When the F-35A Lightning II 18 months ago took home the HX program it solidified its position as the fighter of choice for Western countries – something further amplified when Germany did a rather last-minute about-turn and ditched the planned Super Hornet/Growler-package for the F-35A as their nuclear strike platform of choice. With the program moving along steadily, an update on the status of the program (nowadays officially referred to as the F-35 program rather than as the HX program, since the ‘X’ in the equation is known) might be in order.
To begin with the aircraft has received its identity. It will be known as ‘JF’ in Finnish Air Force-lingo, which true to tradition uses the two-letter designation found in the alpha-numerical military registration as an aircraft’s semi-official nickname. The Hornets are HN, the Hawks are HW, and the NH90 is – unsurprisingly – NH. A few more creative designations are found (looking at you, Dornier Do 228 ‘MV’ of the Border Guard and hence civilian registered), but the only real question for the F-35 was whether we would end up with ‘LI’ for ‘Lightning’ or something else. The Air Force went for the more common Joint Strike Fighter-moniker while also taking the opportunity to stress the joint-nature of the capabilities acquired. The aircraft will sport running numbers starting at JF-501 and ending with JF-564, with 511 and 531 sporting subdued version of the insignias of Fighter Squadron 11 and 31 respectively – the two operational fighter squadrons of the Finnish Air Force (that’s a wisent and lynx respectively). While not much in the way of colour, this is still more than many F-35A operators, so I guess plane spotters have to be happy with what they get.
Here however we should take our time to point out an important detail, and that is that similar to the current Hornet-fleet Finland will operate a single-fleet of aircraft, with neither squadron (or Satakunta Air Command over at Tampere-Pirkkala for that matter) actually ‘owning’ any aircraft. I would assume the JF-511 and JF-531 will spend most of their careers at ‘their’ units, but for all intents and purposes the life-cycle of the fleet will be planned around a single large pool of aircraft. This also means that both squadrons will be trained to the same standards, a demanding proposition for anyone set to fly a modern -role aircraft able to conduct air superiority, deep strike, dynamic and pre-planned strikes on ground targets (CAS, air interdiction, SEAD/DEAD, …), naval strike, as well as ISR missions. “Flexibility through the platform employed”, as one of the officers expressed it.
This is a serious increase in the training level expected from the pilots – the Finnish Air Force has traditionally flown fewer annual flight hours per pilot compared to most other western forces, though the emphasis on a single role (air to air) and the extremely short transitions between air bases and training areas have according to most accounts made up for this. For the F-35A, the short transitions will obviously be the same, and in addition the increased number and fidelity of the simulators (as discussed in the last post) will help offload some of the training – in particular as there are moments you don’t want to train out in the open (as also discussed in the last post).
The F-35 has been in the news recently due to discussions about the standard Finland is acquiring not having cleared all the hurdles of the US Department of Defense. As a quick refresher on the basics, Finland is getting the Block 4 standard, which will include a host of upgrades both when it comes to new weapons integrated, but also significantly better electronic warfare capabilities and sensor improvements which altogether will mean that the Block 4 is a significantly more capable aircraft than the more than 935 F-35 which have already been delivered (and in some cases seen combat).
However, all these nice upgrades will also require changes to the hardware, with these changes being packaged under the TR-3 designation which brings increased computing power and other changes to facilitate the upgrades.In addition there is a third aspect, namely that the increased computing power will need more electric power and crucially more cooling to work as intended. There has been significant discussion on whether this should mean a new engine for the F-35, or whether the current F135 can be upgraded to meet the upcoming requirements. Earlier this spring it was decided to move forward with the latter option, and the Engine Core Upgrade won over the option to re-engine the F-35 fleet with the winner of the Adaptive Engine Transition Program. A new engine would in all likelihood have been the more expensive option, and there were serious questions whether it could fit all three F-35-variants (in particular the STOVL F-35B was seen as possibly unable to fit the AETP-frontrunner XA100). As such, the ECU is in many ways the sensible option, and crucially means it is able to be fielded as a retrofit to the already produced aircraft without having to buy a completely new engine.
For Finland, few of the delays and questions regardings how the different parts of the packages will be rolled out directly affect the project. The benefit of jumping on the aircraft at this stage is that with the TR-3 already rolling off the production line (even if the Pentagon aren’t accepting them quite yet) the JF-501 – which is currently in very early production – will sport the appropriate hardware for Block 4 from the get-go. The Block 4 software schedule also nicely matches the Finnish timeline with FOC at the later stages of the decade, and the decision to upgrade the engines rather than procure new ones looks like a solid choice which will minimise interruptions and extra costs.
The biggest change to the Finnish F-35 project without doubt has not been anything related to the program itself, but the Finnish NATO-membership which became a fact this year. Without taking anything away from the well-run HX program, it is clear that the program got somewhat lucky here. Many of the most serious questions surrounding the option of using F-35 in a Finnish context were centered on how to work around how integrated the aircraft was in the global user base, with the sharing of data, spares, and munitions struggling to translate well into a Finnish context. With Finland no longer focused on the ability to go alone if need be, the value of operating the de facto standard NATO-standard in Europe gives significantly added benefits which weren’t a factor in the evaluation two years ago. In particular, the ability to operate the same fighter as our close allies in Norway and Denmark is huge. How much closer our integration with the Royal Norwegian Air Force will be in the coming decade remains to be seen, but it is certain that it is something both countries will benefit from.
But, hey! Who said you aren’t allowed to have a nice windfall every once in a while?
hi,
if the NATO standard is circa 180 flight hours per year per pilot, how does that compare to Finnnish pilots?
I lean to the tech side and I believe the adaptive engine would have been a huge mistake. Its not that its not got possibilities, but GE oversold those obviously wanting to get P&W out of the F-35 (I really don’t like re-use of aircraft names).
As P&W has a demo Adaptive Engine, they might have won. Hard telling as they have had issues with the civilian GTF.
But in neither case was the adaptive engine a proven design, it is a prototype at best and test stand hours. The P&W F-35 engine has been proven by this point (yes its had some issues, they all do). So yes the upgraded engine is the way to go. The USAF in its bad management of the F-35 project did not project growth and they shorted the program on spare parts as well as not enough overhaul capacity they are still working through.
Right now the USAF has not even established what the specifics for the upgraded engine are. They should have had that ready.
CAS: I don’t ever see the F-35 as CAS. The gun has all of 2 seconds worth of ammo. I do not recall a gun kill since the Vietnam war and does 2 seconds of firing even get you that? The WWII CAS fades into the past and not something today’s fast jets are any good at. USAF is getting rid of the A-10 as soon as they can. Artillery and maybe Attack Helicopters are the CAS going forward. Ukraine war has shown AH type are at severe risk if you do not own the air and manpads have a major impact regardless.
One of the interesting aspects of US fighter jet engines is the same PW and GE. It was interesting to get input from pilots that the GE in the F-15 is by far the better engine even if they look to have the same thrust.
The GE is a latter design engine and has better acceleration characteristics and completely liked by the pilots and the PW not at all.
Where the F-35 engine falls I don’t know as it its a latter engine as well and we began to hear fit issues out of the Adaptive Engine program and that program no matter what mfg has no maturity so would have all the normal new engine issues as well as the Adaptive Part.
If they did it they would still need to do an upgraded F-35 engine and only bring in an Adaptive Variant when it was matured and even then as we have seen with other engines, they still have teething issues.