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.
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?
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.
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.
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 additional funding and/or time for completion. 🤔😳🙄
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.
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.
That seems like a optimistic to the point of unrealistic schedule…
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 continue funding the correct solution, but in the end were forced to stop. This is the reality of US partnerships.
Another great example is the Airtanker program- if foreign firms win, there will be law suits, lobbying and stamping of feet until the contract is wholly US. Look what a resounding clusterfcuk Boeing made of that programme.
Brimstone is another classic – Proven, effective, available! Congressmen lobbied for the Defense Dept to buy it. What did they do? Develop their own version.
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!
Very concise! Having worked on the project… The JPO would publish data that we all knew was incorrect, over ambitious or downright fiction!
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 until LM sort these out. Typhoon will be nearing the end of airframe life.
At the moment Tempest spend is still at the development part of the S curve.
Surely to god we are making a very short sighted premature decision, which will put relations with Japan back decades and forever brand us an unreliable partner.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know more than I do,
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hit the nail on the head mate.
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.
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 do, atleast the USAF has F22 to fall back on but F18 is not going to be very intimidating in a shooting war with China and they have only a small fleet of F35C.
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.
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,
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 combat china Russia and Iran…
That was it …that’s what was said..a couple of papers did a “ ohhh my what happens if the defence review says we don’t need tempest and the government says it will follow the recommendations of the defence review”…one expert who was not related to the government or part of the review team said ohhh we should use the tempest money for other stuff…then the echo chambers kicked in…
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 truth is that Labour need to lay out a plan for 2.5% then onto 3%.
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.
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.
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 limits caused by their poor demographics and in the case of Russia their meme based economy.
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 VLS, order 5 T31B2s ASW spec, and buy in SMART-L MM to upgrade the B1s, stop messing about with H&W—take a punt and give them the £200m guarantee. Start the project to build new larger drydocks in Devonport. Complete Bulwark and get it into operation. Get FADS/T83 out of concept by the end of the year. Start the Vixen project, asking BAE, GA and Bayraktar to quote for demonstrator delivery in 2027. Add defences to QE class. Tell the National Shipbuilding Office, it has an extra £500m a year for small ship orders for ferries, cutters, Archer replacements, etc – anything over 50t displacement, to work with DE&S.
Speed the upgrade of the Typhoons and plan for all T2s as well as T3s. (When Finland was a possible Typhoon export we were looking at the upgrades coming by 2025, but when they went for the F35s, our upgrades were pushed back, so we know this is just a money thing.) Order 24 tranche 4 Typhoons. Order two more E-7s.
Ditch Bowman! I don’t care if that means proprietary from L3 Harris or Elbit. Going open (Morpheus EVO) was a wonderful idea and it failed. Move on. No Ajax or Boxer should have Bowman at the core of its comms, just a compatibility converter. Speed Boxer and Ajax. Upgun Boxer. Reconstitute Warrior CSP to keep up capability until Ajax and Boxer are onstream. Test KDNS tracked Boxer base. Put some solid dates on MFP and if they are too far away, get more Archers. Restart the MRV-P programme, whether it’s Supacat or Oshkosh, just get on with it.
If we can’t get back into Galileo, we build or own satellites alongside other non-EU partners, such as Australia and Japan (maybe QZSS/GPS compatible). Plan Skynet 6B and embark on Skynet 7 design. Speed/upgrade the repositionable LEO communications constellations (C-Leo) and the ISTARI programme. We are going the right way, just too slowly at only £40m a year for C-LEO.
I’ll skip cyber and move to networking and communications. Increased platform bandwidth and edge processing are both required. It’s time to nail down the technology specs of the Digital Backbone. For multi-domain C2 (and whatever other C number you care to pick), especially in collaboration with NATO allies, we need a solid set of data connectivity standards. To process and make use of the mass of data will require a significant increase in processing power, and chips of all kinds are getting hard to come by. Imagine if it all kicks off over taiwan. Incentivise NVIDIA to set up shop in UK, and start a UK CHIPS Act equivalent. Spin out a Defence Quantum Centre from DSTL, for sensors, PNT and the like.
Take the breaks off MOD civil service, allowing MOD departments to bid into frameworks and staff the winners as an internal profit centres (with suifficient bonuses to make up for pay shortfalls).
Create a new Defence Communications and Education Centre whose job is to explain Defence to the UK masses (including politicians) and to ensure that sufficifient well-educated and, ideally, motivated young people in the UK understand the purpose and benefits of joining the military, even if they choose not to join.
Have I spent £25bn yet? Give me another half hour and I’m sure I can type up a few more. We might not be able to get new Typhoons going this year, but all the rest is pretty much short term.
“Have I spent £25bn yet?”
You may have spent nearly 50% extra on defence, over the long-term as well.
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…
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.
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.
The Government shouldn’t let the Yanks or LM for that matter anywhere near the Tempest program
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.
👍Exactly!
It’s nothing more than newspaper speculation!
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.
I can see you are a glass half full kind of person.
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.
The only outlets reporting the potential cancelation were the Tory press!
Hopefully as it would be incredibly short sighted
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.
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.
And who does it better exactly? Some of the comments on this site are clown material.
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 learn lessons as its budgets were squeezed.
I think the DOD will learn the same lessons soon.
It’s insane that American tax payers part with nearly $1 trillion a year and yet the military has major budget shortfalls.
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.
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!!
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?
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 the government will not want this defence review to look like it’s cutting the defence budget rather than increasing it.