Two new F-35I aircraft have landed in Nevatim, Israel.

The two jets will join the ranks of the IAF’s Adir Division, which was declared operational in December 2017.

Regarding the difference between the F-35I and F-35A, a senior Israeli air force official stated, “the aircraft will be designated F-35I, as there will be unique Israeli features installed in them.”

The United States initially refused to allow the integration of Israel’s own electronic warfare systems into the aircraft’s built-in electronic suite. However, Israel planned the introduction of a plug-and-play feature added to the main computer to allow for the use of Israeli electronics in an add-on fashion, and to fit its own external jamming pod.

Lockheed Martin say that the continuous integration of the ‘Adir’ aircraft is another aspect of the long-running military cooperation between Israel and the US.

Israel is currently building the infrastructure needed to accommodate F-35s, including hardened aircraft shelters, underground pens, and maintenance facilities. In addition, the IAF has ordered 30 M-346 trainer jets to train F-35 pilots. Construction of a manufacturing facility to produce wings under license for the F-35 was completed mid-2014. The site is to produce a total of 811 wing pairs. Initial orders for the F-35 were for 20 jets, with a total of 75 intended

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

17 COMMENTS

  1. From the article:
    The site is to produce a total of 811 wing pairs.

    Israel like Turkey put much less into the F35 than the Uk did, yet both countries have appeared to have received substanial deals reguards the F35 than the UK did, Are our Political elites so damn weak that they couldnt have got more work regards the F35 to these shores

    • The UK will build 20% of every single F35 that flys. We are the only tier 1 partner in the program, the program will bring in billions to the treasury, and support 25,000 UK jobs. ?

    • The UK is getting 15% of the program of a projected 3,000 aircraft. The UK plans to buy 35 F-35’s through 2022. Just how is the UK getting screwed?

      • The UK is not getting screwed.

        But how many the UK is buying is not relevant either. I believe the UK share in the programme is due to the initial R&D money the UK put into the programme, which made the UK a Tier 1 partner, which Israel and Turkey are not.

        That is all I believe Farouk was meaning.

        I had read £2 Billion but unsure how correct that is?

        • I read the same figure, although it may have gone up a bit over time.
          To be honest, we got a good deal with that; considering the spiralling costs of the design and development of the aircraft, contributing what would have been ~10% of the D&D budget at the time, yet still remaining a tier1 partner when that same amount is now a far smaller percentage.
          I know there’s an argument that we shouldn’t be financially punished for mismanagement of the project, but considering how much we were involved, some of that blame could well have been down to the UK (MOD has form for this, let’s face it!), yet we took a very small portion of the risk.

    • We still get 15% of every complete fighter those sets of wings attach to and-
      hopefully bringing earlier returns to the UK’s coffers; being reinvested into the Tempest Program.
      I understand your argument as regards workforce, but I’d rather see Israel produce them, developing closer military ties during and after a transitional Brexit.

      I don’t feel we could have had the same relationship with Turkey…

    • Worth noting that as the F35 roll out continues in the USA, UK, etc etc the price to manufacture decreases as they streamline and improve procesess. Thats always the way. Jump early pay more, wait a bit and possibly get a discount.

  2. Let’s hope the Israelis go ahead with developing conformal fuel tanks and that if they do they will fit the F-35B. (If they go ahead then I assume that Israel would develop them primarily for their F-35As. Is the fuselage shape similar enough between the A and B for them to be likely to be interchangeable? It looks the same from photos.)

    Then again, even if F-35B compatible conformal fuel tanks do become available how much slack is there in terms of weight that an F-35B can get off the deck of a QEC? I suppose that if it was using conformal tanks it would be to preserve stealth so wouldn’t have anything on the wing hardpoints so maybe it becomes a choice or either boosting range for a stealthy internal-load-only mission or carrying extra load (possibly including drop tanks) on the external hardpoints and if doing that (carrying external munitions) then maybe not having enough (or any) spare lift capability left to also get conformal fuel tanks off the deck.

    • The F35B has a wider fuselage, especially behind the cockpit compared to the A and C versions. This is to allow for installation of the vertical lift fan required for Vertical take-offs or landing. The increased surface area and width of the fuselage slightly limits its top speed compared to the A and C versions.

      The F35B is designed to be able to take-off at max all up weight using the ship’s ramp. This means if the aircraft is in its dirty configuration using its wing hardpoints and internal bay it can carry a payload of 15,000lbs. (Needs the full length of the deck for the run up though!) The Israelis/Lockheed Martin have not said how the conformal fuel tanks will be fitted to the aircraft, i.e. above the wing like the F16 or along the fuselage below the wing like the F15. The thing with the tanks is that they and the fuel must be included in the max all weight calculation of up to 15,000lbs.

      In regards to stealth or maintaining the aircraft’s RCS. Conformal fuel tanks are significantly better than underwing drop tanks, as they become part of the structure. They are designed to fit flush with the aircraft’s skin. This is to aid aerodynamics but also bonding to the structure to minimise the potential difference. If the material used (probably carbon fibre) is then coated with the same “paint” as the aircraft, the overall RCS should not increase to make a difference.

      The whole point of the conformal fuel tank on the F35 is to increase its range, without compromising its stealth. The inner underwing hardpoints are plumbed for fuel but would significantly raise the aircraft’s RCS. The option of having the conformal tanks fitted would be ideal for a carrier combat air patrol, so it can either push out the boundary or remain on station for longer. The other bonus is that with the tanks fitted it frees up the pylons for weapons rather than drop tanks.

      So if they do build the tanks for F35 and a B version is built, its a win-win for us and our aircraft as it gives us more options and flexibility.

        • Cheers Nigel, I have spoken to some RAF friends who work on the F35 in the States and they have practised fitting external tanks to the internal wing hard-points. These were the ex-Tornado 2250 litre tanks, they weren’t filled and the aircraft did not take-off with them fitted. They didn’t mention the tanks weren’t cleared for flight, now it makes sense.

          According to the “Drive” the Israelis have developed a bigger 600lb tank than the one Lockheed Martin were developing. With this tank fitted it will help ferry range, but won’t be used in combat due to the massively increased RCS they generate. Even with the hard-points banged-off, the aircraft’s RCS won’t be as good as when in the clean configuration. This is because there will be uncovered electrical and fuel connectors, that will return a radar signal. The best option is still the CFTs, whether they’ll hinder the aircraft’s manoeuvrability will need to be watched. But I’d be surprised if the Israelis would be happy with that outcome.

      • Thanks Davey. Potentially a shame about the fuselage differences but depending on how (where) the conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) fit it may or may not be an issue I suppose. There were rumours at one point that Israel was also looking at adding some F-35B for its austere basing capability so, even if 2 variants of the CFT were necessary, perhaps the B variant might not be totally off the Israeli’s radar (no pun intended!). If the Israelis were to go ahead with an A-only version I would have thought, given the significant benefits that CFTs could bring to our Bs, that it would be well worth the UK considering contributing some development funding to enable a B variant to be created as well.

        As well as CAP I can see CFTs being useful to extend range for day one strikes against air defences and other key targets against a peer or near-peer adversary where by definition those strikes would need to be stealthy and weapons load not carried on the wings would I hope offset the extra fuel load with the increased range allowing deeper penetration into enemy territory and/or a greater stand-off distance for the carrier.

        What’s the score on good old fashioned drop tanks for the F-35B? Are they being developed and if so then technologically are they “old fashioned” or are they being designed like the gun pod to have stealth characteristics?

        If drop tanks are available and are not stealthy, or at least not stealthy enough for a day one mission, then what are the practical operational considerations of using them anyway? Would they be an option to be carried part way towards a target and then jettisoned at sea before the aircraft and within enemy radar range to at least fuel takeoff and the first however many miles of distance to the target?

        • As I mentioned above, Lockheed Martin and Israel are developing an official drop tank. The wing inner hard-point are already plumbed for fuel, they’re just not cleared for use.

          It will be very unlikely that drop tanks are used in any peer vs peer conflict. For somewhere like Afghan, yes they would be fine. The problem is not just the drop tank, but the hard-point which creates a lovely near 90 degree angle with the wing. This is brilliant for radar reflections, not so much for your stealth. The tank and hard-point could be coated with a radar absorbent paint to reduce the reflection, but the angle would still be the problem, as at some angles would give a perfect return to the search radar.

          As I mentioned, if you jettison the drop tank, the area on the wing that the hard-point connects to, will be left unprotected. What I mean is that the self sealing fuel connector and electrical connectors will be left open to view and not covered. Even though these items will be quite small in area, for high frequency radar (high X band and K band) they will show up quite nicely and may be susceptible to Raleigh scattering at slightly lower frequencies.

          For normal long distance ferry runs the drop dank makes a lot of sense as it reduces the number of times you need to tank during the flight. The USMC when flying their F35Bs to Afghan from the Gulf had to tank a number of times.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here