The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F-35 Lightning II, have announced that deliveries of the first Technology Refresh-3 (TR-3) configured F-35 aircraft began today.

Two F-35A Lightning II aircraft were delivered, one to Dannelly Field, Alabama, and one to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.

“We have initiated a phased approach to the delivery of TR-3 F-35 aircraft,” said Lt. Gen. Mike Schmidt, the JPO’s Program Executive Officer.

“The first phase will deliver jets with an initial training capability in July and August. By the end of August, we will be delivering jets with a robust combat training capability, as we continue towards the delivery of full TR-3 combat capabilities in 2025. Our focus has been on providing our customers with aircraft that are stable, capable, and maintainable, and this phased approach does that.”

The newly delivered aircraft follow standard government acceptance procedures that include final airworthiness certifications and check-out flights.

“TR-3 and Block 4 represent a critical evolution in capability and their full development remains a top priority for us,” said Bridget Lauderdale, vice president and general manager of the F-35 Program, Lockheed Martin. “These and further software updates over the life of the program will ensure the F-35 continues to be an effective deterrent and the cornerstone of joint all-domain operations now and decades into the future.”

“I am extremely proud of all the hard work the government and industry team have put into the delivery of TR-3 configured F-35s.This is an important first step, and although much work remains, I am confident our team will work tirelessly to achieve the desired and necessary results that our warfighters, allies and customers require.” Schmidt said.

What does this all mean?

The Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) upgrade for the F-35 brings substantial improvements to its computing power. These enhancements include advanced sensor suites that boost the aircraft’s ability to detect and respond to threats. Additionally, when integrated, the F-35 gains upgraded long-range precision weapons, allowing it to strike targets more accurately from greater distances.

Another critical aspect of the TR-3 upgrade is the enhancement of the F-35’s electronic warfare systems, making the jet more adept at countering and surviving against sophisticated threats. Improved data fusion capabilities enable better analysis and sharing of battlefield information, enhancing the jet’s effectiveness in coordinated combat operations.

At the heart of the TR-3 upgrade is a significant increase in processing power and memory capacity. This boost allows the F-35 to run cutting-edge software necessary for modern warfare. These comprehensive improvements impact almost every feature of the aircraft, enhancing its safety, stability, and performance and ensuring the F-35 remains at the pinnacle of military aviation technology. In theory, anyway.

Avatar photo
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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

58 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Lord Baddlesmere
Lord Baddlesmere (@guest_836522)
17 days ago

I presume this is the truncated TR3 solution to allow LM to move some aircraft which are stacking up after the delivery ‘pause’ Any confidence in block 4 deliveries being timely has surely evaporated by now. I wonder what this means for SPEAR3 and Meteor integration? 2032?

Jim
Jim (@guest_836524)
17 days ago

I believe it is the truncated form, no mention about effect of SPEAR 3 and Meteor yet, Block IV is now being truncated however I believe Meteor is early in the set up so likely to be unaffected. I think SPEAR will be delayed.

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_836655)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

I’d rather get Spear online before Meteor frankly. AMRAAM D is a great missile, even if meteor is better.
Spear delivers a capability in terms of strike that is far beyond what we’ve currently got for F-35, and what is available for all the other operators too. That’s what we should be prioritising.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_836645)
16 days ago

Have learned from repeated trial (and error) to disregard any F-35 JPO published timeline re Block 4. The very first instance of a (semi)-plausible timeline for Block 4, will be after the final acceptance of the full version of TR-3. Truncated, “training version(s)” are a fig leaf to enable the release of undelivered a/c residing in warehouses. Unknowable whether delays in payment have had a salutary effect on LM. Personally now deem it to be a low probability outcome The next sticky wicket will be redefining the capabilities incorporated into Block 4. Can almost guarantee LM will be begging for… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_836658)
16 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

My understanding is that the engine doesn’t have the performance for full block IV, so until they work that out it’s miles away anyway. You’ve hit the nail smack on the head about re-baselining what block IV will be, in my view.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_836678)
16 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

Ah, yes, the somewhat infamous P&W Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) proposal to increase F-35 power and especially cooling. Design complete mid-2025(ish), testing 2026(ish), Initial deliveries in 2029(ish). Another snapping alligator in the F-35 development swamp. 🙄 Attitude is a byproduct of experience w/ SPOs and the associated defense contractor base.

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_837075)
15 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

That seems like a optimistic to the point of unrealistic schedule…

LordBaddlesmere
LordBaddlesmere (@guest_836880)
15 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

It’s bizarre Joe. It is my belief that the PW engine was chosen over the GE/RR engine because the workshare 60% GE 40% RR (Bristol & Cincinnati) would have meant significant work Carried out overseas by ‘aliens’ as the British and other nationalities are called. This was never going to happen – It is parochialism and protectionism at its worst. The project is now stuck with an engine that doesn’t meet the spiral development needs of the aircraft. LM will demand more funding, the project will be delayed by years. Congress could see this situation arising & had tried to… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_837871)
13 days ago

For a country with some of the most restrictive protectionist rules in the west, the US does a very good job of presenting itself as the bastion of free markets!

LordBaddlesmere
LordBaddlesmere (@guest_836830)
15 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Very concise! Having worked on the project… The JPO would publish data that we all knew was incorrect, over ambitious or downright fiction!

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_836527)
17 days ago

Meanwhile they are reporting the potential cancellation of Tempest. It did not take long for my faith in Labour to be disappointed. Bottom line. Yes we need to rearm now, yes we need to prepare for a conflict by the end of the decade but we also need to prepare for the next conflict. By the time Tempest was ready to be deployed we will need to replace alot of aircraft because they are ending the end of their life. F35 is no solution as the aircraft is running into problems, and even the USAF has hit the pause button… Read more »

Jack
Jack (@guest_836533)
17 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

All the Minister said was that Tempest was very important to Britain, working with allies is the best way to deliver such capabilities but he couldn’t explicitly say anything because he didn’t want to pre-empt the next defence review.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_836534)
17 days ago
Reply to  Jack

Yes I do think we need cool heads here, the likes of the Telegraph have long taken to sow FUD into anything it can use as a weapon against those it wishes to undermine, to them truth, facts and objectivity are just factors to be used sparingly in such matters.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_836537)
17 days ago
Reply to  Jack

All true, but how did the idea it could be cut in the public domain in the first place. This is classic politics 1 o 1.
At least the Defence review is being led by Lord Robertson who has the experience to look beyond the end immediate horizon.

Jim
Jim (@guest_836547)
17 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

Justin Bronk from RUSI said it should be cut to pay for more spares so we can go to war with Russia in 2028. That’s how it got in the public domain, not through labour.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_836551)
17 days ago
Reply to  Jim

You know more than I do,

Jim
Jim (@guest_836546)
17 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

That’s nonsense, all labour said is tempest is important and they can’t brief about capabilities and platforms in the face of a defence review. This is proper government and Tempest will be fine.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_836677)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

BELFAST — Britain’s new Labour government has declined to make a firm, long-term commitment to the multinational next-generation Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), citing concern over influencing the recently launched Strategic Defence Review (SDR).



John Williams
John Williams (@guest_836550)
17 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

Branding the UK has an unreliable partner may be the only thing which keeps the project alive. If it were a UK project only, I am certain it would be cancelled

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_836552)
17 days ago
Reply to  John Williams

It would certainly put U.K. Japan relations back decades. We are at the bottom of the Scurve on the projects development it will cost relatively “ little” to keep it going plus their is scope for collaboration with the US as both their 6th gen fighters had hit the wall and deemed unaffordable.

Jim
Jim (@guest_836554)
17 days ago
Reply to  John Williams

Exactly, this is the main reason we do collaboration. Even the USA has the same problem, almost every aircraft it tried to develop since the 70’s got canceled except international programs like F35. Now NGAD looks like an easy cut to save money.

Tempest will be fine, zero chance Kier Starmers telling Japan we are pulling out to save a few quid in the 2030’s while at the same time ending Britain’s military aircraft industry.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_836648)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

NGAD terminated? Doubtful, very doubtful. NGAD “restructured?” Very probable, especially under a Democratic administration. Exactly what that means in reality? Subject of future negotiation. If, perchance, NGAD is terminated, anticipate another partner in GCAP (invited or not), and “redefinition” of some requirements. Virtually guaranteed.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_836656)
16 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

To be honest it would not surprise me if all three western 6 gen programmes get folded into one..with a UK, Japanese, European and U.S. set of main assembly sites..The big issue will be the big US airo industries and willingness to work share.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_836679)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yup, all the children would have to be instructed to play together nicely in the sandbox. Probably useful to also have a belt available, just in case the children become ill-mannered.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_836774)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

No thank you! We’ve been screwed over by France and Germany too many times.
And as for the US aerospace giants, I think Europe would be buying their product, not the U.S. ours.
My big fear is Labour’s love in with the EU and merging our Tempest with their project, so handing over tech on a plate.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_836784)
16 days ago

I agree, but I sort of think this may be inevitable, I’m not sure there is the market for 3 western 6 generation fights…and development costs being what they are….But in the end it will not be a UK decision…but a partnership one.

Last edited 16 days ago by Jonathan
Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_836903)
15 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Hit the nail on the head mate.

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_836936)
15 days ago

It’s a very good point DM. I recall in the ’80s the French pulled this stunt with the Eurofighter pitch- completely unreasonable. Hance the development of Typhoon and Rafale.

Jim
Jim (@guest_836705)
16 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I hope your right but something has to give in the Airforce budget and I can’t see it being B21 or Sentinel ICBM. I think the USAF probably allowed Boeing and LM to indulge in all their worst fantasies and now they have a plane that’s starting at $300 million which probably means more like $600 million when finished and now they need to go away and start all over again. The unmanned components seem to be continuously de scoped as well. The USN version of NGAD seems to have disappeared as well. No idea what the navy plans to… Read more »

Jon
Jon (@guest_836822)
15 days ago
Reply to  Jim

Perhaps BAE should sell the USN a marinized Tempest in a USN airframe. Their main requirements won’t be that different from the Japanese, with additional requirements to get on/off a carrier and probably more sophisticated comms. Essentially though it’ll be a long-range interceptor that complements F-35 and can control unmanned platforms. Just like what everyone else wants.

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_836934)
15 days ago
Reply to  Jim

Unsure about that Jim (the USA)- look at the F22. I’m of the view the next gen us fighter will be of similar design i.e. high tech++. In particular if the USAF and Navy collaborate on the development and the buy,

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_836589)
16 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

There was literally nothing in the speech about cancelling Tempest..it’s literally made up… this is a classic case of bad journalism and Ecco chamberswhat was said was: 1) tempest is vitally important to the future of the Uk. 2) they were discussing the next steps of tempest with partner nations 3) the government supports tempest… 4) the defence review was expert led not politically lead and as a politician he was not going to write the review by making statements.. 5) they have asked the review to focus on what it needed over the next 3 years or so to… Read more »

Last edited 16 days ago by Jonathan
Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_836601)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I agree with you that Tempest is very badly needed however It is interesting that both the American 6th gen projects are being” reconsidered” I would have thought it was ripe for a Dreadnaught/AUKUS esk type of calibration on some of the key technology , such as the turbines. My concern is that when politician who cannot see past the end of their noses get involved, sensible rational decisions go out the window. However , with Lord Robertson lead the review, I am encouraged that the study will have considerable weight, and someone who will fight for it. The unpalatable… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_836607)
16 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

To be honest I think in the end defence spending will go well beyond the 3% mark…we are heading into something worse than the Cold War, china’s wolf warrior diplomacy is only going to get worse and worse.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_836651)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Huh, perhaps perversely, that is the most optimistic assessment of British defence strategy that has presented on this site, perhaps since inception! 👍 From an outsider’s perspective, there is very little wrong w/ the British military that could not be cured w/ massive infusions of coin of the realm.

Jim
Jim (@guest_836712)
16 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I would agree however no matter how much cash we inject we are not going to be able to grow our army to a significant scale without a draft or by taking more foreign mercenaries. Our industrial base won’t allow for much of an expansion in ship or aircraft building. If we start spending 3% of GDP on defence or more we may find limits as the US is finding now. It doesn’t matter how many submarines Congress wants to buy the industrial base can’t produce anymore. However it’s likely our potential adversaries in Russia and China have even bigger… Read more »

Jon
Jon (@guest_836793)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

I don’t think we’ll get close to the limits of UK industrial capacity by immediately moving up to 3%, or even higher if we can guarantee it’s not just a flash in the pan. Germany has just put in €100bn and has had no trouble spending it at all. We can easily accommodate an extra £25bn-£30bn a year. Remove the Armed Forces numbers cap. Recruit more and pay more. Put more money into training programmes. If necessary hire retirees or reservists to help out (or Chinese pilots 😉). Speed the T26s to one a year, with an increased number of… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_836834)
15 days ago
Reply to  Jon

“Have I spent £25bn yet?”

You may have spent nearly 50% extra on defence, over the long-term as well.

Jon
Jon (@guest_836846)
15 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

But, but, there’s an armoured division to start working up in year 2 and doubling the RFA and UK estate infrastructure and in year 3 GBAD and missiles and increasing power on the DEWs, maybe start work on tiltrotors. I missed out so much…

DB
DB (@guest_837603)
14 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

If they are baulking at getting rid of the 2 kids benefit because it is unfunded, eventhough defence does well spent sums in excess of 3%, it’s not going to happen unless we find El Dorado in the Langdale Pikes.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_837652)
13 days ago
Reply to  DB

It sort of depends…when I say it may head over 3% that’s because I think the security situation may plummet down to new levels of risk and we end up getting caught in a very significant arms race.

Bleak Mouse
Bleak Mouse (@guest_836640)
16 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

The Government shouldn’t let the Yanks or LM for that matter anywhere near the Tempest program

Jim
Jim (@guest_836737)
16 days ago
Reply to  Bleak Mouse

One of the main requirements for Tempest/GCAP is zero ITAR related content so no American components or defence contractors will be involved including their UK or Japanese subsidiaries.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_836833)
15 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

👍Exactly!

Marked
Marked (@guest_836626)
16 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

It’s nothing more than newspaper speculation!

Paul42
Paul42 (@guest_836664)
16 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

I think the key issue here is the preparation for a conflict by the end of the decade. If indeed that conflict should occur , there’s no guarantee there would ever be another….so to a degree, what’s being said makes sense, we need to sort out the hear and now, and spend accordingly.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_836694)
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul42

I can see you are a glass half full kind of person.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_836901)
15 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

It’s just a typical news story. All projects are reviewed as part of a new defence review. Some stories are leaked to test the waters. It’s a very old game. I’d take it with a mass pinch of salt. Nothing is certain with any project in the early stages.

Enobob
Enobob (@guest_837204)
15 days ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

The only outlets reporting the potential cancelation were the Tory press!

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_837242)
15 days ago
Reply to  Enobob

Hopefully as it would be incredibly short sighted

John
John (@guest_836535)
17 days ago

Cynical me says do not trust any American company to “deliver” anything on time and on budget. Their disregard for customers specific need stinks. They shoehorn “improvements” into a platform and call it progress. I firmly believe buying and becoming dependent on American kit is a mistake.

Jim
Jim (@guest_836548)
17 days ago
Reply to  John

I don’t think American companies are the problem, most are world leaders.

It’s American defence contractors that are the problem, much the same as ours where 15 years ago before reality dawned on them.

Chris
Chris (@guest_836644)
16 days ago
Reply to  John

And who does it better exactly? Some of the comments on this site are clown material.

Jim
Jim (@guest_836738)
16 days ago
Reply to  Chris

I think it’s hard for anyone to deny looking at the likes of the KC46, Sentinel ICBM, Starliner, LCS and Zumwalt to name but a few that the US defence contractors are on another level when it comes to cost over runs and expense. It’s a serious problem in the US that the Pentagon is screaming about itself. Too much money and too many political hands out. The Pentagon is also a big part of the problem with its demands for bespoke kit and it’s constant changing designs. The UK suffered from much the same issue but has had to… Read more »

Patient5150
Patient5150 (@guest_836997)
15 days ago
Reply to  John

Easy friend. The “special relationship” has advantages. I’m sure you would rather build Tempest rather than spend billions on developing a new SLBM made by Lockheed Martin.

DeeBee
DeeBee (@guest_836612)
16 days ago

More bad news for the F35 naysayers, the awesome F35 goes from strength to strength, cementing itself as one of the all time Greats of military aviation!!

RoboJ1M
RoboJ1M (@guest_836759)
16 days ago

Wow, in another decade they may finally finish designing the F-35! ☺️
I’m a huge fan of the F-35, but damn this is taking a long time to make.
We’re lucky they did take the parallel production while developing route, this would have been cancelled a decade ago otherwise.
It’s a shame they still do this in the traditional block structure, why not one weapon at a time, making each update quicker, cheaper and easier?

Adrian
Adrian (@guest_836796)
16 days ago

Lots of the issues are the moving target nature of requirements from the military, before long someone is going to realise a flying fighter jet the meets 90% of requirements is far better in a war than the perfect fighter jet still in design. On the Tempest cancellation rumours, I’d say unlikely as even the dumbest politician will know by 2035 the RAF will need to start replacing typhoon with something, if not Tempest it’ll be buying from the US and the pain of BAe job cuts will not be worth taking now to save on the defence budget. Also… Read more »