2014.^[47]

ETMD phase

The Engineering Technology & Manufacturing Development (ETMD) phase was started in January 2014 when work on AMCA had again commenced after HAL Tejas attained IOC, and it was Announced that the AMCA will be developed by 2018.^[34]^[48]^[49] The configuration finalised in 2014, with the first flight was scheduled for 2018.^[50]^[51]^[52]^[53] The product design work of Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft was started by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the work on the prototype as the part of proof of concept stage was expected to be ready in 2018.

AMCA is a fifth-generation-plus platform, Work on the AMCA will begin soon. This will involve identifying technologies and systems for the aircraft.

DRDOs chief Dr. V. K. Saraswat.^[54]

On 7 February 2014 DRDO Director Dr Tamilmani told reporters on the sidelines of the three-day international meet on Product Life Cycle Modelling, Simulation and Synthesis (PLMSS) at VIT university on Monday,’ he said the aircraft would be equipped with twin engines with super cruise power and for the first time it would be using the stealth technology to 'hide' from radar surveillance.^[55] At a seminar ahead of the Aero India show, DRDO's chairman Dr. V.K Saraswat said that Indian private sector firms are also participating and offering support in the program.^[54]
At Aero India 2015, Tamilmani confirmed that the work on three major Technological issues which includes Thrust Vectoring and Super Cruising engine, AESA radar and Stealth technology is going on full swing and availability of the technology on the aircraft will occur on schedule.^{[citation needed]} In 2015, 700 ADA employees were working on the project along with 2,000 employees of DRDO and 1,000 employees of HAL supported by over 500 employees of subcontractors of both Indian and foreign firms. On 7 March 2015 a Memorandum of Understanding (MoD) through Government to Government (G-to-G) route between India and Russia was signed in which various Russian firms agreed to help Indian firms in various technological fields which included the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) entered in a joint-venture with Klimov for the development of Three-Dimensional Thrust Vectoring (TDTVC), Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) with Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design (TSRIID) for the AESA Radar and ADA with the Sukhoi for stealth technology and other various key technological fields.^[56]^[57]^[58] In March 2015 Boeing and Lockheed Martin offered to help HAL and DRDO in the field of Stealth, thrust vectoring and other key technologies.^[59] Work on various technology was carried by various establishment of DRDO, ADA and HAL which included Stealth, Engine, three-dimensional thrust vectoring, AESA radar, internal weapons bay, serpentine air intakes and all other major avionics.^[60]^[61]^[62]^[63]^[64]

Engine Development

Engine development on K 9 and K 10 started in August 2012 by Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE). A tender of joint venture on development of the engine was issued to Engine manufacturers in 2015 for a foreign partner to help in developing the engine by combining both Kaveri engine technology with the joint-venture partners engine to create a 110–125 KTN thrust engine.^[65] On 19 February 2015 at the Aero India 2015 Tamilmani told reports that a tender of joint venture on development of the engine was issued to General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, Snecma, Eurojet, NPO Saturn, Klimov and IHI to use current engine technology by combining Kaveri engine technology with JV engine to produce an engine capable of producing thrust of 110–125 kN.^[66]^[67]^[68]^[69] At Aero India 2015, Tamilmani confirmed the possibility of combining Kabini Core-engine with joint venture parntner core engine I.e. with EJ 200, Snecma M88, NPO Saturn AL-31-117 or General Electric F414 to produce 110–125 KN of thrust . France made an unsolicited Call to help in Development of AMCA's engine with full access to the Snecma M88 engine and other key technology, while United States has offered full collaboration in the engine development with full access to the F-414 and F-135.^[70]^[71]^[72] During the visit of the U.S president Barack Obama's on 25–27 January he pointed out to a possibility of joint-development of a Hot-Engine I.e. an advanced variable cycle engine performing in hot weather conditions like those of India.^[73] Rolls-Royce was also pushing a deal on Joint-Venture engine by offering Co-developing a new engine based on the Kaveri and EJ2XX engines.^[74]

Prototype

At Aero India 2015, Tamilmani confirmed that two Technology Demonstrators and seven prototypes are planned and will go head with construction of the first prototype when funds are allocated in the later part of 2015.^[40] In January 2019, two technology demonstrator and four prototype are scheduled to go under testing phase.^[75]

Design

Overview

The HAL AMCA is a multirole fighter aircraft aircraft, with shoulder mounted Diamond shaped trapezoidal wings, a profile with substantial area-ruling to reduce drag at transonic speeds, and an all-moving Canard-Vertical V-tail with large fuselage mounted Tail-wing. Flight control surfaces include leading and trailing-edge flaps, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving tailplanes; these surfaces also serve as Air brakes.^[76]^[77] The cockpit featuring a single seat configuration which is placed high, near the Air inlates and Wings of the aircraft for good visibility for the pilot. The aircraft features a tricycle landing gear configuration with a nose landing gear leg and two main landing gear legs. The weapons bay is placed on the underside of the fuselage between the nose and main landing gear. The AMCA is designed to produce a very small radar cross-section. To accomplish this it features serpentine shaped air-intakes to reduce radar exposure to the fan blade which increases stealth, uses an internal weapons bay and features the use of composites and other materials. The flight control surfaces are controlled by a central management computer system. Raising the wing flaps and ailerons on one side and lowering them on the other provides roll.
A leading-edge root extension (LERX), which is a small fillet, is situated on the front section of the intake and wings of the aircraft. It has a typically roughly rectangular shape, running forward from the leading edge of the wing root to a point along the fuselage. Also, the AMCA has an In-flight refueling (IFR) probe that retracts beside the cockpit during normal operation.

Airframe

The AMCA is constructed of carbon-fibre composites (C-FC), and titanium alloy steels. The AMCA would employs C-FC materials for up to 80% of its airframe by weight, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, air brakes and landing gear doors. Composite materials are used to make an aircraft both lighter and stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design, and the amca's percentage employment of C-FCs is one of the highest in an aircraft.^[78] Apart from making the aircraft much lighter compared to conventional metal airframed aircraft, There are also fewer joints and rivets, which increases the aircraft's reliability and lowers its susceptibility to structural fatigue cracks. The majority of these are bismaleimide (BMI) and composite epoxy material. The aircraft will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy.

Flight Surfaces and Controls

Since the AMCA is a relaxed static stability design, it is equipped with a quadruplex^{[disambiguation needed]} digital fly-by-wire flight control system to ease pilot handling. The amca's aerodynamic configuration is based on a Diamond shaped trapezoidal-wing layout with shoulder-mounted wings. Its control surfaces are Electro hydraulically actuated and digitally controlled using fiber optic cables. The wing's outer leading edge incorporates three-section slats, while the inbard sections have additional slats to generate vortex lift over the inner wing and high-energy air-flow along the tail fin to enhance high-AoA stability and prevent departure from controlled flight. The wing trailing edge is occupied by two-segmented elevons to provide pitch and roll control. The only empennage-mounted control surfaces are the Pelikan tail with single-piece rudder which includines two airbrakes located in the upper rear part of the pelikan tail, one each on either side of the tail. The AMCA feature a highly evolved integrated control laws for flight, propulsion, braking, nose wheel steer and fuel management and adaptive neural networks for fault detection, identification and control law reconfiguration.^[79]
The digital FBW system of the aircraft employs an advance next-generation distributed digital flight control computer (DDFCC) made by Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) comprising four computing channels, each with its own independent power supply and all housed in differently placed LRU.^[80] The DFCC receives signals from a variety of sensors and pilot control stick inputs, and processes these through the appropriate channels to excite and control the elevons, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators.DFCC provides Raising the wing flaps and ailerons on one side and lowering them on the other provided roll. The pelikan-tail fins are angled at 27 degrees from the vertical. Pitch is mainly provided by rotating these pelikan-tail fins in opposite directions so their front edges moved together or apart. Yaw is primarily supplied by rotating the tail fins in the same direction. The amca is designed for superior high Angle of attack(AoA) performance. Deflecting the wing flaps down and ailerons up on both sides simultaneously provided for Aerodynamic braking.

Propulsion

AMCA is a twin-engined aircraft which is powered by two GTRE K 9 + or K 10 engine which are successor to the cancelled Kaveri engine. While K 10 Program is a Joint Venture (JV) partnership with a foreign engine manufacturer. K 10 program engine will be final production standard Kaveri engine and shall have less weight and more reheat thrust along with certain other changes to meet the original design intent.^[81] Both the engines are designed by ADA and developed by GTRE.^[4] Full scale development of the K 9 and K 10 engine would be completed by 2019.^[82]^[83]^[84] while AMCA Test Demonstrator would be powered by an existing 90 kN thrust engine.^[73]
The K 9 + and K 10 both engines are designed to supercruise, the amca can achieve a supercruise of Mach 1.6 with both engine, with both are a stealthy afterburning jet engine.^[85] The aircraft has a maximum speed of over Mach 2.5.^{[citation needed]} With a maximum takeoff weight of 60,000 lb (29,000 kg).

Stealth and radar signature

The AMCA is designed to be difficult to detect by radar and other electronic measures due to various features to reduce radar cross-section include airframe shaping such as planform alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. Efforts have been made to minimise radio emissions and both the infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye.^[86]

Armament and stores

Image of Astra

The AMCA features two internal Weapons Bays which can carry four Air-Air missile each I.e. Eight total missiles carried in the internal bays, and external hardpoints for mounting up to four underwing pylons and two near wingtip pylons along with Four Hardpoints underneath the aircraft's belly I.e. two on the each side of the weapons bay.^[87] Internal carriage of weapons preserves the aircraft's stealth and significantly reduces aerodynamic drag, thus preserving kinematic performance compared to performance with external stores. The amca's high cruising speed substantially increase weapon effectiveness compared to its predecessors due to its ability to launch weapons at supersonic speed. The external pylons can carry missiles, bombs, and external fuel tanks at the expense of increased radar cross-section, and thus reduced stealth. The aircraft is equipped with Beyond visual range missiles, close combat missiles, standoff weapons, precision weapons and laser guided bombs.^[88] The aircraft has the capability to deploy Precision Guided Munitions. Another feature of AMCA is the extended detection range and targeting range with the ability to release weapons at supersonic speeds. Missile launches require the bay doors to be open for less than a second, during which hydraulic arms push missiles clear of the aircraft; this is to reduce vulnerability to detection and to deploy missiles during high speed flight.
The aircraft's close combat weapons includes an Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-301 a 30 mm cannnon with precision sight. The cannon is mounted internally with 320 rounds placed in the cannon. The aircraft carries missile varying from Beyond-visual-range missile Air-Air missile like DRDO Astra, Derby and Close-combat Missile like Vympel R-73, Vympel R-27, Python 5 and Helina missile which is under development, depending on the mission, amca is also designed to carry and Launch Air-Air and Air-Surface Variant which includes BrahMos A, Brahmos M, Brahmos NG and Nirbhay cruise missile.^[89] The aircraft is also designed to launch hypersonic cruise missiles like Brahmos 2 a mid-range hypersonic missile and HSTDV long-range Hyper sonic missile.^[90] For bombing mission the aircraft carries a configuration of possible bombs which will range from Sudarshan laser-guided bomb, KAB-500L laser-guided bomb and mixture of OFAB-100-120, OFAB-250-270, gravity bombs and RBK-500 cluster bomb stake .^[91]

Avionics and equipments

The aircraft's avionics suite will include highly advance AESA radar which will use Gallium nitride(GaN) , IRST and advance situational oriented electronic warfare systems and all aspect radar warning receiver (RWR), Self-Protection Jammer(SPJ), CMOS, Laser warning receiver (LWR), missile warning suite.^[3]^[92]^[93] Multifunction RF Sensor, which has a broad spectrum agility, includes the capabilities for Electronic countermeasures (ECM), electronic support measures (ESM), communications functions, and possibly even microwave weapon functions. AMCA will be integrated from the cockpit to accompanying UAV's and UCAV's which will include DRDO AURA, DRDO Rustom through encrypted datalink connections.
Defence Electronics Application Laboratory (DEAL) has designed and developed a next-generation Network-centric warfare, Aircraft management (including weapons), data fusion, Cooperative Engagement Capability, decision aids, integrated modular avionics, intern signature control with sharpening for low observability.^[94] The aircraft is designed to be multi-role, with the ability to undertake both long and short-range missions, and conduct both air-to-air and strike missions. The aircraft will use Integrated modular avionics for real time computing, Fiber optices cables used on the aircraft use the Photonic crystal fibres technology for faster exchange of data and information.^[95] Unlike the HAL's previous fighter aircraft Tejas which has a digital flight-control computer and hydraulic controllers, the AMCA has a distributed processing system employing fast processors and smart subsystems and will be electronically controlled via a "central computational system connected internally and externally on an optic-fibre channel by means of a multi-port connectivity switching module". This would require using the IEEE-1394B-STD rather than MIL-STD-1553B databus standard.^[96]
AMCA uses Fibre optic gyroscope, Ring laser gyroscope and MEMS gyroscope. The pressure probes and vanes that make up the Air data sensors will become an optical and flush air data system, and position sensors will be linear/rotary optical encoders. Importantly, actuators – currently electro-hydraulic/direct drive – could be electro-hydrostatic to accrue substantive weight savings on the AMCA.^[79] The aircraft has integrated radio and Navigation system supported by IRNSS, where all burdens earlier borne by analogue circuits will be carried out by digital processors. Communication systems is be based on software radio ranging from UHF to K band, with data links for digital data/voice data and video footage.^[79] The aircraft is equipped with AMAGB gearbox, which is designed and produced by CVRDE. The castings are made of magnesium alloy and the gearbox has its own self-contained lubrication system. AMAGB operates in two modes. In the starter mode, it aids in starting the engine through jet fuel starter. In accessory mode, it drives two hydraulic pumps and an integrated drive generator. These accessories, in turn, generate hydraulic and electrical power for the aircraft.^[97]

Radar and sensors

AMCA would be equipped with an LRDE X-band AESA radar which is developed by Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) ^{[N 1]}. The radar is a Solid state type which uses gallium nitride (GaN), development for the radar was approved in March 2012. AESA radar which is slated to be used in AMCA will have three-dimensional target search ability with a range of 240 km.
The electronic warfare suite, providing sensor fusion of radio frequency and infrared tracking functions, advanced Radar warning receiver including geolocation targeting of threats, multispectral image countermeasures for self-defense against missiles, situational awareness and electronic surveillance, employing 10 radio frequency antennae embedded into the edges of the wing and tail. Six additional active infrared sensors are distributed over the aircraft as part of an electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS), which acts as a missile warning system, reports missile launch locations, detects and tracks approaching aircraft spherically around the AMCA and replaces traditional night vision devices. All DAS functions are performed simultaneously, in every direction, at all times. To enable the AMCA to perform in the air supremacy role, it includes several passive sensor systems. The front-sector Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), developed by DLRL, is completely integrated within the aircraft and can operate both in the visible and infrared wavelengths. The EOTS enables the deployment of infrared missiles such as MICA at beyond visual range distances; it can also be used for detecting and identifying airborne targets, as well as those on the ground and at sea. The EOTS as being immune to jamming and capable of providing covert long-range surveillance.

Cockpit

The AMCA features a full-panel-width glass cockpit touchscreen, panoramic cockpit display (PCD), with dimensions of 60 by 24 centimeters designed by DARE and manufactured by Samtel or 44 by 18 centimetres by HALBIT which is a joint-venture between HAL and Elbit Systems with both systems supporting cockpit speech-recognition system (DVI) provided by Adacel which has been adopted on the F-35.^[98] Control system includes HOTAS Sidestick. The primary flight controls are arranged in a hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS)-compatible configuration, with a right-handed side-stick controller and a left-handed throttle. The AMCA's cockpit features a panoramic active-matrix display, with the Switches, bezels and keypads replaced with a single large Multi-functional touch screen interface supported by voice commands.^[79]^[99] Amca's cockpit has a secondary "get-you-home" panel providing the pilot with essential flight information in case of an emergency. The displays provide information on the key flight systems and controls on a need-to-know basis, along with basic flight and tactical data. The pilot interacts with on-board systems through a multi-functional keyboard and several selection panels. The CSIO Head Up Display and helmet-mounted display and sight (HMDS), and hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls reduce pilot workload and increase situation awareness by allowing the pilot to access navigation and weapon-aiming information with minimal need to spend time "head down" in the cockpit.

Electronic countermeasures and self repair

AMCA boost capabilities such as Self-protection and self-repair with the help of self-diagnosing and self-healing by distributing the work load to other system from affected to non-affected system. Protection would be provided with the use of nanotechnology to produce advance composite materials to withstand higher resistance to damage and therefore reducing the damage surface area.^[100] The aircraft uses Self Repairing Flight Control Capability, to automatically detect failures or damage in its flight control surfaces, and using the remaining control surfaces, calibrate accordingly to retain controlled flight.
The electronic warfare suite is designed to enhance the survivability during deep penetration and combat. The AMCA's EW suite is developed by the Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) with support from the Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL).^{[N 2]} This EW suite includes a radar warning receiver (RWR), Missile Approach Warning (MAW) and a Laser warning receiver (LWR) system, Infrared & Ultraviolet Missile warning sensors, self-protection jammer, chaff, jaff and flare dispenser, an electronic countermeasures (ECM) suite and a towed radar decoy (TRD).

Navalised AMCA

Indian navy is carrying out feasibility study of an naval variant of AMCA.^[5]

Specifications

All figures from SP's Aviation,^[30] Dainik Bhaskar.,^[101] Military Factory^[5] and India defence news^[6]
General characteristics

Crew: 1 (pilot)
Length: 17.20 m (55 ft 25 in)
Wingspan: 11.80 m (38 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.80 m (15 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 39.9 m²' (486.5 ft²)
Empty weight: 14 tons (31000 lb)
Loaded weight: 24 tons (53000 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 29 tonnes. 2 tonnes of internal weapons and 4 tonnes of internal fuel. ()
Powerplant: × 2 x K 9+ or K 10 engine with 110 kN-125 kN of thrust each (28,100 lbf)^[83]^[84]

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.5+ (2,655+ km/h, 1,650+ mph) at altitude.^{[citation needed]} Mach 1.2 (1,450 km/h, 900 mph) at sea level.
Cruise speed: Mach 1.6 (1,875 km/h)- Speed as capable of supercruise.
Range: 2800 kilometres (1750 miles) ()
Ferry range: 4600 kilometers (2875 miles) ()
Service ceiling: 18,044 m (59,200 ft (18,044 m))
Rate of climb: >13,716 m/min (>45,000 ft/min) ()

Armament

Guns: 23 mm GSh-23 cannon
Hardpoints: 8 (stealthy configuration) 12 (maximum non stealth load)
Missiles: Astra (missile) for long range BVRAAM combat. Python 5 all aspect short range. Vympel R-73 short/visual range combat missile. (Possible missiles for AMCA.)

Avionics

AESA radar
Integrated Avionics systems
Helmet Mounted Display
Datalink capabilities
IRST
E/O Targeting System (EOTS)
multi-functional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES)
ECM suite
Electro-optical suite
Laser-based counter-measures against infrared missiles
IRST for airborne targets
Ultraviolet warning sensors
Targeting pod

HAL Tejas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tejas

Role	Multirole fighter
National origin	India
Manufacturer	Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL)
Design group	Aeronautical Development Agency
First flight	4 January 2001
Introduction	17 January 2015^[1]
Status	Undergoing testing and evaluation
Primary users	Indian Air Force Indian Navy
Produced	2001–present
Number built	16 (including prototypes as of Nov. 2014)^[2]
Unit cost	₹160 crore (US$24 million) for Mark I^[3]^[4]^[5]^[3] ₹190 crore (US$28 million) for Mark IA^[3]

The HAL Tejas (Sanskrit pronunciation: [t̪eːdʒəs] Sanskrit: तेजस) is an Indian single-seat, single-jet engine, multi-role light fighter developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. It is a tailless,^{[N 1]} compound delta wing design powered by a single engine. It came from the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme, which began in the 1980s to replace India's ageing MiG-21 fighters. Later, the LCA was officially named "Tejas",^[6]^{[N 2]} meaning "Radiant" by the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.^[7]
Tejas has a pure double delta wing configuration (wing root leading edge sweep 50°, outer wing leading edge sweep 62.5° and trailing edge forward sweep 4°),^[8] with no tailplanes or canard, and a single dorsal fin. It integrates technologies such as relaxed static stability, fly-by-wire flight control system, multi-mode radar, integrated digital avionics system, composite material structures, and a flat rated engine. It is supersonic and highly maneuverable, and is the smallest and lightest in its class of contemporary combat aircraft.^[9]^[10]
The Tejas is the second supersonic fighter developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) after the HAL HF-24 Marut. The Indian Air Force (IAF) was reported to have a requirement for 200 single-seat and 20 two-seat conversion trainers, while the Indian Navy might order up to 40 single-seaters to replace its Sea Harrier FRS.51 and Harrier T.60.^[11] The Tejas was cleared in January 2011 for use by Indian Air Force pilots. It received the second of three levels of operational clearance on 20 December 2013.^[12]^[13] On 17 January 2015, the first Tejas LCA was officially inducted into the IAF, with final operational clearance (FOC) expected by late 2015. The first Tejas squadron to be based at Coimbatore is scheduled to enter service by 2017-2018.^[1]

Development

Origins

HAL Tejas at Aero India 2007

In 1969, the Indian government accepted the recommendation by its Aeronautics Committee that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited should design and develop a fighter aircraft around a proven engine. Based on a 'Tactical Air Support Aircraft' ASR markedly similar to that for the Marut,^[14] HAL completed design studies in 1975, but the project fell through due to inability to procure the selected "proven engine" from a foreign manufacturer and the IAF's requirement for an air superiority fighter with secondary air support and interdiction capability remained unfulfilled.^[15]
In 1983, IAF realised the need for an Indian combat aircraft for two primary purposes. The principal and most obvious goal was to replace India's ageing MiG-21 fighters, which had been the mainstay of the IAF since the 1970s. The "Long Term Re-Equipment Plan 1981" noted that the MiG-21s would be approaching the end of their service lives by the mid-1990s, and that by 1995, the IAF would lack 40% of the aircraft needed to fill its projected force structure requirements.^[16] The LCA programme's other main objective was an across-the-board advancement of India's domestic aerospace industry.^[17] The value of the aerospace "self-reliance" initiative is not simply the aircraft's production, but also the building of a local industry capable of creating state-of-the-art products with commercial spin-offs for a global market.^[18]
In 1984, the Indian government chose to establish the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) to manage the LCA programme. While the Tejas is often described as a product of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), responsibility for its development belongs to ADA, a national consortium of over 100 defence laboratories, industrial organisations, and academic institutions with HAL being the principal contractor.^[19] The government's "self-reliance" goals for the LCA include the three most sophisticated and challenging systems: the fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FCS), multi-mode pulse-doppler radar, and afterburning turbofan engine.^[20]
The IAF's Air Staff Requirement for the LCA were not finalised until October 1985. This delay rendered moot the original schedule which called for first flight in April 1990 and service entry in 1995; however, it also gave the ADA time to better marshal national R&D and industrial resources, recruit personnel, create infrastructure, and to gain a clearer perspective of which advanced technologies could be developed locally and which would need to be imported.^[15]^[21] Out of a total of 35 major avionics components and line-replaceable units (LRUs), only three involve foreign systems.^[22] These are the multi-function displays (MFDs) by Sextant (France) and Elbit (Israel),^[23] the helmet-mounted display and sight (HMDS) cueing system by Elbit,^[23] and the laser pod supplied by Rafael (Israel).^[24] Production aircraft are expected to have MFDs from Indian suppliers. A few important items of equipment (such as the Martin-Baker ejection seat) have been imported.^[22] As a consequence of the embargo imposed on India after its nuclear weapons tests in May 1998, many items originally planned to be imported were instead developed locally; these sanctions contributed to the prolonged delays suffered by the LCA.^[22]

LCA program

Tejas parked next to F-16 Fighting Falcon and Eurofighter Typhoon at 2009 Aero India

In 1990, the design was finalised as a small tailless delta winged machine with relaxed static stability (RSS) and control-configuration for enhanced manoeuvrability.^[9]^[25]^[26] A review committee was formed in May 1989, which reported that infrastructure, facilities and technologies in India had advanced sufficiently in most areas and that the project could be undertaken.^[26] In October 1987, project definition commenced with France's Dassault Aviation in a reviewing/advisory role; this phase, costing ₹560 crore (US$84 million), was completed in September 1988.^[16]^[21] A two-stage full-scale engineering development (FSED) process was opted for.^[16]^[26]
Phase 1 commenced in April 1993,^[16] and focused on "proof of concept" and comprised the design development and testing (DDT) of two technology demonstrator aircraft which were named as TD-1 and TD-2. This would be followed by the production of two prototype vehicles (PV-1 and PV-2), TD-1 finally flew on 4 January 2001.^[26] FSED Programme Phase-I was successfully completed in March 2004 and cost ₹2,188 crore.^[16]
The relaxed static stability (RSS) was an ambitious requirement. In 1988, Dassault had offered an analogue flight control system (FCS), but the ADA recognised that digital FCSs would supplant it.^[20] First flying in 1974, the General Dynamics F-16 was the first production aircraft designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable to improve manoeuvrability.^[27] Many aircraft have positive static stability to induce them to return to a straight, level flight attitude when the controls are released, maneuverability is reduced as the inherent stability has to be overcome. Aircraft with negative stability are designed to deviate from controlled flight and thus be more manoeuvrable.^[28]^[29]
In 1992, the LCA National Control Law (CLAW) team was set up by the National Aeronautics Laboratory to develop India's own state of the art fly-by-wire FCS for the Tejas.^[30]^[31] In 1998, Lockheed Martin's involvement was terminated due to a US embargo in response to India's second nuclear tests in May of that year.^[32]^[33]
Another critical technology is the Multi-Mode Radar (MMR). The Ericsson/Ferranti PS-05/A I/J-band multi-function radar was initially intended to be used,^[34] as used on Saab's JAS 39 Gripen. However, after examining other radars in the early 1990s,^[36] the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) became confident that local development was possible. HAL's Hyderabad division and the LRDE were selected to jointly lead the MMR programme, and work commenced in 1997.^[37] The DRDO's Centre for Airborne System (CABS) is responsible for the MMR's test programme. Between 1996 and 1997, CABS converted the surviving HAL/HS-748M Airborne Surveillance Post (ASP) into a testbed for the LCA's avionics and radar.^[38]
The NAL's CLAW team completed integration of the flight control laws by themselves, with the FCS software performing flawlessly for over 50 hours of pilot testing on TD-1, resulting in the aircraft being cleared for flight in early 2001. The automatic flight control system (AFCS) has been praised by all test pilots, one of whom remarked that he found the LCA easier to take off in than in a Mirage 2000.^[39]
Phase 2 commenced in November 2001,^[16] and consisted of the manufacturing of three more prototype vehicles (PV-3, PV-4 and PV-5), leading to the development of the final variant that would join the air force and the navy and 8 Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft, and establishment of infrastructure for producing 8 aircraft per year.^[26] The phase cost ₹3,301.78 crore, and an additional amount of ₹2,475.78 crore was given for induction into Indian Air Force by obtaining IOC and FOC. The total cost for development of Tejas (including PDP, Phase 1 and Phase 2) was ₹7,965.56 crore as of August 2013.^[16]
By mid-2002, the MMR had reported suffered major delays and cost escalations. By early 2005, only the air-to-air look-up and look-down modes — two basic modes — were confirmed to have been successfully tested. In May 2006, it was revealed that the performance of several modes being tested "fell short of expectations."^[40] As a result, the ADA was reduced to running weaponisation tests with a weapon delivery pod, which is not a primary sensor, leaving critical tests on hold. According to test reports, there was a serious compatibility issue between the radar and the LRDE's advanced signal processor module (SPM). Acquisition of an "off-the-shelf" foreign radar is an interim option being considered.^[37]^[41]^[42]
Of the five critical technologies the ADA identified at the programme's onset as required to design and build a new fighter, two have been entirely successful: the development and manufacture of carbon-fibre composite (CFC) structures and skins, and a modern glass cockpit. ADA has a profitable commercial spin-off in its Autolay integrated automated software for designing 3-D laminated composite elements (which has been licensed to both Airbus and Infosys).^[20] By 2008, 70% of the LCA's components were being manufactured in India, the dependence on imported components was stated to be progressively reduced over time. Successes have often been overshadowed by problems encountered with the other three key technology initiatives however.^[43]

Prototypes and testing

Tejas trainer under construction

Tejas Trainer at 62nd Republic Day of India Parade, New Delhi

In March 2005, the IAF placed an order for 20 aircraft, with a similar purchase of another 20 aircraft to follow. All 40 were to be equipped with the F404-GE-IN20 engine.^[44]^[45] In December 2006, a 14-member "LCA Induction Team" was formed at Bengaluru to prepare the Tejas for service and assist with its induction into service.^[46]
On 25 April 2007, the first Limited Series Production (LSP-1) Tejas performed its maiden flight, achieving a speed of Mach 1.1 (837.3 mph; 1,347.5 km/h).^[21] The Tejas completed 1,000 test flights and over 530 hours of flight testing by 22 January 2009.^[21]^[47] In 2009, a Tejas achieved a speed of over 1,350 kilometres per hour (840 mph) during sea level flight trials at INS Hansa, Goa.^[21]^[48]
On 16 June 2008, LSP-2 made its first flight.^[21] In November 2009, the trainer variant prototype took to the skies.^[49] On 23 April 2010, LSP-3 flew with a hybrid version of the Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar;^[21]^[50] in June 2010, LSP-4 took its first flight in an IAF Initial Operating Clearance (IOC) configuration.^[21]^[51] By June 2010, the Tejas had completed the second phase of hot weather trials in an IOC configuration with the weapon system and sensors integrated.^[52] Sea trials were also being carried out.^[53] On 19 November 2010, LSP-5 with IOC standard equipment took to skies.^[54]
In December 2009, the government sanctioned ₹8,000 crore to begin production of the fighter for the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy. The Indian Navy has a requirement for 50 Tejas aircraft and the first prototype, NP-1 was rolled out in July 2010.^[55] IAF ordered 20 additional Tejas fighters after the defence acquisition council cleared the plan.^[56] In December 2014 the LCA Navy successfully conducted ski-jump trials at SBTF Goa. The navy variant has a special flight control law mode which allows hands-free take-off relieving the pilot workload, as the aircraft leaps from the ramp and automatically puts the aircraft in an ascending trajectory.^[57]^[58]
In November 2010, it was reported that the Tejas Mk1 reportedly fell short of the relaxed Air Staff Requirements stipulated for limited series production (LSP) aircraft. The areas that did not meet requirements were power to weight ratio, sustained turning rate, maximum speeds at low altitudes, AoA range, and weapon delivery profiles; the extent of the deficiencies was classified.^[59]
On 9 March 2012, LSP-7 took to its maiden flight from HAL airport.^[21] The Naval LCA made its first flight, almost two years after being rolled out, on 27 April 2012.^[60]
In September 2011, weapon tests, including bombing runs, begun at Pokhran range, to be followed by missile tests at Goa.^[61] On 27 June 2012, three Tejas (LSP 2, 3 and 5) aircraft completed precision bombing runs in the desert of Rajasthan, having deployed laser-guided 1,000 lb bombs and unguided bombs.^[62] The Tejas had completed 1,941 flights by July 2012.^[63]
In the later half of 2012, the Tejas was grounded for over three months due to a serious safety issue with the pilot's helmets, which extended above the ejection seats, potentially prevented smooth ejection by striking the canopy before the latter was blown off. Flight tests resumed in November 2012 after the ejection systems were modified in response.^[64] LSP 8 had a successful maiden test flight on 31 March 2013,^[65] and the programme had completed 2,418 test flights by 27 November 2013.^[63]^[66] On 31 March 2013, LSP-8 took to its maiden flight from HAL airport.^[21] On 8 November 2014, PV-6(KH-T2010), a trainer variant, completed its first test flight.^[67]

Operational clearance

Play media

HAL Tejas at Aero India 2015

On 10 January 2011, IOC, allowing IAF pilots to fly the Tejas, was awarded by Defence Minister A K Antony to Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik. The IAF plans to raise the first squadron in Bengaluru to iron out issues with ADA and HAL, and eventually base these fighters at Sulur Air Force Station, Coimbatore in the southern state of Tamil Nadu.^[45]^[68] In October 2011, Tejas' Final Operational Clearance (FOC) was reportedly delayed from December 2012 until mid-2013 or later.^[69]^[70] In mid-2012, some sources claimed that the aircraft would not reach FOC and become fully combat capable until 2015.^[71]
HAL was instructed by the Indian government to strictly adhere to deadlines to ensure Initial Operational Clearance-II by the end of 2013 and Final Operational Clearance (FOC) by the end of 2014.^[72] On 20 December 2013, the IOC-II was issued, after which the aircraft was cleared to be flown by regular IAF pilots and begin induction into squadron service. The first squadron of 18 to 20 Tejas will be based at Sulur Air Force Station, Coimbatore in the state of Tamil Nadu,^[73] and it will work to achieve FOC by December 2014.^[74] To fulfill the IOC-II standard, the aircraft was certified to carry close to three tons of weapons which include laser-guided 500 kg bombs and short-range R-73 missiles,^[75]^[76] reach top speeds of 1,350 km per hour, withstand turns up to 7 g, reach angle of attack of 24 degrees (from 17 degrees initially), and have an operational radius of 400–500 km.^[77]^[78]
To obtain FOC, the fighter will have to be certified for six more criteria. Integration of Derby and Python BVR missiles weighing 150 kg, with a range of 70 km, as well as a Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 gun will be undertaken. An air-to-air refuelling probe supplied by Cobham will be added. The angle of attack will be increased from 24 to 28 degrees,^[77] the braking system will be enhanced, and the existing nose cone radome made of composites will be replaced by a quartz model in a bid to increase the current radar range of 45–50 km to more than 80 km. These modifications are expected to be completed within 15 months of IOC-II.^[74]^[79] In order to expand the flight envelope to meet service requirements, the programme enlisted assistance from EADS.^[80]
The Final Operational Clearance (FOC) campaign began in December 2013, with three aircraft from Tejas flight-line successfully completing advanced weapon trials. The campaign was held in Jamnagar. New weapons were integrated on the aircraft.^[81] As part of the FOC, aircraft is being readied for all-weather trials in Bengaluru and in Gwalior. Tejas had taken its maiden flight in January 2001, and by December 2013, it had completed 2,587 sorties covering over 1,750 hours.^[81] In July 2014, the FOC was pushed back as six or more aircraft would needed for testing and only one produced then.^[82] Tejas received IOC-II clearance on 17 January 2015 and the FOC was expected by year's end for induction in the Indian Air Force,^[83] but has been pushed back to March 2016.^[84]
In October 2015, IAF Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha confirmed that the air force had ordered 120 (six squadrons) of Tejas Mark 1A, triple the 40 aircraft it had previously committed to buying. NDTV reported that IAF agreed to accept 40 aircraft even though the CAG had found serious operational shortfalls, including engine thrust, weight and pilot protection in front against 7.62 mm rifle calibre ammunition. The IAF agreed to accept the flawed Tejas to keep the programme alive; the DRDO and HAL promised an improved Tejas Mark 1A version, changes to the ballast and landing gear will reduce its weight by 1,000 kg and the delivery will begin by 2016.^[85]^[86] Tejas Mark 1A shall also have electronic warfare equipment, better air to air capability, aerial refueling and improved ease of maintenance.^[87]

Design

Overview

The Tejas is a single-engine multirole fighter which features a tailless, compound delta wing and is designed with "relaxed static stability" for enhanced manoeuvrability. Originally intended to serve as an air superiority aircraft with a secondary ground-attack role, its flexibility permits a variety of guided air-to-surface and anti-shipping weapons to be integrated for multirole and multimission capabilities.^[88] The tailless, compound-delta planform is designed to be small and lightweight.^[89] This platform also minimises the control surfaces needed (no tailplanes or foreplanes, just a single vertical tailfin), permits carriage of a wider range of external stores, and confers better close-combat, high-speed, and high-alpha performance characteristics than comparable cruciform-wing designs. Extensive wind tunnel testing on scale models and complex computational fluid dynamics analyses have optimised the aerodynamic configuration for minimum supersonic drag, a low wing-loading, and high rates of roll and pitch.^[88]

PV-3 in Indian Air Force grey camouflage pattern

Materials include aluminium-lithium, superplastically formed titanium, and carbon-fibre composites (CFC). Tejas employs CFC materials for up to 45 per cent of its airframe, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, air brakes and landing gear doors.^[90] The wing and fin of the compound-delta aircraft are of carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer, and were designed to provide a minimum weight structure and to serve as integral fuel tanks.^[91]^[92] Although two-seat variants are planned, the examples built to date are crewed by a single pilot on a Martin-Baker zero-zero ejection seat; a locally developed ejection seat is planned to be replace it later on.^[93] Tejas requires a very short runway and "rockets off the runway and into the air in a mere 500 metres".^[90]
All weapons are carried on one or more of seven hardpoints with total capacity of greater than 4,000 kg: three stations under each wing and one on the under-fuselage centreline. An eighth offset station beneath the port-side intake trunk can carry a variety of pods like FLIR, IRST, laser rangefinder/designator, as can the centreline under-fuselage station and inboard pairs of wing stations.^[32]^[94]^[95] Auxiliary fuel tanks of 800 and 1,200 litres can be carried under the fuselage to extend range. An aerial refuelling probe on the starboard side of the forward fuselage can further extend range and endurance.^[96] RAFAEL's Derby fire-and-forget missile will serve as the Tejas' initial medium range air-air armament.^[24]
Stealth features have been designed into Tejas.^[97] Being small provides an inherent degree of visual stealth, the airframe's high usage of composites (which do not reflect radar waves), a Y-duct inlet which shields the engine compressor face from probing radar waves, and the application of radar-absorbent material (RAM) coatings are intended to minimise its susceptibility to detection and tracking.^[98]

Airframe

Composites in the LCA

The LCA is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites (C-FC), and titanium alloy steels. The Tejas employs C-FC materials for up to 45% of its airframe by weight, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, air brakes and landing gear doors. Composite materials are used to make an aircraft both lighter and stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design, and the LCA's percentage employment of C-FCs is one of the highest among contemporary aircraft of its class.^[99] Apart from making the plane much lighter, there are also fewer joints or rivets, which increases the aircraft's reliability and lowers its susceptibility to structural fatigue cracks.^[100] The tailfin is a monolithic honeycomb structure piece, reducing the manufacturing cost by 80% compared to the "subtractive" or "deductive" method, involving the carving out of a block of titanium alloy by a computerised numerically controlled machine. No other manufacturer is known to have made fins out of a single piece.^[101]
The use of composites resulted in a 40% reduction in the total number of parts, including half the number of fasteners required, compared to a metallic frame design. The composite design also helped to avoid about 2,000 holes being drilled into the airframe. Overall, the aircraft's weight is lowered by 21%. While each of these factors can reduce production costs, an additional benefit — and significant cost savings — is realised in the shorter time required to assemble the aircraft — seven months for the LCA as opposed to 11 months using an all-metal airframe.^[102] The wing-shielded, side-mounted bifurcated, fixed-geometry Y-duct air intakes with splitter plate (aeronautics),^[103] can ensure buzz-free air supply into the engine compressor for thrust generation.^[104]

A Tejas at Aero-India 2009

The airframe of the naval variant will be modified with a nose droop to provide improved view during landing approach, and wing leading edge vortex controllers (LEVCON) to increase lift during approach.^[15] The LEVCONs are control surfaces that extend from the wing-root leading edge and thus afford better low-speed handling for the LCA, which would otherwise be slightly hampered due to the increased drag that results from its delta-wing design. As an added benefit, the LEVCONs will also increase controllability at high angles of attack (AoA).^[105] The naval Tejas will also have a strengthened spine, a longer and stronger undercarriage, and powered nose wheel steering for deck manoeuvrability.^[24]^[106] The Tejas trainer variant will have "aerodynamic commonality" with the two-seat naval aircraft design.^[107]

Avionics

The Tejas has a night vision goggles (NVG)-compatible "glass cockpit", dominated by an CSIR-CSIO domestically-developed head-up display (HUD), three 5 in x 5 in multi-function displays, two Smart Standby Display Units (SSDU), and a "get-you-home" panel providing the pilot with essential flight information in case of an emergency. The displays provide information on key flight systems and controls on a need-to-know basis, along with basic flight and tactical data. The pilot interacts with onboard systems through a multifunctional keyboard and several selection panels.^[90] The CSIO-developed HUD, Elbit-furnished DASH helmet-mounted display and sight (HMDS),^[23] and hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls reduce pilot workload and increase situation awareness by allowing access to navigation and weapon-aiming information with minimal need to spend time "head down" in the cockpit.^[94]^[98]
The first 20 production Tejas Mk1 equipped with hybrid version of the EL/M-2032 radar.It features look-up/look-down/shoot-down modes, low/medium/high pulse repetition frequencies (PRF), platform motion compensation, doppler beam-sharpening, moving target indication(MTI), Doppler filtering, constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection, range-Doppler ambiguity resolution, scan conversion, and online diagnostics to identify faulty processor modules.^[98] The Tejas Mk1A will equipped with advanced version of ELTA EL/M-2052.The ELM-2052 is an advanced Fire Control Radar (FCR) designed for air-to-air superiority and strike missions, based on fully solid-state Active Electronically Scanning Array (AESA) technology, enabling the radar to achieve long detection ranges, high mission reliability and multi-target tracking capabilities.The ELM-2052 radar provides simultaneous modes of operation supporting multi-mission capabilities for air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea operation modes, and weapon deployment. In the air-to-air mode, the radar delivers very long-range multi target detection and enables several simultaneous weapon deliveries in combat engagements. In air-to-ground missions, the radar provides very high resolution SAR mapping, surface moving target detection and tracking over RBM and SAR maps in addition to A/G ranging. In air-to-sea missions the radar provides long-range target detection and tracking, including target classification capabilities.[2] The Mark 2 will feature an indigenously-developed AESA fire control radar named Uttam.
The Tejas is equipped with both GPS and a ring laser gyroscope based inertial navigation system; for flying in poor conditions, an Instrument Landing System (ILS) and a ground proximity warning system based on the Terrain Referenced Navigation (TRN) system is also employed.^[95]^[108]^[109] The LCA also has secure and jam-resistant communication systems such as the IFF transponder/interrogator, VHF/UHF radios, and air-to-air/air-to-ground datalinks. The ADA Systems Directorate's Integrated Digital Avionics Suite (IDAS) integrates the flight controls, environmental controls, aircraft utilities systems management, stores management system (SMS), etc. on three 1553B buses by a centralised 32-bit, high-throughput mission computer.^[94]
The electronic warfare suite is designed to enhance combat survivability during deep penetration. The EW suite is developed by the Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) with support from the Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL). This EW suite, known as Mayavi, includes a radar warning receiver (RWR), Missile Approach Warning (MAW) and a Laser warning receiver (LWR) system, Infrared & Ultraviolet Missile warning sensors, self-protection jammer, chaff, jaff and flares dispenser, an electronic countermeasures (ECM) suite and a towed radar decoy (TRD). In the interim, the Indian Ministry of Defence has revealed that an unspecified number of EW suites had been purchased from Israel's Elisra for the LCA prototypes.^[108]^[109]^[110]
Tejas is also to be equippable with an Infra-red search and track (IRST) sensor, which can detect and track thermal energy emissions.^[90]^[111] This system shall be pod-based, additional sensor pods are to include a Drop tanks for ferry flight/extended range/loitering time,FLIR targeting pod, ECM pods, Flares/Infrared decoys dispenser pod and chaff pod, EO/IR sensor pod, LITENING targeting pods Forward looking infrared (FLIR)sensor, and a laser designator/laser rangefinder, which can be used in various capacities, including reconnaissance, training, or attack.^[32]^[94]^[95]

Flight controls

A Tejas conducting an inverted pass

Since the Tejas is a relaxed static stability design, it is equipped with a quadruplex digital fly-by-wire flight control system to ease pilot handling.^[112] The Tejas aerodynamic configuration is based on a pure delta-wing layout with shoulder-mounted wings. Its control surfaces are all hydraulically actuated. The wing's outer leading edge incorporates three-section slats, while the inboard sections have additional slats to generate vortex lift over the inner wing and high-energy air-flow along the tail fin to enhance high-AoA stability and prevent departure from controlled flight. The wing trailing edge is occupied by two-segment elevons to provide pitch and roll control. The only empennage-mounted control surfaces are the single-piece rudder and two airbrakes located in the upper rear part of the fuselage, one each on either side of the fin.^[113]
The digital FBW system of the Tejas employs a powerful digital flight control computer (DFCC) made by Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) comprising four computing channels, each with its own independent power supply and all housed in a single LRU. The DFCC receives signals from a variety of sensors and pilot control stick inputs, and processes these through the appropriate channels to excite and control the elevons, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The DFCC channels are built around 32-bit microprocessors and use a subset of the Ada programming language for software implementation. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like the MFDs through MIL-STD-1553B multiplex avionics data buses and RS-422 serial links.^[90]^[114]^[115] The aircraft features in-flight refuelling capability via retractable probes on the aircraft's starboard side, and an on-board oxygen-generating system for longer missions.

Propulsion

A General Electric F404-IN20 engine during ground testing

Early on, it was decided to equip prototype aircraft with the General Electric F404-GE-F2J3 afterburning turbofan engine while a program to develop a domestic powerplant led by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment was launched.^[116] In 1998, after Indian nuclear tests, US sanctions blocked sales of the F404, leading to a greater emphasis on the domestic Kaveri. In 2004, General Electric was awarded a US$105 million contract for 17 uprated F404-GE-IN20 engines to power the eight pre-production LSP aircraft and two naval prototypes,^[117] deliveries began in 2006.^[118] In 2007, a follow-on order for 24 F404-IN20 engines to power the first operational Tejas squadron was issued.^[117]
Cost overruns and delays were encountered in the Kaveri's development.^[119] In mid-2004, the Kaveri failed high-altitude tests in Russia, ruling out it powering the first production Tejas aircraft.^[118]^{[N 3]} In February 2006, the ADA awarded a contract to French engine company Snecma for technical assistance on the Kaveri.^[11] Using Snecma's new core, an uprated derivative of the Dassault Rafale's M88-2 engine, providing 83–85 kilonewtons (kN) of maximum thrust was being considered by DRDO. The IAF objected that since Snecma already developed the core of the engine, the DRDO will not be participating in any joint development but merely providing Snecma with an 'Indian-made' stamp.^[120] In November 2014, the DRDO was submitting documents to cancel development of Kaveri.^[24]
In 2008, it was announced that an in-production powerplant would have to be selected; this was required to be in the 95 to 100 kilonewton (kN) (21,000–23,000 lbf) range to execute combat manoeuvres with optimal weapons load.^[121]^[122] After evaluation and acceptance of technical offers for both the Eurojet EJ200 and the General Electric F414, the commercial quotes were compared in detail and GE's F414 was declared as the lowest bidder. The deal covered the purchase of 99 GE F414 engines, an initial batch will be supplied directly by GE and the remainder to be manufactured in India under a technology transfer arrangement.^[123]^[124] According to the IAF, adopting the new powerplant required a three-to-four years of redesign work.^[125]

Operational history

The work to raise the first squadron started in July 2011. The Tejas will be inducted into the 45th squadron, the Flying Daggers and will be based in Bengaluru before being moved to Sulur Air Force Station in Coimbatore.^[126] The squadron will initially consist of four aircraft SP-3 to SP-6. The IAF's Aircraft & Systems Testing Establishment will receive four aircraft already built, the SP-1 and 2 and LSP-7 and 8.^[127]
In May 2015, the Mark I aircraft was criticized by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) for not meeting IAF requirements, such as a lack of a two-seat trainer, electronic warfare capabilities, the Radar Warning Receiver/Counter Measure Dispensing System, weight increases, reduced internal fuel capacity, non-compliance of fuel system protection, forward-facing pilot protection, and reduced speed. Most of these issues are expected to be rectified in the future Mark II version.^[128]

Variants

Tejas trainer variant

Tejas naval variant

Naval LCA during flight testing

Prototypes

Aircraft already built and projected models to be built. Model designations, tail numbers and dates of first flight are shown.

Technology Demonstrators (TD)

TD-1 (KH2001) – 4 Jan 2001
TD-2 (KH2002) – 6 June 2002

Prototype Vehicles (PV)

PV-1 (KH2003) – 25 November 2003
PV-2 (KH2004) – 1 December 2005
PV-3 (KH2005) – 1 December 2006. This is the production variant.
PV-4
PV-5 (KH-T2009) – 26 November 2009 – Fighter/Trainer Variant
PV-6 (KH-T2010) - 8 November 2014 - Fighter/Trainer Variant.^[67]

Naval Prototypes (NP)

NP-1 (KH-T3001) – Two-seat Naval variant for carrier operations. Rolled out in July 2010.^[129] NP-1 made its first flight on 27 April 2012.^[60]
NP-2 (KH3002) – First flight on 7 February 2015 with sky-jump take-off and arrested landing required in STOBAR carrier.^[130]
NP-3 & NP-4 – Single-seat LCA MK 2 Naval variant for carrier operations to be powered by the GE-414 engines. The design work on the two aircraft is nearly complete.^[60]
NP-5 – Another Single-seat LCA MK 1 Naval variant is planned so as to enhance the pace of certification process for Naval LCA.^[60]

Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft

Currently, 8 LSP series aircraft plus 40 aircraft are on order.

LSP-1 (KH2011) – 25 April 2007. This LCA is powered by F404-F2J3 Engine.^[131]
LSP-2 (KH2012) – 16 June 2008. This is the first LCA fitted with F404-IN20 engine.^[131]
LSP-3 23 April 2010. The first aircraft to have the Hybrid MMR radar^[50] and will be close to the IOC standard.
LSP-4 (KH2014) – 2 June 2010. The first aircraft that was flown in the configuration that will be delivered to the Indian Air Force.^[51] In addition to the Hybrid MMR, the aircraft flew with a Countermeasure Dispensing System and an identify friend or foe electronic system.^[132]
LSP-5 (KH2015) – 19 November 2010. IOC standard, with all sensors including night lighting in the cockpit, and an auto-pilot.^[133]
LSP-6 – Will be used to increase the Angle of Attack.^[134] As well as develop better (Experimental) RAM coating to further reduce its radar signature.^[135]
LSP-7 (KH2017) – 9 March 2012. APU intake has been aerodynamically reshaped.
LSP-8 – First flight trial completed in March 2013. LSP 8 is the version that will go for production.^[65]
SP-1 to SP-20 – It was planned to fly by late 2013. The SP-1 and SP-2 will be part of No. 45 Squadron (Flying Daggers) that will be based initially in Bangalore (Bengaluru), Karnataka.^[135] In May 2014, HAL planned to deliver four SP aircraft to the IAF.^[81] SP-1 took its maiden flight on 30 September 2014. On 17 January 2015 first SP-1 was handed over to Indian Air Force by Defence Minister Sh. Manohar Parrikar.^[136]

Planned production variants

Tejas Trainer - Two-seat operational conversion trainer for the Indian Air Force.
Tejas Mark 1A- HAL is now working on developing a new variant named LCA-I P also called LCA Mark IA, which will be equipped with an advanced AESA Radar and an electro-optic Electronic Warfare (EW) sensor suite. The AESA radar will be supplied by Israel’s ELTA Systems. It will also incorporate weight reduction along with easier service maintainability which will thus reduce downtime of each aircraft. The timeline for this variant has been set at 2017.^[137] On 25 October 2015, it was reported that 100 Tejas aircraft will be equipped with ELTA's EL/M-2052 AESA radar.^[138]
Tejas Trainer IN - Two-seat operational conversion trainer for the Indian Navy.
Tejas Mk2 Navy -Twin- and single-seat carrier-capable variants for the Indian Navy. It will be equipped for carrier operation with ski-jump take-off and arrested landing. It will include strengthened airframe and landing gear and drooped nose for better cockpit vision.^[139] The Tejas Mk 2 Navy will have a length of 14.2 metres (1 metre more than that of the Tejas Mk 1, for incorporating a stretched nose section and a modified fuselage section aft of the cockpit for housing an expanded complement of mission avionics LRUs), height of 4.6 metres (as opposed to 4.4 metres of the Tejas Mk 1, to accommodate an enlarged vertical tail-section) and a wingspan of 8.2 metre, same as that of the Tejas Mk 1, however with an increased wing area. External stores capacity will be boosted to 5,000 kg (as opposed to 4,000 kg for the Tejas Mk 1), while the twin internal air-intake ducts will be minimally enlarged to cater to the increased airflow requirements of the 98 kN thrust F414-GE-INS6. The Ministry of Defence had sanctioned US$542.44 million (Rs 2,431.55-crore) for ADA to develop the Indian Navy's LCA Mk 2 (Navy) variant. The IAF is committed to procuring an initial 83 Tejas Mk 2s and the Indian Navy has expressed a firm requirement for 46 LCA Mk2 (Navy).^[44]^[140]^[141] The Mark 2 may feature an indigenously developed active electronically scanned array (AESA) fire control radar named Uttam.^[142] The Mk2 will also see the incorporation of a new electronic warfare suite which is being jointly developed with Israel. This is to have a new glass cockpit with larger 8 x 12 inch displays. The Mk2 will have some 25-30 percent commonality in parts with the Mk1 and these parts are already in production.^[143] The Mark 2 is scheduled for flight testing by 2018, but this may be delayed by two or three more years to allow time to engineer the installation of the GE 414 engine.^[144] In August 2015, the Indian defence minister stated the first flight is likely to be 2019 with an entry into service in 2022.^[145]
Tejas Mark 2 - The Tejas Mark 2 is to feature the more powerful General Electric F414-GE-INS6 engine with 98 kN of thrust and refined aerodynamics. The Mark 2 is being developed to meet the latest IAF requirements and will incorporate fifth-generation jet fighter elements which are intended to make way into the FGFA and AMCA. The Tejas Mk 2 will have a length of 14.2 metre (1 metre more than that of the Tejas Mk 1, for incorporating a stretched nose section and a modified fuselage section aft of the cockpit for housing an expanded complement of mission avionics LRUs), height of 4.6 metre (as opposed to 4.4 metres of the Tejas Mk 1, to accommodate an enlarged vertical tail-section) and a wingspan of 8.2 metres, same as that of the Tejas Mk 1, however with an increased wing area. External stores capacity will be boosted to 5,000 kg (as opposed to 4,000 kg for the Tejas Mk 1), while the twin internal air-intake ducts will be minimally enlarged to cater to the increased airflow requirements of the 98 kN thrust F414-GE-INS6. The Ministry of Defence had sanctioned US$542.44 million (Rs 2,431.55-crore) for ADA to develop the IAF's Tejas Mk 2 variant. The IAF is committed to procuring an initial 83 Tejas Mk 2s.^[44]^[140]^[141] The Mark 2 may feature an indigenous developed active electronically scanned array (AESA) fire control radar named Uttam.^[142] The Mk2 will also see the incorporation of a new electronic warfare suite which is being jointly developed with Israel. This is to have a new glass cockpit with larger 8 x 12 inch displays. The Mk2 will have some 25-30 percent commonality in parts with the Mk1 and these parts are already in production.^[143] The Mark 2 is scheduled for flight testing by 2018, but this may be delayed by two or three more years to allow time to engineer the installation of the GE 414 engine.^[144]

In August 2015, the Indian defense minister stated the first flight is likely to be 2019 with an entry into service in 2022.^[145] In October 2015, media reports suggested the government has decided to order the modified Tejas Mk 1A instead of the Tejas Mk 2.^[146]

Operators

India

Indian Air Force – 120 LCA [20 x Mk 1 and 100 x Mk 1A] aircraft planned to be acquired plus 8 Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft. Four squadrons of LCA Mk 2 aircraft planed to be acquired after completing production of LCA Mk 1.^[147]^[148] The IAF was considering at least 14 Tejas squadrons with 294 aircraft in February 2014, with each squadron to have 21 aircraft.^[149]^[150]
Indian Navy – Signed an order for six Naval LCAs at an approximate cost of US$31.09 million per aircraft.^[151] The Indian Navy has a requirement for 40 Tejas aircraft.^[55]

Specifications (HAL Tejas Mk.1A)

Weapon stations on Tejas

Tejas carrying Astra missile, R-73 missile and drop tank

Tejas weapon display Aero India 2011

Data from tejas.gov.in,^[152] DRDO Techfocus,^[153] Aero India 2011^[154]

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,500 kg^[152] (20,944 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,200 kg^[152] (29,100 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
- Dry thrust: 53.9 kN^[155] (12,100 lbf)
- Thrust with afterburner: 89.8 kN (20,200 lbf^[156])
Internal fuel capacity: 2,458 kg
External fuel capacity: 2 x 1,200-litre drop tank at inboard, 1 x 725-litre drop tank under fuselage

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 for IOC version;^[157]^[158] 2,205 km/h for FOC version^[159]
Range: 3,000 km^[160] (1,620 nmi, 1,864 mi)
Combat radius: 500 km^[161] (270 nmi, 311 mi)
Ferry range: 1,700 km^[161] (1,056 mi)
Service ceiling: 15,240 m^[152] (50,000 ft)
Wing loading: 247 kg/m² (50.7 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.07^[152]
g-limits: +8/−3.5 g^[162]

Armament

Guns: 1× mounted 23 mm twin-barrel GSh-23 cannon with 220 rounds of ammunition.
Hardpoints: 8 ( 1× beneath the port-side intake trunk for targeting pods, 6× wing, and 1× fuselage) with a capacity of 3,500 kg external fuel and ordnance^[163] and provisions to carry combinations of:
- Rockets: S-8 rocket pods, Bofors 135 mm rocket
- Missiles: ***air-to-air missile:
  - - Astra
    - Derby^[164]
    - Python-5
    - R-77
    - R-73 (missile)
  - Air-to-surface missiles:
    - Kh-59ME (TV-guided standoff missile)
    - Kh-59MK (Laser-guided standoff missile)
  - Anti-ship missiles
    - Kh-35
    - Kh-31
- Bombs: ^[165]
  - KAB-1500L laser-guided bombs
  - GBU-16 Paveway II
  - FAB-250
  - ODAB-500PM fuel-air explosives
  - ZAB-250/350 incendiary bombs
  - BetAB-500Shp powered concrete-piercing bombs
  - FAB-500T gravity bombs
  - OFAB-250-270 gravity bombs
  - OFAB-100-120 gravity bombs
  - RBK-500 cluster bomb stake
- Other: ^[165]
  - Drop tanks for ferry flight/extended range/loitering time.
  - LITENING targeting pod^[166]^[167]

Avionics

Advanced AESA radar (Israeli EL/M-2052 back end processor with Indian inputs)^[50]
Advanced Electronic Warfare suit
medium range IRST

America’s B-2 Stealth Bombers Carry a Dangerous Burden

Dave Majumdar

January 28, 2016

While the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) contract is mired in protests, the service has to rely on an increasingly geriatric fleet of long-range strategic bombers to meet its global obligations. Only a tiny portion of the Air Force bomber fleet—some twenty Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirits—has the ability to penetrate enemy airspace—for now.
The mainstay of the Air Force bomber fleet is the Boeing B-52, which first flew in 1952. Of the 744 jets that were originally built, only seventy-six upgraded B-52H aircraft remain in service. Those aircraft—which no longer have the ability to penetrate modern enemy air defenses—will serve into the 2040s carrying nuclear and conventionally armed long-range cruise missiles or dropping precision-guided bombs in permissive threat environments. Meanwhile, the Air Force’s fleet of sixty-two supersonic Rockwell International B-1B Lancers have been de-nuclearized and are only capable of fighting in moderately contested airspace. Those 1980s vintage aircraft will also serve into the 2040s.
The Air Force’s surviving fleet of twenty B-2 stealth bombers remain the only long-range penetrating strike assets in the Pentagon’s inventory. Just a few years ago, the Air Force had twenty-one B-2s, but one of the roughly $2 billion jets was lost to an accident in 2008 at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. That means that on any given day, the Air Force only has a handful of jets available for operations. Consequently, the loss of even a single additional airframe will result in a significant drop in overall capacity.
According to the Congressional Research Service, only sixteen B-2s are combat coded. Of those, only about nine are mission capable at any one time. That number drops further if one takes into account aircraft that are tasked with training sorties. Indeed, one senior Air Force official said that it’s not unheard of for the fleet to drop to as few as six available jets. The rest of the B-2 fleet is down for routine maintenance or in the depot. The B-2 had a forty-seven percent mission capable rate in 2013, but those figures seem to have improved somewhat in recent years but still hovers below sixty percent.
While the Air Force is investing money to improve the B-2 and keep it relevant until its projected retirement date of 2058, the aircraft’s technology is nonetheless dated. Stealth technology has advanced since the B-2 was conceptualized in the late 1970s. Moreover, much of the avionics onboard the increasingly venerable bomber has been rendered obsolete over the course of its service life—as have the jet’s engines. Indeed, in 2012, then Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee that the B-2 is starting to lose its ability penetrate hostile airspace. “The technology on which they were designed with respect to signature management. . . is ‘80s vintage,” Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee on Feb. 28, 2012. “And the reality is that the B-2 over time is going to become less survivable in contested airspace.”
If one accepts the premise that the greatest challenge the United States will face over the coming decades is in the Pacific, long-range penetrating strike capabilities will come at the premium. The current U.S. Air Force bomber fleet is unequal to the task of overcoming the Chinese threat in the Western Pacific. Further, the Air Force might discover that its mass of tactical fighters is of limited value in that vast theatre. Given the enormous distances and the increasing vulnerability of bases and support assets in the region, long-range strike is likely to be far more useful than short-range tactical fighters. Restarting the B-2 line would be pointless, but the Pentagon needs to get the LRS-B program on track and fielded in numbers as soon as possible.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Air Force.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"F-35" redirects here. For other uses, see F35 (disambiguation).

F-35 Lightning II

An F-35C Lightning II, marked CF-01, conducts a test flight over Chesapeake Bay in February 2011
Role	Stealth multirole fighter
National origin	United States
Manufacturer	Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
First flight	15 December 2006
Introduction	F-35B: 31 July 2015 (USMC)^[1]^[2]^[3] F-35A: Q3 2016 (USAF)^[4] F-35C: 2018 (USN)^[5]
Status	In testing, and training use by the US, UK, Norway and Netherlands^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]
Primary users	United States Air Force United States Marine Corps United States Navy Royal Air Force
Produced	2006–present
Number built	162 as of October 2015^[10]
Program cost	US$1.3 trillion (Overall including inflation), US$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012^[11]
Unit cost	F-35A: $98M (low rate initial production and not including the engine, full production in 2018 to be $85M)^[12]^[13] F-35B: US$104M (low rate initial production and not including the engine)^[12]^[13] F-35C: US$116M (low rate initial production and not including the engine)^[12]^[13]
Developed from	Lockheed Martin X-35

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather stealth multirole fighters undergoing final development and testing by the United States. The fifth generation combat aircraft is designed to perform ground attack, aerial reconnaissance, and air defense missions. The F-35 has three main models: the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant, the F-35B short take-off and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant, and the F-35C carrier-based Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) variant. On 31 July 2015, the first squadron was declared ready for deployment after intensive testing by the United States.^[14]^[15]
The F-35 is descended from the X-35, which was the winning design of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin. Other major F-35 industry partners include Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney and BAE Systems. The F-35 took its first flight on 15 December 2006. The United States plans to buy 2,457 aircraft. The F-35 variants are intended to provide the bulk of the manned tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps over the coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled to be completed in 2037.^[16]
F-35 JSF development is being principally funded by the United States with additional funding from partners. The partner nations are either NATO members or close U.S. allies. The United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Turkey are part of the active development program;^[17]^[18] several additional countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the F-35.
The program is the most expensive military weapons system in history, and it has been the object of much criticism from those inside and outside government — in the US and in allied countries.^[19] Critics argue that the plane is "plagued with design flaws," with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time, instead of ... [identifying and fixing] defects before firing up its production line."^[19] By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule."^[20] Critics further contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill."^[21]

Development

JSF program requirements and selection

Main article: Joint Strike Fighter program

The JSF program was designed to replace the United States military F-16, A-10, F/A-18 (excluding newer E/F "Super Hornet" variants) and AV-8B tactical fighter and attack aircraft. To keep development, production, and operating costs down, a common design was planned in three variants that share 80 percent of their parts:^{[dated info]}

F-35A, conventional take off and landing (CTOL) variant.
F-35B, short-take off and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant.
F-35C, carrier-based CATOBAR (CV) variant.

An F-35 wind tunnel testing model in the Arnold Engineering Development Center's 16-foot transonic wind tunnel

George Standridge, Vice President of Strategy and Business Development for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, and a naval aviator who flew the F/A-18 Hornet in both the U.S. Navy and the Naval Reserve, predicted in 2006 that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters.^[22] The design goals call for the F-35 to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 Raptor in air supremacy.^[23]
The JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996, and the contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin, whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. Although both aircraft met or exceeded requirements, the X-35 design was considered to have less risk and more growth potential.^[24] The designation of the new fighter as "F-35" is out-of-sequence with standard DoD aircraft numbering,^[25] by which it should have been "F-24". It came as a surprise even to the company, which had been referring to the aircraft in-house by this expected designation.^[26]
The development of the F-35 is unusual for a fighter aircraft in that no two-seat trainer versions have been built for any of the variants; advanced flight simulators mean that no trainer versions were deemed necessary.^[27] Instead F-16s have been used as bridge trainers between the T-38 and the F-35. The T-X was intended to be used to train future F-35 pilots, but this might succumb to budget pressures in the USAF.^[28]

Design phase

Based on wind tunnel testing, Lockheed Martin slightly enlarged its X-35 design into the F-35. The forward fuselage is 5 inches (130 mm) longer to make room for avionics. Correspondingly, the horizontal stabilators were moved 2 inches (51 mm) rearward to retain balance and control. The top surface of the fuselage was raised by 1 inch (25 mm) along the center line. Also, it was decided to increase the size of the F-35B STOVL variant's weapons bay to be common with the other two variants.^[24] Manufacturing of parts for the first F-35 prototype airframe began in November 2003.^[29] Because the X-35 did not have weapons bays, their addition in the F-35 would cause design changes which would lead to later weight problems.^[30]^[31]
The F-35B STOVL variant was in danger of missing performance requirements in 2004 because it weighed too much; reportedly, by 2,200 lb (1,000 kg) or 8 percent. In response, Lockheed Martin added engine thrust and thinned airframe members; reduced the size of the common weapons bay and vertical stabilizers; re-routed some thrust from the roll-post outlets to the main nozzle; and redesigned the wing-mate joint, portions of the electrical system, and the portion of the aircraft immediately behind the cockpit.^[32] Many of the changes were applied to all three variants to maintain high levels of commonality. By September 2004, the weight reduction effort had reduced the aircraft's design weight by 2,700 pounds (1,200 kg),^[33] but the redesign cost $6.2 billion and delayed the project by 18 months.^[34]
On 7 July 2006, the U.S. Air Force, the lead service for the aircraft, officially announced the name of the F-35: Lightning II, in honor of Lockheed's World War II-era twin-propeller Lockheed P-38 Lightning for the United States Army Air Forces and the Cold War-era jet, the English Electric Lightning for the Royal Air Force.^[35]^{[N 1]}
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and performs aircraft final assembly, overall system integration, mission system, and provides forward fuselage, wings and aircraft flight control system. Northrop Grumman provides active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, electro-optical AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS), Communications, Navigation, Identification (CNI), center fuselage, weapons bay, and arrestor gear. BAE Systems provides the Flight Control Software (FCS1), the electronic warfare systems, crew life support and escape systems, aft fuselage, empennages as well as the horizontal and vertical tails. Alenia will perform final assembly for Italy and, according to an Alenia executive, assembly of all European aircraft with the exception of Turkey and the United Kingdom.^[37]^[38] The F-35 program has seen a great deal of investment in automated production facilities. For example, Handling Specialty produced the wing assembly platforms for Lockheed Martin.^[39]
On 19 December 2008, Lockheed Martin rolled out the first weight-optimized F-35A, designated AF-1. It was the first F-35 built at full production speed, and is structurally identical to the production F-35As that were delivered starting in 2010.^[40] On 5 January 2009, six F-35s had been built, including AF-1; another 13 pre-production test aircraft and four production aircraft were being manufactured.^[41] On 6 April 2009, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposed speeding up production for the U.S. to buy 2,443 F-35s.^[42]

Program cost increases and delays

This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (May 2015)

The F-35 program has experienced a number of cost overruns and developmental delays. The program's delays have come under fire from the U.S. Congress and some U.S. Department of Defense officials. The program has undergone a number of reassessments and changes since 2006. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) warned in March 2006 that excessive concurrency ("an overlap of flight testing and initial production"^[43]) might result in expensive refits for several hundred F-35 aircraft that are planned for production before design testing is completed.^[44] In 2010, acquisition chief Ashton Carter issued an Acquisition Decision Memorandum restructuring the F-35 program.^[45] In November 2010, the GAO found that "Managing an extensive, still-maturing global network of suppliers adds another layer of complexity to producing aircraft efficiently and on-time" and that "due to the extensive amount of testing still to be completed, the program could be required to make alterations to its production processes, changes to its supplier base, and costly retrofits to produced and fielded aircraft, if problems are discovered."^[46] USAF budget data in 2010, along with other sources, projected the F-35 to have a flyaway cost from US$89 million to US$200 million over the planned production run.^[47]^[48] In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million on each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.16 million ($9,732.8 million ÷ 32 aircraft) if its share of research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) spending is included.^[49]^[50]
On 21 April 2009, media reports, citing Pentagon sources, said that during 2007 and 2008, spies downloaded several terabytes of data related to the F-35's design and electronics systems, potentially compromising the aircraft and aiding the development of defense systems against it.^[51] Lockheed Martin rejected suggestions that the project was compromised, stating it "does not believe any classified information had been stolen".^[52] Other sources suggested that the incident caused both hardware and software redesigns to be more resistant to cyber attack.^[53] In March 2012, BAE Systems was reported to be the target of cyber espionage. BAE Systems refused to comment on the report, although they did state, "[Our] own cyber security capability can detect, prevent and rectify such attacks."^[54]
On 9 November 2009, Ashton Carter, under-secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, acknowledged that the Pentagon "joint estimate team" (JET) had found possible future cost and schedule overruns in the project and that he would be holding meetings to attempt to avoid these.^[55] On 1 February 2010, Gates removed the JSF Program Manager, U.S. Marine Corps Major General David Heinz, and withheld $614 million in payments to Lockheed Martin because of program costs and delays.^[56]^[57]
On 11 March 2010, a report from the Government Accountability Office to United States Senate Committee on Armed Services projected the overall unit cost of an F-35A to be $113 million in today's money.^[58] In 2010, Pentagon officials disclosed that the F-35 program has exceeded its original cost estimates by more than 50 percent.^[59] An internal Pentagon report critical of the JSF project states that "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar". In 2010, Lockheed Martin expected to reduce government cost estimates by 20 percent.^[60] On 24 March 2010, Gates termed the cost overruns and delays as "unacceptable" in a testimony before the U.S. Congress; and characterized previous cost and schedule estimates as "overly rosy". Gates insisted the F-35 would become "the backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation" and informed the Congress that he had expanded the development period by an additional 13 months and budgeted $3 billion more for the testing program while slowing down production.^[61] In August 2010, Lockheed Martin announced delays in resolving a "wing-at-mate overlap" production problem, which would slow initial production.^[62]
In November 2010, as part of a cost-cutting measure, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform suggested cancelling the F-35B and halving orders of F-35As and F-35Cs.^[63]^[64]^[65] Air Force Magazine reported that "Pentagon officials" were considering canceling the F-35B because its short range meant that the forward bases or amphibious ships it would operate from would be in range of hostile tactical ballistic missiles.^[66] Lockheed Martin consultant Loren B. Thompson said that this rumor was a result of the usual tensions between the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, and there was no alternative to the F-35B as an AV-8B Harrier II replacement.^[67] He also confirmed further delays and cost increases because of technical problems with the aircraft and software, blaming most of the delays and extra costs on redundant flight tests.^[68]
In November 2010, the Center for Defense Information estimated that the program would be restructured with an additional year of delay and $5 billion in additional costs.^[69] On 5 November 2010, the Block 1 software flew for the first time on BF-4.^[70] As of the end of 2010, only 15% of the software remained to be written, but this was reported to include the most difficult sections such as data fusion.^[71] In 2011, it was revealed that 50% of the eight million lines of code had been written and that it would take another six years to complete the software to the new schedule.^[72] By 2012, the total estimated lines of code for the entire program (onboard and offboard) had grown from 15 million lines to 24 million lines.^[73]
In 2011, the program head and Commander of the Naval Air Systems Command, Vice Admiral David Venlet, confirmed that the concurrency built into the program "was a miscalculation".^[74] This was during a contract dispute where the Pentagon insisted that Lockheed Martin help cover the costs of applying fixes found during testing to aircraft already produced.^[75] Lockheed Martin objected that the cost sharing posed an uninsurable unbounded risk that the company could not cover, and later responded that the "concurrency costs for F-35 continue to reduce".^[76]^[77] The Senate Armed Services Committee strongly backed the Pentagon position.^[78] In December 2011, Lockheed Martin accepted a cost sharing agreement.^[79] The Aerospace Industries Association warned that such changes would force them to anticipate cost overruns in future contract bids.^[80] As of 2012, problems found in flight testing were expected to continue to lead to higher levels of engineering changes through 2019.^[81] The total additional cost for concurrency in the program is around $1.3 billion.^[82] By the next year the cost had grown to $1.7 billion.^[83]
In January 2011, Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed the Pentagon's frustration with the rising costs of the F-35 program when he said, "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint." Focusing his attention on the troubled F-35B, Gates ordered "a two-year probation", saying it "should be canceled" if corrections are unsuccessful.^[84] Gates has stated his support for the program.^[85] Some private analysts, such as Richard Aboulafia, of the Teal Group state that the F-35 program is becoming a money pit.^[86] Gates' successor, Leon Panetta, ended the F-35B's probation on 20 January 2012, stating "The STOVL variant has made—I believe and all of us believe—sufficient progress."^[87]
Former Pentagon manager Paul G. Kaminski has said that the lack of a complete test plan has added five years to the JSF program.^[88] Initial operating capability (IOC) will be determined by software development rather than by hardware production or pilot training.^[89] As of May 2013, the USMC plan an IOC in "mid-2015" for the F-35B with Block 2B software which gives basic air-to-air and air-to-ground capability. It has been reported that the USAF is planning to bring forward IOC for the F-35A to the Block 3I software in mid-2016 rather than waiting for the full-capability Block 3F in mid-2017; the F-35C will not enter service with the USN until mid-2018.^[90] The $56.4 billion development project for the aircraft should be completed in 2018 when the Block five configuration is expected to be delivered—several years late and considerably over budget.^[91]
Delays in the F-35 program may lead to a "fighter gap" where the United States and other countries will lack sufficient fighters to cover their requirements.^[92] Israel may seek to buy second-hand F-15Es,^[93] while Australia also sought additional F/A-18 Super Hornets in the face of F-35 delays.^[94]
In May 2011, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer Ashton Carter said that its new $133 million unit price was not affordable.^[95] In 2011, The Economist warned that the F-35 was in danger of slipping into a "death spiral" where increasing per-aircraft costs would lead to cuts in number of aircraft ordered, leading to further cost increases and further order cuts.^[96] Later that year, four aircraft were cut from the fifth Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) order to pay for cost overruns;^[97] in 2012, a further two aircraft were cut.^[98] Lockheed Martin acknowledged that the slowing of purchases would increase costs.^[99] David Van Buren, U.S. Air Force acquisition chief, said that Lockheed Martin needed to cut infrastructure to match the reduced market for their aircraft.^[100] The company said that the slowdown in American orders will free up capacity to meet the urgent short-term needs of foreign partners for replacement fighters.^[101] Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said that no more money was available and that future price increases would be matched with cuts in the number of aircraft ordered.^[102] Later that month, the Pentagon reported that costs had risen another 4.3 percent, partially resulting from production delays.^[103] In 2012, the purchase of six out of 31 aircraft was tied to performance metrics of the program.^[104] In 2013, Bogdan repeated that no more money was available, but that he hoped to avoid the death spiral.^[105] In 2014 it was reported that another eight aircraft would be cut from the next year's order.^[106]
Japan has warned that it may halt their purchase if unit costs increase, and Canada has indicated it is not committed to a purchase yet.^[107]^[108] The United States is projected to spend an estimated $323 billion for development and procurement on the program, making it the most expensive defense program ever.^[109] Testifying before a Canadian parliamentary committee in 2011, Rear Admiral Arne Røksund of Norway estimated that his country's 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost $769 million each over their operational lifetime.^[110] In 2012, the total life-cycle cost for the entire U.S. fleet was estimated at US$1.51 trillion over a 50-year life, or $618 million per plane.^[111] To reduce this high life-cycle cost over a 50-year lifetime, the USAF is considering reducing Lockheed Martin's role in contractor logistics support.^[112] The company has responded that this cost estimate relies on future costs beyond its control such as USAF reorganizations and yet to be specified upgrades.^[113] Delays have negatively affected the program's worldwide supply chain and partner organizations.^[114]
In 2012, General Norton A. Schwartz decried the "foolishness" of reliance on computer models to settle the final design of the aircraft before flight testing found the issues that needed redesign.^[115] In 2013, JSF project team leader USAF Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan said that "A large amount of concurrency, that is, beginning production long before your design is stable and long before you've found problems in test, creates downstream issues where now you have to go back and retrofit airplanes and make sure the production line has those fixes in them. And that drives complexity and cost".^[116] Bogdan praised the improvement in the program ever since Lockheed Martin was forced to assume some of the financial risks.^[117]
In 2012, in order to avoid further redesign delays, the U.S. DoD accepted a reduced combat radius for the F-35A and a longer takeoff run for the F-35B.^[118]^[119] The F-35B's estimated radius has also decreased by 15 percent.^[120] In a meeting in Sydney in March, the United States pledged to eight partner nations that there would be no more program delays.^[121]
In May 2012, Lockheed Martin Chief Executive Bob Stevens complained that the Defense Department's requirements for cost data were driving up program cost.^[122] Stevens also admitted that a strike might cause a production shortfall of the target of 29 F-35s that year.^[123] Striking workers questioned the standards of replacement workers, as even their own work had been cited for "inattention to production quality" with a 16% rework rate.^[124] The workers went on strike to protect pensions whose costs have been the subject of negotiations with the Department of Defense over the next batch of aircraft.^[125] These same pension costs were cited by Fitch in their downgrade of the outlook for Lockheed Martin's stock price.^[126] Stevens said that while he hoped to bring down program costs, the industrial base was not capable of meeting the government's expectations of affordability.^[127]^[128]
According to a June 2012 Government Accountability Office report, the F-35's unit cost has almost doubled, an increase of 93% over the program's 2001 baseline cost estimates.^[129] In 2012, Lockheed Martin reportedly feared that the tighter policies for award fees of the Obama administration would reduce their profits by $500 million over the following five years.^[130] This was demonstrated in 2012 when the Pentagon withheld the maximum $47 million allowed for the company's failure to certify its program to track project costs and schedules.^[131] The GAO has also faulted the USAF and USN for not fully planning the costs of extending legacy F-16 and F-18 fleets to cover for the delayed F-35.^[132] Due to cost cutting measures, the U.S. Government and the GAO have stated that the flyaway cost (including engines) has been dropping. The U.S. Government estimates that in 2020 an "F-35 will cost some $85m each or less than half of the 2009 initial examples cost. Adjusted to today’s dollars the 2020 price would be $75m each."^[133]
In 2013, Lockheed Martin began to lay off workers at the Fort Worth plant where the F-35s were assembled.^[134] They said that the currently estimated concurrency costs of refitting the 187 aircraft built by the time testing concludes in 2016 are now less than previously feared.^[135] The GAO's Michael Sullivan said that the company had failed to get an early start on the systems engineering and had not understood the requirements or the technologies involved at the program's start.^[136] The Pentagon vowed to continue funding the program during budget sequestration if possible.^[137] The U.S. budget sequestration in 2013 could slow development of critical software,^[138] and the Congress has ordered another study to be made on the software development delays.^[139] As of 2014, software development remains the "number one technical challenge" for the F-35.^[140]
In June 2013, Frank Kendall, Pentagon acquisition, technology and logistics chief, declared "major advances" had been made in the F-35 program over the last three years; and that he intended to approve production rate increases in September. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer, reported far better communications between government and vendor managers, and that negotiations over Lot 6 and 7 talks were moving fast. It was also stated that operating costs had been better understood since training started, and he predicted "we can make a substantial dent in projections" of operating costs.^[141]
In July 2013, further doubt was cast on the latest (long delayed) schedule, with further software delays, and sensor, display and wing buffet problems continuing.^[142] In August it was revealed that the Pentagon was weighing cancellation of the program as one possible response to the budget sequestration,^[143]^[144] and the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense voted to cut advanced procurement for the fighter.^[145]
On 21 August 2013, C-Span reported that Congressional Quarterly and the Government Accountability Office were indicating the "total estimated program cost now is $400b—nearly twice the initial cost". The current investment was documented as approximately $50 billion. The projected $316 billion cost in development and procurement spending was estimated through 2037 at an average of $12.6 billion per year. These were confirmed by Steve O'Bryan, Vice President of Lockheed Martin on the same date.^[146]
In 2013, a RAND study found that during development the three different versions had drifted so far apart from each other that having a single base design might now be more expensive than if the three services had simply built entirely different aircraft tailored to their own requirements.^[147]
In 2014, the airframe cost went below $100 million for the first time, and the Air Force expected unit costs to fall.^[148]
A 2014 Center for International Policy study cast doubt on the number of indirect jobs created by the program, which has been a key selling point for the F-35 to Congress. Lockheed stood by their job numbers and said that their accounting was in line with industry norms.^[149]
A January 2014 report by J. Michael Gilmore said that new software delays could delay Block 2B release by 13 months;^[150] this was reduced to 4 months in the DOTE report from November 2014.^[151] The F-35 program office considers software to be the top technical risk to the program, and the USMC has maintained their expectation of an IOC in July 2015.^[152]
In 2014, U.S. Senator John McCain blamed cost increases in the program on "cronyism".^[153]
In 2014, the GAO found that the F-35 fleet would have operating costs 79% higher than the aircraft it replaced.^[154] The latest Selected Acquisition Report stated that the program cost has increased 43% from 2001 with Program Acquisition Unit Cost up 68% and Unit Recurring Flyaway up 41%.^[11] The F-35A's cost per flying hour is $32.5k while the F-16C/D is $25.5k but each F-35A will only fly 250 hours a year to the F-16's 316 hours resulting in the same yearly operating cost.^[11]^[155]
In July 2014, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems announced they would invest a combined $170M into the program^{[clarification needed]}, which is anticipated to save over $10M per aircraft. This initiative has set the project on track for an $80M (including engine) price tag per aircraft (F-35A), by 2018 when full production starts.^[156]
The December 2014 Selected Acquisition Report listed a cost decrease of $7.5 billion against a program cost of $391.1 billion ($320 billion in 2012 dollars). Lockheed Martin stated that there would be a decrease of nearly $60 billion to the operations and support costs.^[157]

Concerns over performance and safety

A Lockheed Martin press release points to USAF simulations regarding the F-35's air-to-air performance against adversaries described as "4th generation" fighters, in which it states the F-35 is "400 percent" more effective. Major General Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the "F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois".^[158]
In September 2008, in reference to the original plan to fit the F-35 with only two air-to-air missiles (internally), Major Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch is reported to have said that "I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons."^[159] The Norwegians have been briefed on a plan to equip the F-35 with six AIM-120D missiles by 2019.^[160] Former RAND author John Stillion has written of the F-35A's air-to-air combat performance that it "can't turn, can't climb, can't run"; Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley has stated that in an air-to-air configuration the F-35 has almost as much thrust as weight and a flight control system that allows it to be fully maneuverable even at a 50-degree angle of attack.^[161]^[162] Consultant to Lockheed Martin Loren B. Thompson has said that the "electronic edge F-35 enjoys over every other tactical aircraft in the world may prove to be more important in future missions than maneuverability".^[163]
In an April 2009 interview with the state-run^[164] Global Times, Chen Hu, editor-in-chief of World Military Affairs magazine said that the F-35 is too costly because it attempts to provide the capabilities needed for all three American services in a common airframe.^[165] U.S. defense specialist Winslow T. Wheeler and aircraft designer Pierre Sprey have commented of the F-35 being "heavy and sluggish" and possessing "pitifully small load for all that money", further criticizing the value for money of the stealth measures as well as lacking fire safety measures; his final conclusion was that any air force would be better off maintaining its fleets of F-16s and F/A-18s compared to buying into the F-35 program.^[166] A senior U.S. defense official was quoted as saying that the F-35 will be "the most stealthy, sophisticated and lethal tactical fighter in the sky," and added "Quite simply, the F-15 will be no match for the F-35."^[167] After piloting the aircraft, RAF Squadron Leader Steve Long said that, over its existing aircraft, the F-35 will give "the RAF and Navy a quantum leap in airborne capability."^[168]
In November 2009, Jon Schreiber, head of F-35 international affairs program for the Pentagon, said that the U.S. will not share the software code for the F-35 with its allies.^[169] The US plans to set up a reprogramming facility that will develop JSF software and distribute it to allies.^[170]
In 2011, Canadian politicians raised the issue of the safety of the F-35's reliance on a single engine (as opposed to a twin-engine configuration, which provides a backup in case of an engine failure). Canada, and other operators, had previous experience with a high-accident rate with the single-engine Lockheed CF-104 Starfighter with many accidents related to engine failures. When asked what would happen if the F-35's single engine fails in the Far North, Defence Minister Peter MacKay stated "It won’t".^[171]
In November 2011, a Pentagon study team identified 13 areas of concern that remained to be addressed in the F-35.^[172]^[173]
In May 2012, Michael Auslin of the American Enterprise Institute questioned the capability of the F-35 to engage modern air defenses.^[174] In July 2012, the Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin $450 million to improve the F-35 electronic warfare systems and incorporate Israeli systems.^[175]
In a negative assessment of the Joint Strike Fighter, the think tank Air Power Australia declared that the Joint Strike Fighter is not designed to perform air superiority roles and also is not adapted to performing the long-range penetration strike role filled by previous Australian aircraft like the General Dynamics F-111C. Critically, they also stated that the F-35’s "intended survivability and lethality are mismatched against the operational environment in which the aircraft is intended to be used."^[176]
In June 2012, Australia's Air Vice Marshal Osley responded to Air Power Australia's criticisms by saying "Air Power Australia (Kopp and Goon) claim that the F-35 will not be competitive in 2020 and that Air Power Australia's criticisms mainly center around F-35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities." Osley continued with, "these are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the U.S. services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments, such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence's assessment." He then said that he thinks that the Air Power Australia's "analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information."^[177]
In a report released in 2013, it was stated that flaws in the fuel tank and fueldraulic (fuel-based hydraulic) systems have left it considerably more vulnerable to lightning strikes and other fire sources, including enemy fire, than previously revealed, especially at lower altitudes.^[178] This report updated a separate report from 2010, in which Lockheed Martin spokesman John Kent said that adding fire-suppression systems would offer "very small" improvement to survivability.^[179] The same 2010 report also noted performance degradation of the three variants; the sustained turn rates had been reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C. The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter.^[180] On 30 August 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models take several complex maneuvers in order to "accelerate" to their top speed of Mach 1.6, which consumed almost all of the onboard fuel.^[181] The F-35 program office is reconsidering addition of previously removed safety equipment.^[182] In 2012, Lockheed Martin program manager Tom Burbage said that while the relatively large cross-sectional area of the fighter that was required by the internal weapons bays gave it a disadvantage against fourth generation fighters that were operating in a clear configuration, the F-35 armed with weapons carried internally had the advantage over fighters carrying their weapons outside the aircraft.^[183]
In March 2013, USAF test pilots, flying with pre-operational software that did not utilize the all-aspect infrared AAQ-37 DAS sensor, noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights, which would get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption";^[184] in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead.^[185] The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):

Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
Ejection seat may fail, causing pilot fatality.
Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touchscreen controls.
The radar performs poorly, or not at all.
Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
Maintenance tools do not work.^[186]

The JPO responded that more experienced pilots would be able to safely operate the aircraft and that procedures would improve over time.^[187]
Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions.^[188]
In 2014, David Axe stated design flaws related to its single-engine configuration could vex the F-35 for decades to come, forcing the Pentagon to suspend flying too often for the majority of its fighter fleet.^[189]
In November 2014, China unveiled the portable JY-26 Skywatch-U UHF 3-D long-range surveillance radar system, specifically designed to defeat stealth aircraft like the F-35.^[190] Responding to a reporter's question about the High-Frequency radar threat General Welsh said "while we may have a new radar developed that allows an acquisition radar to see an airplane, that doesn't mean you can pass the track off to a radar that will then guide a weapon to be able to destroy the airplane. As long as we break the kill chain sometime between when you arrive in the battle space and when the enemy weapon approaches your airplane, you're successful at using stealth."^[191]
A 2014 Pentagon report found these issues:

First two mission data sets available November 2015, after USMC IOC.
Overall operational suitability relies heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds.
Aircraft availability reached 51% but short of 60% goal.
Fuel Tanks don't retain inerting for required 12 hours after landing.
High dynamic loads on the rudder at lower altitudes in 20-26 AoA preventing testing.
82 pounds added to F-35B in last 38 months, 337 pounds below limit.
Transonic Roll-Off (TRO) and airframe buffet continue to be program concerns.
572 deficiencies remain affecting Block 2B capability, 151 of which are critical.
VSim would likely not support planned Block 2B operational testing in 2015.
Maintainability hours still an issue.
ALIS requires many manual workarounds.^[151]

A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:^[192]

The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;
Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability and stealth;
The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing;
Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;
The number of Block 2B’s already limited combat capabilities being deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corps’ FY2015 IOC squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned;
ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and “unacceptable workarounds”;
Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants of the F-35;
The program’s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67 billion in acquisition costs; and
Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix.

Three different types of data "massaging" are identified in the DOT&E report:^[193] moving failures from one category to another, less important one; ignoring repetitive failures, thus inflating numbers of failure-free hours; and improper scoring of reliability.^[194] Maintenance problems were determined to be so severe that the F-35 is only able to fly twice a week. To address the issue of wing drop and buffet maneuvering, the required control law modifications will reduce the maneuverability of the F-35, "only exacerbating the plane’s performance problems in this area". The F-35C's wing drop problem is "worse than other variants". Testing to investigate the impact of buffet and transonic roll-off (TRO or “wing drop”) on the helmet-mounted display and offensive and defensive maneuvering found that “buffet affected display symbology, and would have the greatest impact in scenarios where a pilot was maneuvering to defeat a missile shot.” Buffeting also degrades the gyroscopes in the inertial platforms which are essential for flight control, navigation, and weapons aiming. DOT&E explained that this was an ongoing issue: “In heavy buffet conditions, which occur between 20 and 26 degrees angle of attack, faults occurred in the inertial measurement units (IMUs) in the aircraft that degraded the flight control system (two of three flight control channels become disabled), requiring a flight abort.” ^[195]
In early 2015 the AF-2 F-35A, the primary flight sciences loads and flutter evaluation aircraft, was flown by Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David “Doc” Nelson in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, said the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option. AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. Departure/spin resistance was also proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing which eventually went as high as 110 deg. AOA. “When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” “Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson.^[196]
With the full flight envelope now opened to an altitude of 50,000 ft, speeds of Mach 1.6/700 KCAS and loads of 9 g, test pilots also say improvements to the flight control system have rendered the transonic roll-off (TRO) issue tactically irrelevant. Highlighted as a “program concern” in the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 2014 report, initial flight tests showed that all three F-35 variants experienced some form of wing drop in high-speed turns associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves. However, TRO “has evolved into a non-factor,” says Nelson, who likens the effect to a momentary “tug” on one shoulder harness. “You have to pull high-g to even find it.” The roll-off phenomena exhibits itself as “less than 10 deg./sec. for a fraction of a second. We have been looking for a task it affects and we can’t find one.”^[196]
In July 2015, Lockheed Martin confirmed the authenticity of a leaked report showing the F-35 to be less maneuverable than an older F-16D with wing tanks.^[197]^[198] The pilot who flew the mission reported inferior energy maneuverability, a limited pitch rate and flying qualities that were "not intuitive or favorable" in a major part of the air-combat regime gave the F-16 the tactical advantage. In general the high AoA capabilities of the jet could not be used in an effective way without significantly reducing follow-on maneuvering potential. In an interview with CBC Radio broadcast 2 July 2015, military journalist David Axe claimed to have read the leaked report and stated: "Against a determined foe, the F-35 is in very big trouble."^[199] However, the F-35 used was a flight test aircraft with a restricted flight envelope and lacked some features present on the operational aircraft.^[200]^[201] The Pentagon, JPO, and defense analysts have defended the F-35's utility in spite of the report's assertion that it lacks maneuverability by saying it was designed primarily to disrupt the kill chain of advanced air defenses while the F-22 would handle close-in dogfighting, it poses advanced sensor and information fusion capabilities to detect and engage enemy aircraft at long ranges before it can be seen and merged with, and that most air combat in recent decades has focused on sensors and weapons that achieved long-range kills rather than close combat.^[202]^[203]
In the report's conclusions and recommendations it was noted that loads remained below limits, which implied there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe. There were five recommendations made: to increase pitch rate and available Nz (Normal Acceleration g) to provide the pilot with more maneuverability options given the inherent energy deficit; consider increasing alpha onset to also help offset the energy maneuverability deficit; consider increasing the beginning of the high AoA blended region to 30 degrees or greater to make high AoA maneuvering more predictable and intuitive; consider increasing pilot yaw rate to remove the gradual sluggish yaw response; and improve HMD Boresight performance to account for dynamic maneuvers and consider improving rearward visibility by creating more space for helmet motion.^[197]^[204]

Pentagon−Lockheed Martin relation issues

In September 2012, the Pentagon criticized, quite publicly, Lockheed Martin's performance on the F-35 program and stated that it would not bail out the program again if problems with the plane's systems, particularly the helmet-mounted display, were not resolved. The deputy F-35 program manager said that the government's relationship with the company was the "worst I've ever seen" in many years of working on complex acquisition programs. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters the Pentagon had no more money to pour into the program after three costly restructurings in recent years. He said the department was done with major restructuring and that there was no further flexibility or tolerance for that approach. This criticism followed a "very painful" 7 September review that focused on an array of ongoing program challenges. Lockheed Martin responded with a brief statement saying it would continue to work with the F-35 program office to deliver the new fighter.^[205]
On 28 September 2012, the Pentagon announced that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter support program would become an open competition. They invited companies to participate in a two-day forum on 14–15 November for possible opportunities to compete for work managing the supply chain of the aircraft. Their reason is to reduce F-35 life-cycle costs by creating competition within the program and to refine its acquisition strategy and evaluate alternatives that will deliver the best value, long-term F-35 sustainment solution. This could be hazardous to Lockheed Martin, the current prime contractor for sustainment of all three variants, and selection of another company could reduce their revenues.^[206]
In 2013, the officer in charge of the program blamed Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney for gouging the government on costs, instead of focusing on the long-term future of the program.^[207]
In 2014, Lockheed was reported to be having problems with build quality, including one aircraft with a valve installed backwards and another with gaps in the stealth coating.^[208]

Upgrades

Lockheed Martin's development roadmap extends until 2021, including a Block 6 engine improvement in 2019. The aircraft are expected to be upgraded throughout their operational lives.^[209]
In September 2013, Northrop Grumman revealed the development of a company-funded Directional Infrared Counter Measures system in anticipation of a requirement to protect the F-35 from heat-seeking missiles. A laser jammer is expected to be part of the F-35 Block 5 upgrade; it must meet low-observability (LO) requirements and fit in the F-35's restricted space. Called the Threat Nullification Defensive Resource (ThNDR), it is to have a small, powerful laser, beam steering and LO window, use liquid cooling, and fit alongside the distributed aperture system (DAS) to provide spherical coverage with minimal changes; the DAS would provide missile warning and cue the jam head.^[210]
Combat capabilities of the F-35 are made possible through software increments to advance technical abilities. Block 2A software enhanced simulated weapons, data link capabilities, and early fused sensor integration. Block 2B software enables the F-35 to provide basic close air support with certain JDAMs and the 500 lb GBU-12 Paveway II, as well as fire the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The Air Force is to declare the F-35 initially operational with Block 3i software. Full operational capability will come from Block 3F software; Block 3F enhances its ability to suppress enemy air defenses and enables the Lightning II to deploy the 500 lb JDAM, the GBU-53/B SDB II, and the AIM-9X Sidewinder. Block 4 software will increase the weapons envelope of the F-35 and is made to counter air defenses envisioned to be encountered past the 2040s. Block 4 upgrades will be broken into two increments; Block 4A in 2021 and Block 4B in 2023. This phase will also include usage of weaponry unique to British, Turkish, and other European countries who will operate Lightning II.^[211]
Lockheed has offered the potential of "Higher Definition Video, longer range target detection and identification, Video Data Link, and Infrared (IR) Marker and Pointer" for the EOTS in future upgrades.^[212]

Design

Overview

F-35A prototype being towed to its inauguration ceremony on 7 July 2006

F-35B's thrust vectoring nozzle and lift fan

The F-35 resembles a smaller, single-engine sibling of the twin-engine Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and drew elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200 design, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.^[213] Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic, STOVL stealth fighter.^[214]
Acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford has said that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition."^[215]^[216] Lockheed Martin states the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor.^[217] Lockheed Martin has said that the F-35 has the advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and "advanced sensors and information fusion".^[218] Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground attack role.^[219]
Some improvements over current-generation fighter aircraft are:

Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms;^[220]
Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes^[221]^[222]^[223]
High speed data networking including IEEE 1394b^[224] and Fibre Channel.^[225] (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.^[226])
The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS), Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) and Computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) are to help ensure aircraft uptime with minimal maintenance manpower.^[227] The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies.^[228] This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing twenty percent less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost twelve percent more.^[229] Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations.^[230] The USMC have implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system.^[231] The ALIS system currently requires a shipping container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.^[232]
Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system.^[233]
A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training in order to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft.^[234]
Lightweight, powerful Lithium-ion batteries potentially prone to thermal runaway, similar to those that have grounded the Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet.^[235] These are required to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency,^[236] and have been strenuously tested.^[237]

Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22).^[238] The majority of these are bismaleimide (BMI) and composite epoxy material.^[239] The F-35 will be the first mass produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy.^[240] Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage.^[241] The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area^[242] and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.^[243]
A United States Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40 percent more to maintain than current jet fighters;^[244] not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation.^[245] The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year life cycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010.^[246] Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.^[247]

Engines

An F-35A powerplant on display, 2014

The Pratt & Whitney F135 powers the F-35. An alternative engine, the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136, was being developed until it was cancelled by its manufacturers in December 2011 due to lack of funding from the Pentagon.^[248]^[249] The F135 and F136 engines are not designed to supercruise.^[250] However, the F-35 can briefly fly at Mach 1.2 for 150 miles.^[251] The F135 is the second (radar) stealthy afterburning jet engine. Like the Pratt & Whitney F119 from which it was derived, the F135 has suffered afterburner pressure pulsations, or 'screech' at low altitude and high speed.^[252] The F-35 has a maximum speed of over Mach 1.6. With a maximum takeoff weight of 60,000 lb (27,000 kg),^{[N 2]}^[254] the Lightning II is considerably heavier than the lightweight fighters it replaces.

The Pratt & Whitney F135 engine with Rolls-Royce LiftSystem, including roll posts, and rear vectoring nozzle for the F-35B, at the 2007 Paris Air Show

The STOVL F-35B is outfitted with the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem, designed by Lockheed Martin and developed by Rolls-Royce. This system more resembles the German VJ 101D/E than the preceding STOVL Harrier Jump Jet and the Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine.^[255]^[256]^[257] The Lift System is composed of a lift fan, drive shaft, two roll posts and a "Three Bearing Swivel Module" (3BSM).^[258] The 3BSM is a thrust vectoring nozzle which allows the main engine exhaust to be deflected downward at the tail of the aircraft. The lift fan is near the front of the aircraft and provides a counterbalancing thrust using two counter-rotating blisks.^[259] It is powered by the engine's low-pressure (LP) turbine via a drive shaft and gearbox. Roll control during slow flight is achieved by diverting unheated engine bypass air through wing-mounted thrust nozzles called Roll Posts.^[260]^[261]
F136 funding came at the expense of other program elements, impacting on unit costs.^[262] The F136 team stated their engine had a greater temperature margin, potentially critical for VTOL operations in hot, high altitude conditions.^[263] Pratt & Whitney tested higher thrust versions of the F135, partly in response to GE's statements that the F136 is capable of producing more thrust than the 43,000 lbf (190 kN) of early F135s. In testing, the F135 has demonstrated a maximum thrust of over 50,000 lbf (220 kN);^[264] making it the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter aircraft as of 2010.^[265] It is much heavier than previous fighter engines; the Heavy Underway Replenishment system needed to transfer the F135 between ships is an unfunded USN requirement.^[266] Thermoelectric-powered sensors monitor turbine bearing health.^[267]

Armament

Weapons bay on an F-35 mock-up

The F-35A is armed with a GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25 mm GAU-12 Equalizer cannon.^[268] The cannon is mounted internally with 182 rounds for the F-35A or in an external pod with 220 rounds for the F-35B and F-35C;^[269]^[270] the gun pod has stealth features.^[271] The F-35 has two internal weapons bays, and external hardpoints for mounting up to four underwing pylons and two near wingtip pylons. The two outer hardpoints can carry pylons for the AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-132 ASRAAM short-range air-to-air missiles (AAM) only.^[272] The other pylons can carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM BVR AAM, Storm Shadow cruise missile, AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) cruise missile, and guided bombs. The external pylons can carry missiles, bombs, and external fuel tanks at the expense of increased radar cross-section, and thus reduced stealth.^[273]
There are a total of four weapons stations between the two internal bays. Two of these can carry air-to-surface missiles up to 2,000 lb (910 kg) in A and C models, or two bombs up to 1,000 lb (450 kg) in the B model; the other two stations are for smaller weapons such as air-to-air missiles.^[274]^[275] The weapon bays can carry AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Paveway series of bombs, the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Brimstone anti-tank missiles, and cluster munitions (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser).^[274] An air-to-air missile load of eight AIM-120s and two AIM-9s is possible using internal and external weapons stations; a configuration of six 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs, two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s can also be arranged.^[274]^[276] The Terma A/S multi-mission pod (MMP) could be used for different equipment and purposes, such as electronic warfare, aerial reconnaissance, or rear-facing tactical radar.^[271]^[277]

F-35B, internal bay test release of a GBU-12 Paveway II 500 lb bomb. Also visible is an external AIM-9 Sidewinder and an AIM-120 AMRAAM, 2012

Lockheed Martin states that the weapons load can be configured as all-air-to-ground or all-air-to-air, and has suggested that a Block 5 version will carry three weapons per bay instead of two, replacing the heavy bomb with two smaller weapons such as AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles.^[278] Upgrades are to allow each weapons bay to carry four GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) for A and C models, or three in F-35B.^[279] Another option is four GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb IIs in each bay on all F-35 variants.^[280] The F-35A has been outfitted with four SDB II bombs and an AMRAAM missile to test adequate bay door clearance,^[281] as well as the C-model, but the VTOL F-35B will not be able to carry the required load of four SDB IIs in each weapons bay upon reaching IOC due to weight and dimension constraints; F-35B bay changes are to be incorporated to increase SDB II loadout around 2022 in line with the Block 4 weapons suite.^[282] The Meteor (missile) air-to-air missile may be adapted for the F-35, a modified Meteor with smaller tailfins for the F-35 was revealed in September 2010; plans call for the carriage of four Meteors internally.^[283] The United Kingdom planned to use up to four AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles internally, later plans call for the carriage of two internal and two external ASRAAMs.^[284] The external ASRAAMs are planned to be carried on "stealthy" pylons; the missile allows attacks to slightly beyond visual range without employing radar.^[272]^[285]
Norway and Australia are funding an adaptation of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) for the F-35. Under the designation Joint Strike Missile (JSM), it is to be the only cruise missile to fit the F-35's internal bays; according to studies two JSMs can be carried internally with an additional four externally.^[286] The F-35 is expected to take on the Wild Weasel mission, though there are no planned anti-radiation missiles for internal carriage.^[287] The B61 nuclear bomb was initially scheduled for deployment in 2017;^[288] as of 2012 it was expected to be in the early 2020s,^[289] and in 2014 Congress moved to cut funding for the needed weapons integration work.^[290] Norton A. Schwartz agreed with the move and said that "F-35 investment dollars should realign to the long-range strike bomber".^[291] NATO partners who are buying the F-35 but cannot afford to make them dual-capable want the USAF to fund the conversions to allow their Lightning IIs to carry thermonuclear weapons. The USAF is trying to convince NATO partners who can afford the conversions to contribute to funding for those that cannot. The F-35 Block 4B will be able to carry two B61 nuclear bombs internally by 2024.^[292]
According to reports in 2002, solid-state lasers were being developed as optional weapons for the F-35.^[293]^[294]^[295] Lockheed is studying integrating a fiber laser onto the aircraft that uses spectral beam combining to channel energy from a stack of individual laser modules into a single, high-power beam, which can be scaled up or down for various levels of effects. Adding a laser would give the F-35 the ability to essentially burn missiles and other aircraft out of the sky.^[296] The F-35 is also one of the target platforms for the High Speed Strike Weapon if hypersonic missile development is successful.^[297]
The Air Force plans to use the F-35A to primarily take up the close air support (CAS) mission in contested environments. Amid criticism that the aircraft is not well suited for the role compared to a dedicated attack platform, Air Force chief of staff Mark Welsh is putting focus on weapons for the F-35 to employ on CAS sorties including guided rockets, fragmentation rockets that would shatter into individual projectiles before impact, and lighter, smaller ammunition in higher capacity gun pods.^[298] Fragmentary rocket warheads would have greater effects than cannon shells fired from a gun because a single rocket would create a "thousand-round burst," delivering more projectiles than a strafing run could. Other weapons could take advantage of the aircraft's helmet-mounted cueing system to aim rather than needing to point the nose at a target.^[299]

Stealth and signatures

Radar

Landing gear door of the F-35 mockup, showing its stealthy sawtooth design

The F-35 has been designed to have a low radar cross-section primarily due to the shape of the aircraft and the use of stealthy radar-absorbent materials in its construction, including fiber-mat.^[220] Unlike the previous generation of fighters, the F-35 was designed for very-low-observable characteristics.^[300] Besides radar stealth measures, the F-35 incorporates infrared signature and visual signature reduction measures.^{[examples needed]}^[301]^[302]
The Fighter Teen Series (F-15, F-16, F/A-18) carried large external fuel tanks, but to avoid negating its stealth characteristics the F-35 must fly most missions without them. Unlike the F-16 and F/A-18, the F-35 lacks leading edge extensions and instead uses stealth-friendly chines for vortex lift in the same fashion as the SR-71 Blackbird.^[277] The small bumps just forward of the engine air intakes form part of the diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) which is a simpler, lighter means to ensure high-quality airflow to the engine over a wide range of conditions. These inlets also crucially improve the aircraft's very-low-observable characteristics (by eliminating radar reflections between the diverter and the aircraft's skin).^[303] Additionally, the "bump" surface reduces the engine's exposure to radar, significantly reducing a strong source of radar reflection^[304] because they provide an additional shielding of engine fans against radar waves. The Y-duct type air intake ramps also help in reducing radar cross-section (RCS), because the intakes run parallel and not directly into the engine fans.

F-35A front profile in flight. The doors are opened to expose the aerial refueling inlet valve.

The F-35's radar-absorbent materials are designed to be more durable and less maintenance-intensive than those of its predecessors. At optimal frequencies, the F-35 compares favorably to the F-22 in stealth, according to General Mike Hostage, Commander of the Air Combat Command.^[305]^[306] Like other stealth fighters, however, the F-35 is more susceptible to detection by Low-frequency radars due to the Rayleigh scattering resulting from the aircraft's physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision.^[307]^[308] Although fighter-sized stealth aircraft could be detected by low-frequency radar, missile lock and targeting sensors primarily operate in the X-band, which F-35 RCS reduction is made for, so they cannot engage unless at close range.^[309] Because the aircraft's shape is important to the RCS, special care must be taken to match the "boilerplate" during production.^[310] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets to verify the RCS after performing repairs, which is not a concern for non-stealth aircraft.^[311]^[312]

Acoustic

In 2008, the Air Force revealed that the F-35 would be about twice as loud at takeoff as the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and up to four times as loud during landing.^[313] Residents near Luke Air Force Base, Arizona and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, possible F-35 bases, requested environmental impact studies be conducted regarding the F-35's noise levels.^[313] In 2009, the city of Valparaiso, Florida, adjacent to Eglin AFB, threatened to sue over the impending F-35 arrival; this lawsuit was settled in March 2010.^[314]^[315]^[316] In 2009, testing reportedly revealed the F-35 to be: "only about as noisy as an F-16 fitted with a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 engine...quieter than the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet."^[317] An acoustics study by Lockheed Martin and the Air Force found F-35's noise levels to be comparable to the F-22 and F/A-18E/F.^[318] A USAF environmental impact study found that replacing F-16s with F-35s at Tucson International Airport would subject more than 21 times as many residents to extreme noise levels.^[319] The USN will need to redesign hearing protection for sailors to protect against the "thundering 152 decibels" of the F-35.^[320] The Joint Strike Fighter program office found in October 2014 that the F-35B's take-off noise was only two decibels higher than a Super Hornet, a virtually indistinguishable difference to the human ear, and is even 10 decibels quieter when flying formations or landing.^[321]

Cockpit

F-35 cockpit mock-up

The F-35 features a full-panel-width glass cockpit touchscreen^[322] "panoramic cockpit display" (PCD), with dimensions of 20 by 8 inches (50 by 20 centimeters).^[323] A cockpit speech-recognition system (DVI) provided by Adacel has been adopted on the F-35 and the aircraft will be the first operational U.S. fixed-wing aircraft to employ this DVI system, although similar systems have been used on the AV-8B Harrier II and trialled in previous aircraft, such as the F-16 VISTA.^[324]
A helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) will be fitted to all models of the F-35.^[325] While some fighters have offered HMDS along with a head up display (HUD), this will be the first time in several decades that a front line fighter has been designed without a HUD.^[326] The F-35 is equipped with a right-hand HOTAS side stick controller. The Martin-Baker US16E ejection seat is used in all F-35 variants.^[327] The US16E seat design balances major performance requirements, including safe-terrain-clearance limits, pilot-load limits, and pilot size; it uses a twin-catapult system housed in side rails.^[328] This industry standard ejection seat can cause the heavier than usual helmet to inflict serious injury on lightweight pilots.^[329] The F-35 employs an oxygen system derived from the F-22's own system, which has been involved in multiple hypoxia incidents on that aircraft; unlike the F-22, the flight profile of the F-35 is similar to other fighters that routinely use such systems.^[330]^[331]

Sensors and avionics

Electro-optical target system (EOTS) under the nose of a mockup of the F-35

The F-35's sensor and communications suite has situational awareness, command and control and network-centric warfare capabilities.^[217]^[332] The main sensor on board is the AN/APG-81 Active electronically scanned array-radar, designed by Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems.^[333] It is augmented by the nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS),^[334] it provides the capabilities of an externally mounted Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod pod with a reduced radar cross-section.^[335]^[336] The AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) system is an improved version of the F-22's AN/ALR-94 electronic warfare suite, providing sensor fusion of Radio frequency and Infrared tracking functions, advanced radar warning receiver including geolocation targeting of threats, multispectral image countermeasures for self-defense against missiles, situational awareness and electronic surveillance, employing 10 radio frequency antennae embedded into the edges of the wing and tail.^[337]^[338] In September 2015, Lockheed unveiled the "Advanced EOTS" that offers short-wave infrared, high-definition television, infrared marker, and superior image detector resolution capabilities. Offered for the Block 4 configuration, it fits into the same area as the baseline EOTS with minimal changes while preserving stealth features.^[339]
Six additional passive infrared sensors are distributed over the aircraft as part of Northrop Grumman's electro-optical AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS),^[37] which acts as a missile warning system, reports missile launch locations, detects and tracks approaching aircraft spherically around the F-35, and replaces traditional night vision devices. All DAS functions are performed simultaneously, in every direction, at all times. The electronic warfare systems are designed by BAE Systems and include Northrop Grumman components.^[340] Functions such as the Electro-Optical Targeting System and the electronic warfare system are not usually integrated on fighters.^[341] The F-35's DAS is so sensitive, it reportedly detected the launch of an air-to-air missile in a training exercise from 1,200 mi (1,900 km) away, which in combat would give away the location of an enemy aircraft even if it had a very low radar cross-section.^[342]

AN/APG-81 AESA-radar

The communications, navigation and identification (CNI) suite is designed by Northrop Grumman and includes the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), as one of a half dozen different physical links.^[343] The F-35 will be the first fighter with sensor fusion that combines radio frequency and IR tracking for continuous all-direction target detection and identification which is shared via MADL to other platforms without compromising low observability.^[253] The non-encrypted Link 16 is also included for communication with legacy systems.^[344] The F-35 has been designed with synergy between sensors as a specific requirement, the aircraft's "senses" being expected to provide a more cohesive picture of the battlespace around it and be available for use in any possible way and combination with one another; for example, the AN/APG-81 multi-mode radar also acts as a part of the electronic warfare system.^[345] The Program Executive Officer (PEO) General Bogdan has described the sensor fusion software as one of the most difficult parts of the program.^[346]
Much of the F-35's software is written in C and C++ due to programmer availability, Ada83 code also is reused from the F-22.^[347] The Integrity DO-178B real-time operating system (RTOS) from Green Hills Software runs on COTS Freescale PowerPC processors.^[348] The final Block 3 software is planned to have 8.6 million lines of code.^[349] In 2010, Pentagon officials discovered that additional software may be needed.^[350] General Norton Schwartz has said that the software is the biggest factor that might delay the USAF's initial operational capability.^[351] In 2011, Michael Gilmore, Director of Operational Test & Evaluation, wrote that, "the F-35 mission systems software development and test is tending towards familiar historical patterns of extended development, discovery in flight test, and deferrals to later increments."^[352]
The electronic warfare and electro-optical systems are intended to detect and scan aircraft, allowing engagement or evasion of a hostile aircraft prior to being detected.^[345] The CATbird avionics testbed has proved capable of detecting and jamming radars, including the F-22's AN/APG-77.^[353] The F-35 was previously considered a platform for the Next Generation Jammer; attention shifted to using unmanned aircraft in this capacity instead.^[354] Several subsystems use Xilinx FPGAs;^[355] these COTS components enable supply refreshes from the commercial sector and fleet software upgrades for the software-defined radio systems.^[348]
Lockheed Martin's Dave Scott stated that sensor fusion boosts engine thrust and oil efficiency, increasing the aircraft's range.^[356] Air Force official Ellen M. Pawlikowski has proposed using the F-35 to control and coordinate multiple unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs). Using its sensors and communications equipment, a single F-35 could orchestrate an attack made by up to 20 armed UCAVs.^[357]

Helmet-mounted display system

VSI Helmet-mounted display system for the F-35

The F-35 does not need to be physically pointing at its target for weapons to be successful.^[274]^[358] Sensors can track and target a nearby aircraft from any orientation, provide the information to the pilot through their helmet (and therefore visible no matter which way the pilot is looking), and provide the seeker-head of a missile with sufficient information. Recent missile types provide a much greater ability to pursue a target regardless of the launch orientation, called "High Off-Boresight" capability. Sensors use combined radio frequency and infra red (SAIRST) to continually track nearby aircraft while the pilot's helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) displays and selects targets; the helmet system replaces the display-suite-mounted head-up display used in earlier fighters.^[359] Each helmet costs $400,000.^[360]
The F-35's systems provide the edge in the "observe, orient, decide, and act" OODA loop; stealth and advanced sensors aid in observation (while being difficult to observe), automated target tracking helps in orientation, sensor fusion simplifies decision making, and the aircraft's controls allow the pilot to keep their focus on the targets, rather than the controls of their aircraft.^[361]^{[N 3]}
Problems with the Vision Systems International helmet-mounted display led Lockheed Martin-Elbit Systems to issue a draft specification for alternative proposals in early 2011, to be based around the Anvis-9 night vision goggles.^[362] BAE Systems was selected to provide the alternative system in late 2011.^[363] The BAE Systems alternative helmet was to include all the features of the VSI system.,^[364] however, adopting the alternative helmet would have required a cockpit redesign,^[365] but in 2013 development on the alternative helmet was halted due to progress on the baseline helmet.^[366]
In 2011, Lockheed Martin-Elbit granted VSI a contract to fix the vibration, jitter, night-vision and sensor display problems in their helmet-mounted display.^[367] A speculated potential improvement is the replacement of Intevac’s ISIE-10 day/night camera with the newer ISIE-11 model.^[368] In October 2012, Lockheed Martin-Elbit stated that progress had been made in resolving the technical issues of the helmet-mounted display, and cited positive reports from night flying tests; it had been questioned whether the helmet system allows pilots enough visibility at night to carry out precision tasks.^[369] In 2013, in spite of continuing problems with the helmet display, the F-35B model completed 19 nighttime vertical landings onboard the USS Wasp at sea,^[370] by using the DAS instead of the helmet's built-in night vision capabilities, which offer at best 20/35 vision.^[371]
In October 2013, development of the alternate helmet was halted. The current Gen 2 helmet is expected to meet the requirements to declare, in July 2015, that the F-35 has obtained initial operational capability. Beginning in 2016 with low rate initial production (LRIP) lot 7, the program will introduce a Gen 3 helmet that features an improved night vision camera, new liquid crystal displays, automated alignment and other software enhancements.^[366]
In July 2015, an F-35 pilot commented that the helmet may have been one of the issues that the F-35 faced while dogfighting against an F-16 during a test; "The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft. There were multiple occasions when the bandit would've been visible (not blocked by the seat) but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him (behind the high side of the seat, around the inside of the seat, or high near the lift vector)."^[372]

Maintenance

The program's maintenance concept is for any F-35 to be maintained in any F-35 maintenance facility and that all F-35 parts in all bases will be globally tracked and shared as needed.^[373] The commonality between the different variants has allowed the USMC to create their first aircraft maintenance Field Training Detachment to directly apply the lessons of the USAF to their F-35 maintenance operations.^[374] The aircraft has been designed for ease of maintenance, with 95% of all field replaceable parts "one deep" where nothing else has to be removed to get to the part in question. For instance the ejection seat can be replaced without removing the canopy, the use of low-maintenance electro-hydrostatic actuators instead of hydraulic systems and an all-composite skin without the fragile coatings found on earlier stealth aircraft.^[375]
The F-35 Joint Program Office has stated that the aircraft has received good reviews from pilots and maintainers, suggesting it is performing better than its predecessors did at a similar stage of development, and that the stealth type has proved relatively stable from a maintenance standpoint. This reported improvement is attributed to better maintenance training, as F-35 maintainers have received far more extensive instruction at this early stage of the program than on the F-22 Raptor. The F-35's stealth coatings are much easier to work with than those used on the Raptor. Cure times for coating repairs are lower and many of the fasteners and access panels are not coated, further reducing the workload for maintenance crews. Some of the F-35's radar-absorbent materials are baked into the jet's composite skin, which means its stealthy signature is not easily degraded.^[376] It is still harder to maintain (due to its stealth) than fourth-generation aircraft.^[377]
However, the DOT&E Report on the F-35 program published in January 2015 determined that the plane has not, in fact, reached any of the nine reliability measures the program was supposed to achieve by this point in its development and that the Joint Program Office has been re-categorizing failure incidents to make the plane look more reliable than it actually is. Further, the complexity of maintaining the F-35 means that, currently, none of the Services are ready to keep it in working order and instead “rely heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds.” DOT&E found that the program achieved 61 percent of planned flight hours and that the average rate of availability was as low as 28 percent for the F-35A and 33 percent for the F-35B. The program created a new “modeled achievable” flight hour projection “since low availability was preventing the full use of bed-down plan flight hours.” According to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management, in FY2014, each non-test F-35 flew only 7.7 hours per month, which amounts to approximately one sortie every 5.5 days—for combat purposes, a sortie rate so low as to be crippling. Mean flight hours between removal (MFHBR) have increased, but are still only 59 percent to 65 percent of the required threshold. DOT&E found that mean corrective maintenance time for critical failures got worse for the F-35A and the F-35C over the last year. Structural cracking is also proving to be a recurring and enduring problem that is not yet resolved.^[192]^[378]

Operational history

Testing

The first F-35A (designated AA-1) was rolled out in Fort Worth, Texas, on 19 February 2006. In September 2006, the first engine run of the F135 in an airframe took place.^[379] On 15 December 2006, the F-35A completed its maiden flight.^[380] A modified Boeing 737–300, the Lockheed CATBird has been used as an avionics test-bed for the F-35 program, including a duplication of the cockpit.^[278]
The first F-35B (designated BF-1) made its maiden flight on 11 June 2008, piloted by BAE Systems' test pilot Graham Tomlinson. Flight testing of the STOVL propulsion system began on 7 January 2010.^[381] The F-35B's first hover was on 17 March 2010, followed by its first vertical landing the next day.^[382] During a test flight on 10 June 2010, the F-35B STOVL aircraft achieved supersonic speeds^[383] as had the X-35B before.^[384] In January 2011, Lockheed Martin reported that a solution had been found for the cracking of an aluminum bulkhead during ground testing of the F-35B.^[385] In 2013, the F-35B suffered another bulkhead cracking incident.^[386] This will require redesign of the aircraft, which is already very close to the ultimate weight limit.^[387]

The first delivered USAF F-35 on its delivery flight to Eglin Air Force Base in July 2011.

External video
F-35B tests on USS Wasp in 2011
Short TakeOff
BF-04 vertical landing

By June 2009, many of the initial flight test targets had been accomplished but the program was behind schedule.^[388] During 2008, a Pentagon Joint Estimate Team (JET) estimated that the program was two years behind the public schedule, a revised estimate in 2009 predicted a 30-month delay.^[389] Delays reduced planned production numbers by 122 aircraft through 2015 to provide an addition 2.8 billion for development; internal memos suggested that the official timeline would be extended by 13 months.^[389]^[390] The success of the JET led Ashton Carter calling for more such teams for other poorly performing projects.^[391]
Nearly 30 percent of test flights required more than routine maintenance to make the aircraft flightworthy again.^[392] As of March 2010, the F-35 program had used a million more man-hours than predicted.^[393] The United States Navy projected that lifecycle costs over a 65-year fleet life for all American F-35s to be $442 billion higher than U.S. Air Force projections.^[394] F-35 delays have led to shortfall of up to 100 jet fighters in the Navy/Marines team, although measures have been taken using existing assets to manage and reduce this shortfall.^[395]
The F-35C's maiden flight took place on 7 June 2010, at NAS Fort Worth JRB. A total of 11 U.S. Air Force F-35s arrived in fiscal year 2011.^[396] On 9 March 2011, all F-35s were grounded after a dual generator failure and oil leak in flight;^[397] the cause of the incident was discovered to have been the result of faulty maintenance.^[398] In 2012, Navy Commander Erik Etz of the F-35 program office commented that rigorous testing of the F-35's sensors had taken place during exercise Northern Edge 2011, and had served as a significant risk-reduction step.^[399]^[400]
On 2 August 2011, an F-35's integrated power package (IPP) failure during a standard engine test at Edwards Air Force Base led to the F-35 being immediately grounded for two weeks.^[401]^[402] On 10 August 2011, ground operations were re-instituted; preliminary inquiries indicated that a control valve did not function properly, leading to the IPP failure.^[403]^[404] On 18 August 2011, the flight ban was lifted for 18 of the 20 F-35s; two aircraft remained grounded due to a lack of monitoring systems.^[405] The IPP suffered a second software-related incident in 2013, this resulted in no disruption as the fleet was already grounded due to separate engine issues.^[406]
On 25 October 2011, the F-35A reached its designed top speed of Mach 1.6 for the first time.^[407] Further testing demonstrated Mach 1.61 and 9.9g.^[408] On 11 February 2013, an F-35A completed its final test mission for clean wing flutter, reporting to be clear of flutter at speeds up to Mach 1.6.^[409] On 15 August 2012, an F-35B completed airborne engine start tests.^[410]
During testing in 2011, all eight landing tests of the F-35C failed to catch the arresting wire; a redesigned tail hook was developed and delivered two years later in response.^[411]^[412] In October 2011, two F-35Bs conducted three weeks of initial sea trials aboard USS Wasp.^[413]
On 6 October 2012, the F-35A dropped its first bomb,^[414] followed three days later by an AIM-120 AMRAAM.^[415] On 28 November 2012, an F-35C performed a total of eleven weapon releases, ejecting a GBU-31 JDAM and GBU-12 Paveway from its weapons bay in the first ground weapons ejections for the F-35C.^[416] On 5 June 2013, an F-35A at the Point Mugu Sea Test Range completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 C5 AAVI (AMRAAM Air Vehicle Instrumented). It was launched from the internal weapons bay.^[417]
On 16 November 2012, the U.S. Marines received the first F-35B at MCAS Yuma, and the VMFA(AW)-121 unit is to be redesignated from a Boeing F/A-18 Hornet unit to an F-35B squadron.^[418] A February 2013 Time article revealed that Marine pilots are not allowed to perform a vertical landing—the maneuver is deemed too dangerous, and it is reserved only for Lockheed test pilots.^[419] On 10 May 2013, the F-35B completed its first vertical takeoff test.^[420] On 3 August 2013, the 500th vertical landing of an F-35 took place.^[421]
On 18 January 2013, the F-35B was grounded after the failure of a fueldraulic line in the propulsion system on 16 January.^[422] The problem was traced to an "improperly crimped" fluid line manufactured by Stratoflex.^[423]^[424] The Pentagon cleared all 25 F-35B aircraft to resume flight tests on 12 February 2013.^[425] On 22 February 2013, the U.S. Department of Defense grounded the entire fleet of 51 F-35s after the discovery of a cracked turbine blade in a U.S. Air Force F-35A at Edwards Air Force Base.^[426] On 28 February 2013, the grounding was lifted after an investigation concluded that the cracks in that particular engine resulted from stressful testing, including excessive heat for a prolonged period during flight, and did not reflect a fleetwide problem.^[427]^[428] The F-35C Lightning II carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter conducted its first carrier-based night flight operations aboard an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego on 13 November 2014.^[429]
On 5 June 2015, the U. S. Air Education and Training Command Accident Investigation Board reported that catastrophic engine failure had led to the destruction of on an Air Force F-35A assigned to the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, on 23 June 2014. The third-stage forward integral arm of a rotor had fractured and broke free during the takeoff roll. Pieces cut through the engine's fan case, engine bay, internal fuel tank and hydraulic and fuel lines before leaving through the aircraft's upper fuselage. Leaked fuel and hydraulic fluid ignited the fire, which destroyed the rear two-thirds of the aircraft. The destruction of the airframe resulted in the cancelation of the F-35's international debut at the 2014 Farnborough Airshow in England, the temporary grounding of the F-35 fleet and ongoing restrictions in the flight envelope.^[430]
On 19 June 2015 the RAF successfully launched two 500 lb Paveway IV precision-guided bombs, making the test the first time non-US munitions were deployed by the aircraft.^[431]
The US Marines declared the aircraft had met initial operational capability on 31 July 2015, despite shortcomings in night operations, communications, software and weapons carriage capabilities.^[432] However, J. Michael Gilmore, director of the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, criticized the operational trials as not valid. In an internal memo, Gilmore concluded "the exercise was so flawed that it 'was not an operational test … in either a formal or informal sense of the term.' Furthermore, the test 'did not — and could not — demonstrate' that the version of the F-35 that was evaluated 'is ready for real-world operational deployments, given the way the event was structured.'"^[433]

Training

In 2011, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation warned that the USAF's plan to start unmonitored flight training "risks the occurrence of a serious mishap".^[434] The leaders of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services called on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to address the issue.^[435] Despite the objections, expanded trial flights began in September 2012.^[436]

(From the top) 33rd FW F-35A, F-35B and F-35C near Eglin AFB in May 2014.

The F-35A and F-35B were cleared for flight training in early 2012.^[437] A military flight release for the F-35A was issued on 28 February 2012.^[438] The aircraft were restricted to basic maneuvers with no tactical training allowed.^[439] On 24 August 2012, an F-35 flew its 200th sortie while at Eglin Air Force Base, flown by a Marine pilot. The pilot said, "The aircraft have matured dramatically since the early days. The aircraft are predictable and seem to be maintainable, which is good for the sortie production rate. Currently, the flight envelope for the F-35 is very, very restricted, but there are signs of improvement there too." The F-35s at the base no longer need to fly with a chase aircraft and are operating in a normal two-ship element.^[440]
On 21 August 2012, J. Michael Gilmore wrote that he would not approve the Operational Test and Evaluation master plan until his concerns about electronic warfare testing, budget and concurrency were addressed.^[441] On 7 September 2012, the Pentagon failed to approve a comprehensive operational testing plan for the F-35.^[442] Instead, on 10 September 2012, the USAF began an operational utility evaluation (OUE) of the F-35A entire system, including logistical support and maintenance, maintenance training, pilot training, and pilot execution.^[443] By 1 October, the OUE was reported as "proceeding smoothly", pilots started on simulators prior to flying on 26 October.^[444] The OUE was completed on 14 November with the 24th flight, the four pilots involved having completed six flights each.^[445]
During the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phase of the aircraft, the U.S. had taken a tri-service approach to developing tactics and procedures for the F-35 using flight simulators prior to the type entering service. Simulated flights had tested the flight controls' effectiveness, helping to discover technical problems and refine aircraft design.^[446] Maintenance personnel have discovered that it is possible to correct deficiencies in the F-35, which is a software-defined aircraft, simply by rebooting the aircraft's software and onboard systems.^[447]
Air Force pilot training F-35A began in January 2013 at Eglin Air Force Base; the program currently has a maximum capacity of 100 military pilots and 2,100 maintainer students.^[448]
On 23 June 2014, an F-35A experienced a fire in the engine area during its takeoff at Eglin AFB. In response, the Pentagon's Joint Program Office halted training in all F-35 models the next day,^[449]^[450] and on 3 July, the F-35 fleet was formally grounded.^[451] The fleet was returned to flight on 15 July,^[452] but the engine inspection regimen caused the aircraft's debut at the Farnborough 2014 Air Show to be canceled.^[453]^[454]
In 2013, Lockheed Martin produced and delivered 36 F-35s, increasing the total number of F-35s produced to 101 (46 F-35As, 42 F-35Bs, and 13 F-35Cs).^[455] However in November 2014, the total number of F-35s produced, has increased minimally to 115.^{[citation needed]}

Basing plans for future US F-35s

On 9 December 2010, a media report stated that the "USMC will base 216 F-35Bs on the East Coast and 184 of them on the West Coast, documents showed." This report continued to state that, "Cherry Point will get 128 jets to form eight squadrons; Beaufort will have three squadrons and a pilot training center using 88 aircraft; Miramar will form six operational squadrons with 96 jets and 88 F-35s will go to Yuma for five operational squadrons with an additional test and evaluation unit."^[456]
In 2011, the USMC and USN signed an agreement that the USMC will purchase 340 F-35B and 80 F-35C fighters. The five squadrons of USMC F-35Cs would be assigned to Navy carriers while F-35Bs would be used ashore.^[457]^[458]
In February 2014 the USAF announced the first US Air Force Air National Guard unit to fly the new F-35 Lightening II will be the 158th Fighter Wing of the Vermont Air National Guard based at the Burlington Air Guard Station. The 158th currently flies the F-16 Fighting Falcon, which are nearing the end of their useful service lives. Burlington Air Guard Station is expected to receive 18 F-35As, replacing the 18 F-16 fighting Falcons currently assigned to the 158th Fighter Wing. The F-35A is expected to arrive in 2020.^[459]
On 11 March 2014, the first F-35A Lightning II assigned to Luke Air Force Base arrived at the base. A total of 16 F-35s are to be delivered to the base by the end of 2014, with 144 Lightning IIs to be stationed there arriving over the course of the next decade.^[460]^[461]
On 8 January 2015, the Royal Air Force base, RAF Lakenheath in the UK, was chosen as the first U.S. Air Force European base to station two F-35 squadrons, following an announcement by the Pentagon. A total of 48 F-35s, making up two squadrons, will add to the 48th Fighter Wing's already existing F-15C and F-15E Strike Eagle jets.^[462]

Procurement and international participation

Main article: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement

Participant nations:

Primary customer: United States

Level 1 partner: United Kingdom

Level 2 partners: Italy and the Netherlands

Level 3 partners: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Turkey

Security Cooperative Participants: Israel and Singapore

While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion towards development costs.^[463] Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion. The purchase of an estimated 2,400 aircraft is expected to cost an additional US$200 billion.^[464] The initial plan was that the nine major partner nations would acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035.^[465] Sales to partner nations are made through the Pentagon's Foreign Military Sales program.^[466]
There are three levels of international participation.^[467] The levels generally reflect financial stake in the program, the amount of technology transfer and subcontracts open for bid by national companies, and the order in which countries can obtain production aircraft. The United Kingdom is the sole "Level 1" partner, contributing US$2.5 billion, which was about 10% of the planned development costs^[468] under the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding that brought the UK into the project.^[469] Level 2 partners are Italy, which is contributing US$1 billion; and the Netherlands, US$800 million. Level 3 partners are Turkey, US$195 million; Canada, US$160 million; Australia, US$144 million; Norway, US$122 million and Denmark, US$110 million. Israel and Singapore have joined as Security Cooperative Participants (SCP).^[470]^[471]^[472] Japan announced on 20 December 2011 its intent to purchase 42 F-35s with deliveries beginning in 2016 to replace the F-4 Phantom II; Japan seeks 38 F-35s, to be assembled domestically.^[473]
By 2012, many changes had occurred in the order book. Italy became the first country to announce a reduction of its overall fleet procurement, cutting its buy from 131 to 90 aircraft. Other nations reduced initial purchases or delayed orders while still intending to purchase the same final numbers. The United States canceled the initial purchase of 13 F-35s and postponed orders for another 179. The United Kingdom cut its initial order and delayed a decision on future orders. Australia decided to buy the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as an interim measure. Turkey also cut its initial order of four aircraft to two, but confirmed plans to purchase 100 F-35As.^[474]^[475] Turkey will buy four F-35s to be delivered in 2015 and 2016, while the order may be increased from 100 to 120 aircraft.^[476] These changes resulted in increased procurement prices, and increased the likelihood of further cuts.^[477]^[478]
On 3 April 2012, the Auditor General of Canada Michael Ferguson published a report outlining problems with Canada's procurement of the jet, including misinformation over the final cost. According to the Auditor General, the government knowingly understated the final price of the 65 jets by $10 billion.^[479] Canada's Conservative government had stated it would not reduce its order, and anticipated a $75–80 million unit cost; the procurement was termed a "scandal" and "fiasco" by the media and faced a full review to determine any Canadian F-35 purchase.^[480]^[481]^[482] On 13 December 2012, in a scathing editorial published by CBC News, journalist Brian Stewart termed the F-35 project a "global wrecking ball" due to its run-away costs and lack of affordability for many participating nations.^[483]
In May 2013, Lockheed Martin declared that Turkey is projected to earn $12 billion from licensed production of F-35 components.^[484]^[485]
In November 2014, the United Kingdom confirmed its first order for 14 F-35Bs to be delivered in 2016.^[486]

Variants

Configuration of the three original F-35 variants

The F-35 is being built in three different main versions to suit various combat missions.

F-35A

The F-35A is the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant intended for the U.S. Air Force and other air forces. It is the smallest, lightest F-35 version and is the only variant equipped with an internal cannon, the GAU-22/A. This 25 mm cannon is a development of the GAU-12 carried by the USMC's AV-8B Harrier II. It is designed for increased effectiveness against ground targets compared to the 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon carried by other USAF fighters.

US Air Force F-35A maneuvers to refuel from a KC-135

The F-35A is expected to match the F-16 in maneuverability and instantaneous high-g performance, and outperform it in stealth, payload, range on internal fuel, avionics, operational effectiveness, supportability, and survivability.^[495] It is expected to match an F-16 that is carrying the usual external fuel tank in acceleration performance.^[496]
The A variant is primarily intended to replace the USAF's F-16 Fighting Falcon. At one point it was also intended to replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II starting in 2028.^[497]^[498] The F-35A can be outfitted to receive fuel via either of the two main aerial refueling methods; this was a consideration in the Canadian procurement and a deciding factor for the Japanese purchase.^[499]^[500]^[501] On 18 December 2013, the Netherlands became the second partner country to operate the F-35A, when Maj. Laurens J.W. Vijge of the Royal Netherlands Air Force took off from Eglin Air Force Base.^[502]
On 27 January 2014, General Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command, stated he would fight "to the death" to not have a single plane of the USAF's planned 1,763 F-35 purchase be cut, because the allies and partners of the US got "weak in the knees" when seeing the USAF "back away" from the F-35. He said the F-15 and F-16 fleets would become tactically obsolete in the middle of the next decade regardless of improvements. Hostage also commented that the F-35 would be "irrelevant" without the F-22 fleet being viable as the F-35 was not an air superiority fighter,^[503] and that a F-35 pilot who attempted a dogfight would be making a mistake.^[504]
The F-35As for the Royal Norwegian Air Force will have drag chute installed. Norway will be the first country to adopt the drag chute pod.^[505]

F-35B

An F-35B lands aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp, in August 2013.

F-35B short-takeoff from USS Wasp during its first sea trials, October 2011.

The F-35B is the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the aircraft. Similar in size to the A variant, the B sacrifices about a third of the other version's fuel volume to accommodate the vertical flight system. Vertical takeoffs and landings are riskier due to threats such as foreign object damage.^[506]^[507] Whereas the F-35A is stressed to 9 g,^[508]^[509] the F-35B's stress goal is 7 g. As of 2014, the F-35B is limited to 4.5 g and 400 knots. Next software upgrade includes weapons, 5.5 g and Mach 1.2, with a final target of 7 g and Mach 1.6.^[510] The first test flight of the F-35B was conducted on 11 June 2008.^[511] Another milestone, the first successful ski-jump launch was carried out by BAE test pilot Peter Wilson on 24 June 2015.^[512]
Unlike other variants, the F-35B has no landing hook. The "STOVL/HOOK" control instead engages conversion between normal and vertical flight.^[513] Jet thrust is sent directly downwards during vertical flight; the nozzle is being redesigned to spread the output across an oval rather than circular shape in order to limit damage to asphalt and ship decks.^[514] The variant's three-bearing swivel nozzle that directs the full thrust of the engine is moved by a “fueldraulic” actuator using pressurized fuel.^[515]
The United States Marine Corps plans to purchase 340 F-35Bs,^[89] to replace current inventories of both the F/A-18 Hornet (A, B, C and D-models), and the AV-8B Harrier II, in the fighter and attack roles.^[516] The Marines plan to use the F-35B from "unimproved surfaces at austere bases" but with "special, high-temperature concrete designed to handle the heat."^[517]^[518] The USMC declared Initial Operational Capability with about 50 F-35s running interim Block 2B software on 31 July 2015.^[519] The USAF had considered replacing the A-10 with the F-35B, but will not do so due to the F-35B's inability to generate enough sorties.^[520]
On 6 January 2011, Gates said that the 2012 budget would call for a two-year pause in F-35B production during which the aircraft faced redesign, or cancellation if unsuccessful.^[84]^[521] In 2011, Lockheed Martin executive vice president Tom Burbage and former Pentagon director of operational testing Tom Christie stated that most program delays were due to the F-35B, which forced massive redesigns of other versions.^[522] Lockheed Martin Vice President Steve O’Bryan has said that most F-35B landings will be conventional to reduce stress on vertical lift components.^[523] These conventional mode takeoffs and landings cause "an unacceptable wear rate" to the aircraft's poorly designed tires.^[524] USMC Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle has said that the vertical lift components would only be used "a small percentage of the time" to transfer the aircraft from carriers to land bases.^[525] On 3 October 2011, the F-35B began its initial sea-trials by performing a vertical landing on the deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp,^[526] to continue in 2015.^[527] Probation status was reportedly ended by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in January 2012 due to progress made.^[87] A heat-resistant anti-skid material called Thermion is being tested on Wasp, also useful against the V-22 exhaust.^[528]
The Royal Air Force and Royal Navy plan for the F-35B is to replace the Harrier GR9s, which were retired in 2010. One of the Royal Navy requirements for the F-35B design was a Shipborne Rolling and Vertical Landing (SRVL) mode to increase maximum landing weight to bring back unused ordnance by using wing lift during landing.^[529]^[530] In July 2013, Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton announced that 617 Squadron would be the first operational Royal Air Force squadron to receive the F-35.^[531]^[532] The second operational squadron will be the Fleet Air Arm's 809 NAS.^[533] As of June 2013, the Royal Air Force has received three aircraft of the 48 on order, the three aircraft were based at Eglin Air Force base.^[534] The aircraft are projected to be operational in 2018.^[535]^[536] In June 2015, the F-35B undertook its first launches from a ski-jump, when one of the UK's aircraft took off using a ramp constructed at NAS Patuxent River.^[537] Both the Royal Navy and the Marina Militare will operate the F-35B from ships fitted with ski-jumps. In 2011, the Marina Militare was preparing Grottaglie Air Station for F-35B operations; they are to receive 22 aircraft between 2014 and 2021, with the aircraft carrier Cavour set to be modified to operate them by 2016.^[538]
Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, General James Amos has said that, in spite of increasing costs and schedule delays, there is no plan B to the F-35B.^[539] The F-35B is larger than the aircraft it replaces, which required USS America to be designed without well deck capabilities.^[540] In 2011, the USMC and USN signed an agreement that the USMC will purchase 340 F-35B and 80 F-35C fighters while the USN will purchase 260 F-35C fighters. The five squadrons of USMC F-35Cs will be assigned to Navy carriers while F-35Bs will be used on amphibious ships and ashore.^[457]^[458]
Although the Australian Canberra-class landing helicopter dock ships were not originally planned to operate fixed-wing aircraft, in May 2014, the Minister for Defence David Johnston stated in media interviews that the government was considering acquiring F-35B fighters for Canberras, and Prime Minister Tony Abbott instructed 2015 Defence White Paper planners to consider the option of embarking F-35B squadrons aboard the two ships.^[541]^[542]^[543] Supporters of the idea stated that providing fixed-wing support to amphibious operations would maximize aircraft capability, and the presence of a ski-jump ramp, inherited from the original design, meant that the vessels were better suited to STOVL operations than equivalent ships with flat flight decks.^[544] Opponents to the idea countered that embarking enough F-35Bs to be effective required abandoning the ships' amphibious capability and would make the pseudo-carriers more valuable targets, modifications would be required to make the flight deck capable of handling vertical-landing thrust and to increase fuel and ordnance capacity for sustained operations, and that the F-35B project itself has been the most expensive and most problematic of the Joint Strike Fighter variants.^[545]^[546]^[547] In July 2015 Australia ended consideration of buying the F-35B for its two largest assault ships, as the ship modifications were projected to cost more than AUS$5 billion (US$4.4 billion). The plan was opposed by the Royal Australian Air Force, as an F-35B order could have diminished the number of F-35As purchased.^[548]^[549]
The U.S Marine Corps plans to disperse its F-35Bs among forward deployed bases to enhance survivability while remaining close to a battlespace, similar to RAF Harrier deployment late in the Cold War which relied on the use of off-base locations that offered short runways, shelter, and concealment. Known as distributed STOVL operations (DSO), Marine F-35Bs would sustain operations from temporary bases in allied territory within the range of hostile ballistic and cruise missiles, but be moved between temporary locations inside the enemy's 24-48 hour targeting cycle. This strategy accounts for the F-35B's short range, the shortest of the three variants, with mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-Farps) accommodating KC-130 and MV-22 Osprey aircraft to rearm and refuel the jets, as well as littoral areas for sea links of mobile distribution sites on land. M-Farps could be based on small airfields, multi-lane roads, or damaged main bases, while F-35Bs would return to U.S. Navy ships, rear-area U.S. Air Force bases, or friendly carriers for scheduled maintenance; metal planking would be needed to protect unprepared roads from the F-35B's engine exhaust, which would be moved between sites by helicopters, and the Marines are studying lighter and more heat-resistant products.^[550]

F-35C

F-35s in formation; the greater wing area of the F-35C on left, compared to the F-35B in the middle.

A F-35C of VX-23 making the first arrested landing aboard USS Nimitz (CVN-68) on 3 November 2014.

First carrier launch of a F-35C from USS Nimitz.

F-35C of VFA-101

Compared to the F-35A, the F-35C carrier variant features larger wings with foldable wingtip sections, larger wing and tail control surfaces for improved low-speed control, stronger landing gear for the stresses of carrier arrested landings, a twin-wheel nose gear, and a stronger tailhook for use with carrier arrestor cables. The larger wing area allows for decreased landing speed while increasing both range and payload.
The United States Navy intends to buy 480 F-35Cs to replace the F/A-18A, B, C, and D Hornets and complement the Super Hornet fleet.^[551] On 27 June 2007, the F-35C completed its Air System Critical Design Review (CDR), allowing the production of the first two functional prototypes.^[552] The C variant was expected to be available beginning in 2014.^[553] The first F-35C was rolled out on 29 July 2009.^[554] The United States Marine Corps will also purchase 80 F-35Cs, enough for five squadrons, for use with navy carrier air wings in a joint service agreement signed on 14 March 2011.^[457]^[458] A recent 2014 document stated that the USMC will also have 4 squadrons of F-35Cs with 10 aircraft per squadron for the Marine Corps' contribution to U.S. Navy carrier air wings.^[555]
On 6 November 2010, the first F-35C arrived at Naval Air Station Patuxent River. The replacement engines for at-sea repair are too large to be transported by current underway replenishment systems.^[556] In 2011, the F-35Cs were grounded for six days after a software bug was found that could have prevented the control surfaces from being used during flight.^[557] On 27 July 2011, the F-35C test aircraft CF-3 completed its first steam catapult launch during a test flight at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst; the TC-13 Mod 2 test steam catapult, representative of current fleet technology, was used. In addition to catapult launches at varying power levels, a three-week test plan included dual-aircraft jet blast deflector testing and catapult launches using a degraded catapult configuration to measure the effects of steam ingestion on the aircraft.^[558]
On 13 August 2011, the F-35 successfully completed jet blast deflector (JBD) testing at Lakehurst. F-35C test aircraft CF-1 along with an F/A-18E tested a combined JBD cooling panel configuration. The tests measured temperature, pressure, sound level, velocity, and other environmental data; the JBD model will enable the operation of all carrier aircraft, including the F-35C. Further carrier suitability testing continued in preparation for initial ship trials in 2013.^[559] On 18 November 2011, the U.S. Navy used its new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to launch an F-35C into the air for the first time.^[560]
On 22 June 2013, Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-101 received the Navy's first F-35C at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.^[561]^[562]
The USN is dealing with the following issues in adapting their carriers to operate the F-35C.^[563]

The F135 engine exceeds the weight capacity of traditional replenishment systems and generates more heat than previous engines.
The stealthy skin requires new repair techniques; extensive skin damage will necessitate repairs at Lockheed's land-based facilities.
The adoption of lithium-ion batteries needing careful thermal management, and higher voltage systems than traditional fighters.
Storing of new weapons not previously employed on carrier aircraft.
Large quantities of classified data generated during missions shall require additional security.

In February 2014, Lockheed said the F-35C was on schedule for sea trials after the tailhook was redesigned. The new tailhook has a different shape to better catch arresting wires. Testing on land achieved 36 successful landings. Sea trials were scheduled for October 2014.^[564]
On 3 November 2014, an F-35C of VX-23, one of the Navy's flight test units, made its first landing on an aircraft carrier when it recovered aboard USS Nimitz; this started a 2 week deployment of a pair of aircraft for the initial at sea Development Testing I or DTI, the first of three at sea tests planned for the F-35C.^[565]^[566] The initial deployment was completed on November 14.^[567]
The U.S. Navy may use the F-35C as part of its UCLASS effort to operate a carrier-based unmanned aerial vehicle. Though it has been suggested that the UCLASS could carry air-to-air weapons, an unmanned aircraft lacks situational awareness and is more vulnerable to electronic countermeasures than manned aircraft, and autonomy for deploying lethal weapons is not under development. With the F-35C as the center of a network of naval systems, it could feed information to the UCLASS and order it to fire on a certain target. Large numbers of F-35Cs operating in contested environments can generate a clear picture of the battlespace, and share it with unmanned assets that can be directed to attack.^[568]

Other versions

F-35I

Main article: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Israeli procurement

The F-35I is an F-35A with Israeli modifications. A senior Israel Air Force official stated "the aircraft will be designated F-35I, as there will be unique Israeli features installed in them". Despite an initial refusal to allow such modifications, the U.S. has agreed to let Israel integrate its own electronic warfare systems, such as sensors and countermeasures, into the aircraft. The main computer will have a plug-and-play feature to allow add-on Israeli electronics to be used; proposed systems include an external jamming pod, and new Israeli air-to-air missiles and guided bombs in the internal weapon bays.^[569]^[570] Israeli pilots are scheduled to start F-35 training in December 2016 at Eglin AFB Florida with the first squadron activated about a year later.^[571]
Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has considered playing a role in the development of a proposed two-seat F-35; an IAI executive stated: "There is a known demand for two seats not only from Israel but from other air forces."^[572] IAI plans to produce conformal fuel tanks.^[573] A senior IAF official stated that elements of the F-35's stealth may be overcome in 5 to 10 years, while the aircraft will be in service for 30 to 40 years, which is why Israel insisted on installing their own electronic warfare systems: "The basic F-35 design is OK. We can make do with adding integrated software."^[574] Israel is interested in purchasing up to 75 F-35s.^[575]

CF-35

Main article: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement

The Canadian CF-35 is a proposed variant that would differ from the F-35A through the addition of a drogue parachute and may include an F-35B/C-style refueling probe.^[505]^[576] In 2012, it was revealed that the CF-35 would employ the same boom refueling system as the F-35A.^[577] One alternative proposal would have been the adoption of the F-35C for its probe refueling and lower landing speed; the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report cited the F-35C's limited performance and payload as being too high a price to pay.^[578] Following the 2015 Federal Election, in which the Liberal Party, whose campaign had included a pledge to cancel the F-35 procurement,^[579] won a majority in the House of Commons, and stated it would run a new competition for an aircraft to replace the existing CF-18 Hornet.^[580]

F-35D

Early-stage design study for a possible upgrade of the F-35A to be fielded by the 2035 target date of the Air Force Future Operating Concept.^[581]^[582]

Operators

One of Australia's first two F-35As in December 2014

Australia

Royal Australian Air Force (F-35A: 72 ordered, up to 28 more planned for 2030)^[583]^[584]

Israel

Israeli Air Force (F-35A: 33 ordered, first 2 to be delivered in 2016; up to 75 total planned)^[575]^[585]

Italy

Italian Air Force (F-35A: 6 ordered, 1 delivered in 2015, 60 total planned; F-35B: 15 planned)^[586]
Italian Navy (F-35B: 15 planned)^[586]^[587]

Japan

Japan Air Self-Defense Force (F-35A: 5 ordered; 42 total planned)^[587]^[588]

Dutch F-35A in July 2013

Netherlands

Royal Netherlands Air Force (F-35A: 2 delivered and in testing, 8 additional ordered, 37 total planned)^[9]^[587]
- 323 Squadron RNLAF^[589]

Norway

Royal Norwegian Air Force (F-35A: 4 ordered, 52 total planned)^[590]

Republic of Korea

Republic of Korea Air Force (F-35A: 40 planned)^[591]

Turkey

Turkish Air Force (F-35A: 6 ordered as of 2015, 100 total planned with an additional 20 options)^[592]^[593]^[594]^[595]

A British F-35B near Eglin AFB in May 2014.

United Kingdom (F-35: 138 planned;^[596] F-35B: 4 delivered and in testing,^[597] 10 additional ordered,^[598] 48 total planned by 2023^[599])

Royal Air Force
- 17 (R) Squadron (test and evaluation unit)^[600]
- 617 Squadron as well as a further, as yet unnamed additional squadron.^[601]
Royal Navy
- 809 Naval Air Squadron^[602]

United States

United States Air Force (F-35A: 1,763 planned)^[587]^[603]
United States Marine Corps (F-35B/C: 420 planned)^[587]^[603]
- VMX-22^[609]
- VMFA-121^[610]
- VMFAT-501^[611]
United States Navy (F-35C: 260 planned)^[587]^[603]
- VX-23^[612]
- VFA-101^[613]

Accidents

On 23 June 2014, an F-35A preparing to take off on a training flight at Eglin Air Force Base experienced a fire in the engine area. The pilot escaped unharmed. The accident caused all training to be halted on 25 June, and all flights halted on 3 July.^[449]^[450]^[451] During the incident investigation, engine parts from the burned aircraft were discovered on the runway, indicating it was a substantial engine failure.^[614] The fleet was returned to flight on 15 July with restrictions in the flight envelope.^[452] Preliminary findings suggests that excessive rubbing of the engine fan blades created increased stress and wear and eventually resulted in catastrophic failure of the fan.^[615]
In Early June 2015, the USAF Air Education and Training Command (AETC) issued its official report on the incident. It found that the incident was the result of a failure of the third stage rotor of the engine's fan module. The report explained that "pieces of the failed rotor arm cut through the engine's fan case, the engine bay, an internal fuel tank, and hydraulic and fuel lines before exiting through the aircraft's upper fuselage". Pratt and Whitney, the engine manufacturers, developed two remedies to the problem. The first is an extended "rub-in" to increase the gap between the second stator and the third rotor integral arm seal. The second is the redesign to pre-trench the stator. Both should be complete by early 2016. Cost of the problem was estimated at USD 50 million. All aircraft resumed operations within 25 days of the incident.^[616]

Specifications (F-35A)

The first of 15 pre-production F-35s

F-35B cutaway with LiftFan

Aircraft flying inverted shows external hard point stations, including the external Gatling gun pod.

External images
F-35B Lightning II cutaway illustration
Hi-res cutaway of F-35B Lightning II STOVL (dead link) by Flight Global, 2006.

Data from Lockheed Martin specifications,^[254]^[617]^[618] F-35 Program brief,^[274] F-35 JSF Statistics^[269] F-35 Program Status^[619]

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 50.5 ft^[620] (15.67 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft^{[N 4]} (10.7 m)
Height: 14.2 ft^{[N 5]} (4.33 m)
Wing area: 460 ft²^[274] (42.7 m²)
Empty weight: 29,098 lb^[621] (13,199 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,540 lb^[253]^{[N 6]}^[622] (22,470 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb^{[N 7]} (31,800 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
- Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf^[623]^{[N 8]} (125 kN)
- Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf^[623]^[624] (191 kN)
Internal fuel capacity: 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)^[620]^{[N 9]}

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+^[269]^[625] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)^[408]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: 613 nmi^[626] (1,135 km) on internal fuel
Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
- With full fuel: 0.87
- With 50% fuel: 1.07
Maximum g-load: 9 g^{[N 10]}

Armament

Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel Gatling gun, internally mounted with 180 rounds^{[N 11]}^[269]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)^[269]^[274] and two internal bays with two pylons with a capacity of 3,000 (1,360 kg)^[274] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)^[254] and provisions to carry combinations of:
- Missiles:
  - Air-to-air missiles:
    - AIM-120 AMRAAM
    - AIM-9X Sidewinder
    - IRIS-T
    - MBDA Meteor (pending further funding)^[283]
  - Air-to-surface missiles:
    - AGM-88 AARGM^[627]
    - AGM-158 JASSM^[276]
    - Brimstone missile / MBDA SPEAR^[628]
    - Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
    - Storm Shadow missile
    - SOM
  - Anti-ship missiles:
    - Joint Strike Missile (JSM)
    - Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)^[629]
- Bombs:
  - Mark 84 or Mark 83 or Mark 82 GP bombs
  - Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
  - Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) capable
  - Paveway series laser-guided bombs
  - Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
  - Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) series
  - AGM-154 JSOW
  - B61 mod 12 nuclear bomb^[630]

Avionics

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar
Lockheed Martin AAQ-40 E/O Targeting System (EOTS)
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system
BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) electronic warfare system
Northrop Grumman AN/ASQ-242 CNI system,^[631] which includes
- The Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system
- The legacy Link 16 data link
- SINCGARS
- An IFF interrogator and transponder
- HAVE QUICK
- AM, VHF, UHF AM, and UHF FM Radio
- GUARD survival radio
- A radar altimeter
- An instrument landing system
- A TACAN system
- An instrument carrier landing system
- A JPALS
- TADIL-J JVMF/VMF

TAI TFX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TFX

One of the three concept designs
Role	Air superiority fighter^[1]
Manufacturer	Turkish Aerospace Industries
Designer	Turkish Aerospace Industries
Introduction	2025 (planned)
Status	Preliminary Detail Design Phase

TAI TFX is a twin-engine^[2] fifth-generation jet fighter^[3]^[4]^[5] being developed by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) with technological assistance from BAE Systems of the United Kingdom.^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]

Development phase

On 15 December 2010, Turkey's Defence Industry Executive Committee (SSIK) decided to design, develop, and manufacture an indigenous next generation air-to-air combat fighter which would replace Turkey's F-16 fleet and work together with the F-35.^[13] Funding equivalent to US$20 million was allocated for a 2-year conceptual design phase that will be performed by TAI.^[14] TAI officials have stated that the conceptual design phase should be complete in late 2013, with a report being prepared and served to the Prime Minister for approval of the development phase budget and framework.
TAI and TUSAŞ Engine Industries (TEI) will lead the design, entry and development processes of the fighter jet. TEI will focus more on the production of the aircraft's engines, while TAI will develop the airframe and other components. The studies will reveal how much the fighter jet would cost, which mechanical and electronic systems would be employed and included, and a wider perspective of the opportunities and challenges in military aviation.^[15]

Partnership with Saab AB

During a state visit of Turkish President Abdullah Gül to Sweden on March 13, 2013, Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) signed an agreement with Sweden's Saab AB, which stipulates:^[7]^[8]^[16]^[17]

Saab AB will provide technological design assistance for Turkey's TFX program.
TAI has the option to purchase Saab AB's fighter jet design unit.^{[citation needed]}

On 8 January 2015 Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu announced that the TFX program will be an entirely indigenous platform with no international support shelving any cooperation with Korea, Sweden, Brazil or Indonesia.^{[citation needed]}

Technological Assistance from BAE Systems

In December 2015, Turkey’s Undersecretariat of Defence Industries (SSM) announced that it had chosen BAE Systems of the United Kingdom to assist with the design of the nation’s next-generation Air superiority fighter. The same day Rolls-Royce offered Turkey EJ200 technology transfer and joint-development of a derivative for the TFX program.^[18]

Design

Air frame

Hüseyin Yağcı, TAI's chief engineer on the TFX program, has stated that all three conceptual designs thus far feature a design optimized for low radar cross-sectional density, internal weapons bays, and the ability to supercruise; features associated with fifth-generation fighter jets.^[3]
TAI's Advanced Carbon Composites fuselage facility, which was commissioned to produce fuselages for Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter (F-35)^[19]^[20] program, has been tasked with developing an Advanced Carbon Composite fuselage for the TFX. The Turkish Undersecretariat for Defense Industries (SSM) has also issued a tender for the development of a new lighter carbon composite thermoplastic for the TFX fuselage.^[21]

Radar and Sensors

ASELSAN is currently developing a highly advanced AESA radar which will use gallium nitride (GaN) technology for the TFX program.^[22]

Avionics and equipments

The TFX will be integrated from the cockpit to accompanying UAV's (most likely the TAI Anka) through encrypted datalink connections.^[23]

Propulsion

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu announced on January 8, 2015, that the TFX will be a twin-engined fighter jet.^[2] The Turkish Undersecretariat for Defense Industries (SSM), the procurement agency for Turkish Armed Forces, has written a letter of intent to three engine manufacturers: General Electric, Pratt & Whitney and EUROJET Turbo.
On 20 January 2015, Aselsan of Turkey announced that it had executed a memorandum of understanding with Eurojet, the manufacturer of the EJ200 engine used in the Eurofighter Typhoon.^[24] The announcement also stated that a derivative of the EJ200 will be used in the TFX program.^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28] The two companies will additionally collaborate and co-develop engine control software systems and engine maintenance monitoring systems.^[28] Turkey's selection of the EJ200 evidences TAI's intention to utilise supercruise capability.

Procurement

The Turkish Air Force intends to procure 250+ TFX starting from 2025 and integrate them in a network-centric Air Force structure consisting of F-35, F-16 Block 50+, Future Unmanned Combat Aircraft, Airborne Stand-Off Jammers and the Boeing 737 AEW&C Peace Eagle.^{[citation needed]} Turkey plans to introduce the TFX by 2025, having it and the F-35A comprising a dual fighter jet fleet. The TFX is to compensate for some of the F-35's weaknesses in air-to-air combat. Permission to officially start the first phase of development is expected by the end of 2014.^[29]

Tender

On 13 March 2015 the Turkish Undersecretariat for Defence Industries (SSM) officially issued a Request for Information from Turkish companies which had the capacity "to perform the indigenous design, development and production activities of the first Turkish Fighter Aircraft to meet Turkish Armed Forces’ next generation fighter requirements" signalling the official start of the program.^[30]

Sukhoi PAK FA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PAK FA T-50

A T-50 flies at the MAKS 2011 air show
Role	Stealth multirole/Air superiority fighter
National origin	Russia
Manufacturer	KnAAPO, NAPO
Designer	Sukhoi
First flight	29 January 2010^[1]
Introduction	2017^[2]^[3]
Status	Flight testing/pre-production
Primary users	Russian Air Force Russian Navy^[4]
Produced	2009–present
Number built	5 prototypes^[5]
Program cost	US$8–10 billion (est.)^[6]^[7]^[8]
Unit cost	T-50: US$50+ million^[9]
Variants	Sukhoi/HAL FGFA

The PAK FA (Russian: ПАК ФА, Russian: Перспективный авиационный комплекс фронтовой авиации, Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii, literally "Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation") is a fifth-generation fighter programme of the Russian Air Force. The T-50 is the name of the prototype aircraft (though it is unlikely it will be the name for the production aircraft) designed by Sukhoi for the PAK FA programme. The aircraft is a stealthy, single-seat, twin-engine jet fighter, and will be the first operational aircraft in Russian service to use stealth technology. It is a multirole fighter designed for air superiority and attack roles. The fighter is planned to have supercruise, stealth, supermaneuverability, and advanced avionics to overcome the prior generation of fighter aircraft as well as ground and maritime defences.^[10]^[11]
The PAK FA is intended to be the successor to the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the Russian Air Force and serve as the basis for the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) being co-developed by Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the Indian Air Force.^[12]^[13] The T-50 prototype first flew on 29 January 2010 and the first production aircraft is slated for delivery to the Russian Air Force starting in late 2016 or early 2017.^[14]^[15] The prototypes and initial production batch will be delivered with a highly upgraded variant of the AL-31F used by the Su-27 family as interim engines while a new clean-sheet design powerplant is currently under development. The aircraft is expected to have a service life of up to 35 years.^[16]

Development

Origins

Main article: Post-PFI Soviet/Russian aircraft projects

In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union outlined a need for a next-generation aircraft intended to enter service in the 1990s. The project was designated the I-90 (Russian: Истребитель, Istrebitel, "Fighter") and required the fighter to have substantial ground attack capabilities and would eventually replace the MiG-29s and Su-27s in frontline tactical aviation service. The subsequent program designed to meet these requirements, the MFI (Russian: МФИ, Russian: Многофункциональный фронтовой истребитель, Mnogofunksionalni Frontovoy Istrebitel, "Multifunctional Frontline Fighter"), resulted in Mikoyan's selection to develop the MiG 1.44.^[17] Though not a participant in the MFI, Sukhoi started its own program in the early 1990s to develop technologies for a next-generation fighter aircraft, resulting in the S-37, later designated as the Su-47. Due to a lack of funds after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the MiG 1.44 program was repeatedly delayed and the first flight of the prototype did not occur until 2000, nine years behind schedule.^[17] The MiG 1.44 was subsequently canceled and a new program for a next-generation fighter, PAK FA, was initiated. The program requirements reflected the capabilities of Western fighter aircraft, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and F-22 Raptor. Following a competition between Sukhoi, Mikoyan, and Yakovlev, in 2002, Sukhoi was selected as the winner of the PAK FA competition and selected to lead the design of the new aircraft.^[18]
To reduce the PAK FA's developmental risk and spread out associated costs, as well as to bridge the gap between it and older previous generation fighters, some of its technology and features, such as propulsion and avionics, were implemented in the Sukhoi Su-35S fighter, an advanced variant of the Su-27.^[19]^[20] The Novosibirsk Aircraft Production Association (NAPO) is manufacturing the new multirole fighter at Komsomol'sk-on-Amur along with Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association (KnAAPO), and final assembly is to take place at Komsomol'sk-on-Amur.^[21]^[22] Following a competition held in 2003, the Tekhnokompleks Scientific and Production Center, Ramenskoye Instrument Building Design Bureau, the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design (NIIP), the Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant (UOMZ) in Yekaterinburg, the Polet firm in Nizhny Novgorod and the Central Scientific Research Radio Engineering Institute in Moscow were selected for the development of the PAK-FA's avionics suite. NPO Saturn is the lead contractor for the interim engines; Saturn and MMPP Salyut will compete for the definitive second stage engines.^[23]
On 8 August 2007, Russian Air Force Commander-in-Chief (CinC) Alexander Zelin was quoted by Russian news agencies that the program's development stage was complete and construction of the first aircraft for flight testing would begin, and that by 2009 there would be three fifth-generation aircraft ready.^[24]^[25] In 2009, the aircraft's design was officially approved.^[18]

Procurement

Sukhoi T-50 in flight with landing gear deployed, 2010

In 2007, Russia and India agreed to jointly develop the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft Programme (FGFA) for India.^[26]^[27] In September 2010, it was reported that India and Russia had agreed on a preliminary design contract where each country invests $6 billion; development of the FGFA fighter was expected to take 8–10 years.^[28] The agreement on the preliminary design was to be signed in December 2010.^[29]
The Russian Air Force is expected to procure more than 150 PAK FA aircraft, the first of which is slated to be delivered in 2016.^[30]^[31] India plans on acquiring modified PAK FA as a part of its Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) program. It originally planned on buying 166 single-seat and 44 two-seat variants, but this has been reduced to 130-145 single-seat aircraft and the requirement for 45-50 twin-seat fighters has been dropped by 2014.^[32] The Russian Defence Ministry plan on purchasing the first 10 evaluation example aircraft after 2012 and then 60 production standard aircraft after 2016.^[33]
In December 2014, the Russian Air Force planned to receive 55 fighters by 2020.^[34] But Yuri Borisov, Russia's deputy minister of defence for armaments stated in March 2015 that the Air Force will slow PAK FA production and reduce its initial order to 12 jets due to the nation's deteriorating economy.^[35]^[36] Due to the aircraft's complexity and rising costs, the Russian Air Force will retain large fleets of fourth-generation Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-35S.^[37]

Flight testing

T-50 at the MAKS 2011 airshow

The T-50's maiden flight was repeatedly postponed from early 2007 after encountering unspecified technical problems. In August 2009, Alexander Zelin acknowledged that problems with the engine and in technical research remained unsolved.^[38] On 28 February 2009, Mikhail Pogosyan announced that the airframe was almost finished and that the first prototype should be ready by August 2009.^[39] On 20 August 2009, Pogosyan said that the first flight would be by year's end. Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy head of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies said that "even with delays", the aircraft would likely make its first flight by January or February, adding that it would take five to ten years for commercial production.^[40]
Flight testing was further delayed when Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov announced in December 2009 that the first trials would begin in 2010.^[41] The first taxi test was successfully completed on 24 December 2009.^[42]^[43] Flight testing of the T-50 began with T-50-1, the first prototype aircraft, on 29 January 2010.^[44] Piloted by Hero of the Russian Federation Sergey Bogdan, the aircraft's 47-minute maiden flight took place at KnAAPO's Dzemgi Airport in the Russian Far East.^[45]^[46]

T-50 climbing after takeoff, 2011

The second T-50 was to initially start flight testing in late 2010; this was delayed until early 2011.^[47]^[48]^[49] On 3 March 2011, the second T-50 completed a 44-minute test flight.^[47] The first two prototypes lacked radar and weapon control systems; the third and fourth aircraft, first flown in 2011 and 2012, are fully functional test aircraft.^[50] On 14 March 2011, the T-50 achieved supersonic flight at a test range near Komsomolsk-on-Amur.^[51] The T-50 was displayed publicly for the first time at the 2011 MAKS Airshow, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was in attendance.^[52]^[53] On 3 November 2011, the T-50 reportedly performed its 100th flight.^[54] More than 20 test flights were made in the next nine months.^[55]
The third prototype, T-50-3, was the first prototype to fly with an AESA radar. Originally scheduled for the end of 2011, these flights occurred in August 2012, and showed performance comparable to existing radars.^[56]^[57] On 22 November 2011, T-50-3 took its first flight from KnAAPO's airfield in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, piloted by Sergey Bogdan. The aircraft spent over an hour in the air, and was subjected to basic stability and powerplant checks.^[58] It differs from the other prototypes in the way it lacks a pitot tube. All 14 test aircraft are scheduled to fly by 2015.^[59]
The fourth prototype had its first flight on 12 December 2012^[60] and joined the other three aircraft in testing near Moscow a month later.^[61]^[62] By the end of 2013, five T-50 prototypes were flown, with the fifth prototype having its first flight on 27 October 2013; with this flight the program has amassed more than 450 flights.^[63] The first aircraft for State testing was delivered on 21 February 2014.^[64] However the VVS lacks facilities for testing some of the aircraft's performance parameters.^[65]
The fifth flying prototype T-50 '055' was severely damaged by an engine fire after landing in June 2014. The aircraft was returned to flying condition after cannibalizing components from the unfinished sixth prototype.^[66]

Design

Overview

Prototype T-50 in flight

PAK FA Prandtl-Glauert singularity at MAKS-2015.

The PAK FA is a fifth generation multirole fighter aircraft and the first operational stealth aircraft for the Russian Air Force. Although most information is classified, sources within the Sukhoi company and Defense Ministry have openly stated that the aircraft will be stealthy, supermaneuverable, have supercruise capability, incorporate substantial amounts of composite materials, and possess advanced avionics such as active phased array radar and sensor fusion.^[11]^[22]^[67]
The T-50 has a blended wing body fuselage and incorporates all-moving horizontal and vertical stabilizers; the vertical stabilizers toe inwards to serve as the aircraft's airbrake. The aircraft incorporates thrust vectoring and has adjustable leading edge vortex controllers (LEVCONs) designed to control vortices generated by the leading edge root extensions, and can provide trim and improve high angle of attack behaviour, including a quick stall recovery if the thrust vectoring system fails.^[68] The advanced flight control system and thrust vectoring nozzles make the aircraft departure resistant and highly maneuverable in both pitch and yaw, enabling the aircraft to perform very high angles of attack maneuvers such as the Pugachev's Cobra and the Bell maneuver, along with doing flat rotations with little altitude loss.^[69] The aircraft's high cruising speed and normal operating altitude is also expected to give it a significant kinematic advantage over prior generations of aircraft.^[70]
The T-50 makes extensive use of composites, comprising 25% of the structural weight and almost 70% of the outer surface.^[50] Weapons are housed in two tandem main weapons bays between the engine nacelles and smaller bulged, triangular-section bays near the wing root.^[71] Internal weapons carriage eliminates drag from external stores and enables higher performance compared to external carriage. Advanced engines and aerodynamics enable the T-50 to supercruise, sustained supersonic flight without using afterburners. Combined with a high fuel load, the T-50 has a supersonic range of over 1,500 km, more than twice that of the Su-27.^[70]^[69]^[72] In the T-50's design, Sukhoi addressed what it considered to be the F-22's limitations, such as its inability to use thrust vectoring to induce roll and yaw moments and a lack of space for weapons bays between the engines, and complications for stall recovery if thrust vectoring fails.^[73]

Stealth

The T-50 will be the first operational aircraft in Russian Air Force service to use stealth technology. Similar to other stealth fighters such as the F-22, the airframe incorporates planform edge alignment to reduce its radar cross-section (RCS); the leading and trailing edges of the wings and control surfaces and the serrated edges of skin panels are carefully aligned at several specific angles in order to reduce the number of directions the radar waves can be reflected.^[74] Weapons are carried internally in weapons bays within the airframe, and antennas are recessed from the surface of the skin to preserve the aircraft's stealthy shape. The IRST housing is turned backwards when not in use, and its rear is treated with radar-absorbent material (RAM) to reduce its radar return. To mask the significant RCS contribution of the engine face, the partial serpentine inlet obscures most, but not all, of the engine's fan and inlet guide-vanes (IGV). The production aircraft incorporates radar blockers similar in principle to those used on the F/A-18E/F in front of the engine fan to hide it from all angles. The aircraft uses RAM to absorb radar emissions and reduce their reflection back to the source, and the canopy is treated with a coating to minimize the radar return of the cockpit and pilot.^[75]
The T-50's design emphasizes frontal stealth, with RCS-reducing features most apparent in the forward hemisphere; the shaping of the aft fuselage is much less optimized for radar stealth compared to the F-22.^[70] The combined effect of airframe shape and RAM of the production aircraft is estimated to have reduced the aircraft's RCS to a value thirty times smaller than that of the Su-27.^[76] Sukhoi's patent of the T-50's stealth features cites an average RCS of the aircraft of approximately 0.1-1 square meters.^[75] However, like other stealth fighters, the T-50's low observability measures are chiefly effective against high frequency (between 3 and 30 GHz) radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars, employed by weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the T-50 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also large, susceptible to clutter, and are less precise.^[77]^[78]

Engines

Main article: Saturn AL-31

117 engine compressor stall at MAKS-2011

Pre-production and initial production batches of the T-50 will use interim engines, a pair of NPO Saturn izdeliye 117, or AL-41F1.^[79] Closely related to the Saturn 117S engine used by the Su-35S, the 117 engine is a highly improved and uprated variant of the AL-31 that produces 93.1 kN (21,000 lbf) of dry thrust, 147.1 kN (33,067 lbf) of thrust in afterburner, and has a thrust to weight ratio of 10.5:1.^[80] The engines have full authority digital engine control (FADEC) and are integrated into the flight control system to facilitate maneuverability and handling.^[70]
The two 117 engines incorporate thrust vectoring (TVC) nozzles whose rotational axes are each canted at an angle, similar to the nozzle arrangement of the Su-35S. This configuration allows the aircraft to produce thrust vectoring moments about all three rotational axes, pitch, yaw and roll. Thrust vectoring nozzles themselves operate in only one plane; the canting allows the aircraft to produce both roll and yaw by vectoring each engine nozzle differently. The engine inlet incorporates variable intake ramps for increased supersonic efficiency and retractable mesh screens to prevent foreign object debris being ingested by the engines.^[70] The 117 engine is to also incorporate infrared and RCS reduction measures.^[81]^[82] In 2014, the Indian Air Force openly expressed concerns over the reliability and performance of the 117 engines; during the 2011 Moscow Air Show, a T-50 suffered a compressor stall that forced the aircraft to abort takeoff.^[83]
Production T-50 from 2020 onward will be equipped with a more powerful engine known as the izdeliye 30, a clean sheet design engine that will supersede the 117. NPO Saturn and MMPP Salyut are competing to supply this definitive second stage engine.^[23] Compared to the 117, the new powerplant will have increased thrust and fuel efficiency, greater reliability, and lower costs.^[80] The izdeliye 30 has fewer fan and compressor stages than the 117, thus reducing the number of parts compared to its predecessor. The engine is designed to produce approximately 107 kN (24,050 lbf) of dry thrust and up to 167 kN (37,500 lbf) in afterburner. Full scale development began in 2011 and the engine's compressor began bench testing in December 2014.^[84] The first test engines are planned to be completed in 2016, and flight testing is projected to begin in 2017.^[85]^[86] The new powerplant is designed to be a drop-in replacement for the 117 with minimal changes to the airframe.^[87]

Armament

Internal weapon bays

The T-50 has two tandem main internal weapon bays each approximately 4.6 m (15.1 ft) long and 1.0 m (3.3 ft) wide and two small triangular-section weapon bays that protrude under the fuselage near the wing root.^[76]^[88] Internal carriage of weapons preserves the aircraft's stealth and significantly reduces aerodynamic drag, thus preserving kinematic performance compared to performance with external stores. The T-50's high cruising speed is expected to substantially increase weapon effectiveness compared to its predecessors.^[76] Vympel is developing two ejection launchers for the main bays: the UVKU-50L for missiles weighing up to 300 kg (660 lb) and the UVKU-50U for ordnance weighing up to 700 kg (1,500 lb).^[89]^[90] The aircraft has an internally mounted 9A1-4071K (GSh-301) 30 mm cannon near the right LEVCON root.^[16]^[91]
For air-to-air combat, the T-50 is expected to carry four beyond-visual-range missiles in its two main weapons bays and two short-range missiles in the wing root weapons bays.^[88]^[92] The primary medium-range missile is the active radar-homing K-77M (izdeliye 180), an upgraded R-77 variant with AESA seeker and conventional rear fins. The short-range missile is the infrared-homing ("heat seeking") K-74M2 (izdeliye 760), an upgraded R-74 variant with reduced cross-section for internal carriage.^[90]^[93] A clean-sheet design short-range missile designated K-MD (izdeliye 300) is being developed to eventually replace the K-74M2.^[89] For longer ranged applications, two large izdeliye 810 beyond-visual-range missiles can be carried in each main weapons bay.^[88]
The main bays can also accommodate air-to-ground missiles such as the Kh-38M, as well as multiple 250 kg (550 lb) KAB-250 or 500 kg (1,100 lb) KAB-500 precision guided bombs.^[88] The aircraft is also expected to carry further developed and modified variants of Kh-35UE (AS-20 "Kayak") anti-ship missile and Kh-58UShK (AS-11 "Kilter") anti-radiation missile.^[94] For missions that do not require stealth, the T-50 can carry stores on its six external hardpoints. PAK FA chief designer Alexander Davydenko has said that there is a possibility of the installation of BrahMos supersonic cruise missile on the PAK FA and its FGFA derivative; only one or two such missiles may be carried due to heavy weight of the BrahMos.^[95]

Cockpit

NSTsI-V helmet-mounted sight and display

The T-50 has a glass cockpit with two 38 cm (15 in) main multi-functional LCD displays similar to the arrangement of the Su-35S. Positioned around the cockpit are three smaller control panel displays. The cockpit has a wide-angle (30° by 22°) head-up display (HUD), and Moscow-based Geofizika-NV provides a new NSTsI-V helmet-mounted sight and display for the ZSh-10 helmet. Primary controls are the joystick and a pair of throttles.^[96]^[97] The aircraft uses a two-piece canopy, with the aft section sliding forward and locking into place. The canopy is treated with special coatings to increase the aircraft's stealth.
The T-50 employs the NPP Zvezda K-36D-5 ejection seat and the SOZhE-50 life support system, which comprises the anti-g and oxygen generating system. The 30 kg (66 lb) oxygen generating system will provide the pilot with unlimited oxygen supply.^[98]^[99] The life support system will enable pilots to perform 9-g maneuvers for up to 30 seconds at a time, and the new VKK-17 partial pressure suit will allow safe ejection at altitudes of up to 23 km.^[100]

Avionics

The main avionics systems are the Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) and the 101KS Atoll electro-optical system.^[101] The Sh121 consists of the N036 Byelka radar system and L402 Himalayas electronic countermeasures system. Developed by Tikhomirov NIIP Institute, the N036 consists of the main nose-mounted N036-1-01 X band active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, or active phased array radar (Russian: Активная фазированная антенная решётка, Aktivnaya Fazirovannaya Antennaya Reshotka, Russian: АФАР, AFAR) in Russian nomenclature, with 1,552 T/R modules and two side-looking N036B-1-01 X-band AESA radars with 358 T/R modules embedded in the cheeks of the forward fuselage for increased angular coverage.^[74] The suite also has two N036L-1-01 L band transceivers on the wing's leading edge extensions that are not only used to handle the N036Sh Pokosnik (Reaper) friend-or-foe identification system but also for electronic warfare purposes. Computer processing of the X- and L-band signals by the N036UVS computer and processor enable the system’s information to be significantly enhanced.^[69]^[102]
The radar will reduce pilot load and make use of a new data link to share information between aircraft. The T-50 will have secure communication links to share data with all other friendly aircraft in the area, as well as airborne and ground-based control points.^[11]^[103] In 2012 ground tests of the N036 radar began on the third T-50 aircraft.^[104] The L402 Himalayas electronic countermeasures (ECM) suite made by the KNIRTI institute uses both its own arrays and that of the N036 radar system. One of its arrays is mounted in the dorsal sting between the two engines.^[80] The system was mounted on the aircraft in 2014.^[15]
The UOMZ 101KS Atoll electro-optical system includes the 101KS-V infra-red search and track turret mounted on the starboard side in front of the cockpit. This sensor can detect, identify, and track multiple airborne targets simultaneously.^[74] The 101KS-O infrared countermeasure system has sensors housed in turrets mounted on the dorsal spine and forward fuselage and uses laser-based countermeasures against heat-seeking missiles. The Atoll complex also includes the 101KS-U ultraviolet missile warning sensors and 101KS-N navigation and targeting pod.^[105]

NIIP N036-1-01 X-band AESA radar
N036L-1-01 L-band AESA radar
N036B-1-01 X-band AESA radar
101KS-V infra-red search and track
101KS-N Targeting pods and 101KS-U ultraviolet warning sensors and N036UVS computer and processor

Operational history

Testing

The 929th State Flight Test Centre (GLITS) received its first T-50 prototype for further testing and state trials on March 2014, and Russian Air Force Commander-in-Chief Lieutenant General Viktor Bondarev said that deliveries of initial production T-50 fighter were expected to begin in 2016.^[31]^[106]^[107] External weapon trials then started in May 2014.^[108]

Exports

Sukhoi states that the main export advantage of the PAK FA is its lower cost than current US fifth generation jet fighters.^[109] Russia was reported to be offering the PAK FA for South Korea's next generation jet fighter.^[110] South Korea's defence procurement agency confirmed that the Sukhoi PAK FA was a candidate for the Republic of Korea Air Force's next-generation fighter (F-X Phase 3) aircraft;^[111] however, Sukhoi did not submit a bid by the January 2012 deadline.^[112]
Russia's Centre for Analysis of World Arms Trade predicts that the PAK FA will be available for export in 2025;^[113] though this may include the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA for India,^[114] the primary export version.^[115] Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, has projected that Vietnam will be the second export customer for the fighter.^[116] In 2012, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said that Russia and India would jointly build the export version of the T-50 starting in 2020.^[117] In 2013, United Aircraft Corporation president Mikhail Pogosyan said that the Russian PAK FA and the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA will use "identical onboard systems and avionics".^[118]
In 2013, Russia made an unsolicited call for Brazil to help in developing a next-generation fighter based on the T-50.^[119]^[120]

Variants

FGFA

Main article: Sukhoi/HAL FGFA

The completed joint Indian/Russian versions of the single-seat or two-seat FGFA will differ from the current T-50 flying prototypes in 43 ways with improvements to stealth, supercruise, sensors, networking, and combat avionics.^[121]
In March 2010, Sukhoi director Mikhail Pogosyan projected a market for 1,000 fighter aircraft over the next four decades, which will be produced in a joint venture with India, 200 each for Russia and India and 600 for other countries.^[122] He has also said that the Indian contribution would be in the form of joint work under the current agreement rather than as a joint venture.^[123] In June 2010, the Indian Air Force planned to receive 50 of the single-seat "Russian version" before receiving the two-seat FGFA.^[124] Then in an October 2012 interview the Chief of Air Staff of India, NAK Browne, said that the IAF will purchase 144 of the single-seat FGFA. To reduce development costs and timelines, the IAF plans to begin induction of the FGFA in 2020.^[125]

Naval and other versions

Navalized Sukhoi T-50 PAK FAs will be deployed on the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and future Russian aircraft carriers.^[126] There will be a competition between the Sukhoi, Mikoyan and Yakovlev design bureaus to choose the new naval aircraft.^[4]
Alexei Fedorov has said that any decision on applying fifth-generation technologies to produce a smaller fighter (comparable to the F-35) must wait until after the heavy fighter, based on the T-50, is completed.^[127]

Accidents

On 10 June 2014, the fifth flying prototype, aircraft T-50-5, was severely damaged by an engine fire after landing. The pilot managed to escape unharmed. Sukhoi stated that the aircraft will be repaired, and that the fire "will not affect the timing of the T-50 test program".^[128]^[129]

Specifications (T-50)

Data from Aviation News,^[130] Aviation Week,^[131] Air International^[132]

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 19.8 m (65.0 ft)
Wingspan: 13.95 m (45.8 ft)
Height: 4.74 m (15.6 ft)
Wing area: 78.8 m² (848.1 ft²)
Empty weight: 18,000 kg (39,680 lb)
Loaded weight: 25,000 kg (55,115 lb) typical mission weight, 29,270 kg (64,530 lb) at full load
Max. takeoff weight: 35,000 kg (77,160 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × NPO Saturn izdeliye 117 (AL-41F1) for initial production, izdeliye 30 for later production^[80] thrust vectoring turbofan
- Dry thrust: 93.1 kN / 107 kN (21,000 lbf / 24,300 lbf) each
- Thrust with afterburner: 147 kN / 167 kN (33,067 lbf / 37,500 lbf) each
Fuel capacity: 10,300 kg (22,700 lb)^[133]

Performance

Maximum speed:
- At altitude: Mach 2.3 (2,440 km/h, 1,520 mph)
- Supercruise: Mach 1.6 (1,700 km/h, 1,060 mph)
Range: 3,500 km (2,175 mi) subsonic
- 1,500 km (930 mi) supersonic^[80]
Ferry range: 5,500 km (3,420 mi) with one in-flight refueling^[134]
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,000 ft)
Wing loading: 317–444 kg/m² (65–91 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight:
- Saturn 117: 1.02 (1.19 at typical mission weight)
- izdeliye 30: 1.16 (1.36 at typical mission weight)
Maximum g-load: +9.0 g^[100]

Armament

Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.181 in) 9A1-4071K (GSh-301) cannon in right LEVCON root
Air to air loadout:
- 4× K-77M or 4× izdeliye 810
- 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
Air to ground loadout:
- 4× Kh-38M or 4× Kh-58UShK or 8× KAB-250 or 4× KAB-500
- 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
Air to sea loadout:
- 4× Kh-35
- 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
Hardpoints: Six external hardpoints.^[135]
- Kh-31^[136]
- R-73^[137]
- R-77^[137]

Avionics

Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES)
- N036 Byelka radar system
  - N036-1-01: Frontal X-band AESA radar
  - N036B-1-01: Cheek X-band AESA radars for increased angular coverage
  - N036L-1-01: Slat L-band arrays for IFF
- L402 Himalayas Electronic countermeasure suite
101KS Atoll electro-optical system^[74]
- 101KS-O: Laser Directional Infrared Counter Measures
- 101KS-V: Infra-red search and track
- 101KS-U: Ultraviolet Missile Approach Warning system
- 101KS-N: Targeting pod

Search This Blog

Wikipedia

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Fifth Generation Fighter Pics 2

This futuristic fighter jet will probably be unveiled to America during the Super Bowl

Look Out, China: Japan’s New Stealth Fighter Is Just the Start

Unready for War: America’s F-35 Gets a Bad Report Card

http://nextbigfuture.com/

January 29, 2016

F35 stealth fighter program resorting to systemic cheating and lying to pretend a bad project is not really worse

This Nation Wants America's Most Lethal Stealth Warplane Ever

Get Ready, China and Russia: America's Armed Forces Want 'Swarm' Weapons

HAL AMCA

Contents

Development

AMCA Program

Funding

Design phase

Previous designs

Finalised concept

Project Definition phase

ETMD phase

Engine Development

Prototype

Design

Overview

Airframe

Flight Surfaces and Controls

Propulsion

Stealth and radar signature

Armament and stores

Avionics and equipments

Radar and sensors

Cockpit

Electronic countermeasures and self repair

Navalised AMCA

Specifications

HAL Tejas

Contents

Development

Origins

LCA program

Prototypes and testing

Operational clearance

Design

Overview

Airframe

Avionics

Flight controls

Propulsion

Operational history

Variants

Prototypes

Planned production variants

Operators

Specifications (HAL Tejas Mk.1A)

America’s B-2 Stealth Bombers Carry a Dangerous Burden

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Contents

Development

JSF program requirements and selection

Design phase

Program cost increases and delays

Concerns over performance and safety

Pentagon−Lockheed Martin relation issues

Upgrades

Design

Overview

Engines

Armament

Stealth and signatures

Radar

Acoustic

Cockpit

Sensors and avionics

Helmet-mounted display system

Maintenance

Operational history

Testing

Training