F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:Basically, if you want to drop a bomb on an ISIS building in Syria? You're good to go...Want to dismantle an integrated air defence system on the first day of war, the F-35's supposed raison d'etre?....can you come back in 6 years please?
You're pinning your logic to a weapon (Spear 3) that's not in service anywhere on any platform. Hurry up with its development and you might have a point however feeble.

PS Paveway IV is only good for ISIS??? Oh OK.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Bring Deeps wrote:In all the debate about how few F35s the UK has there hasn't been much recognition of how professional and successful the RN/RAF have been in re-creating fixed wing aviation.

Years ago I can remember the revised (post Brown carrier delay) timeline for the project being set out and the 2021 initial operational deployment looked as far away as a manned expedition to Mars.

Despite that, not only is the first QE tasking now in touching distance but, I don't think, the date has slipped.

How many Government or industry projects do that?

On top of that look at the progress made by the Indian, Russian and Chinese navies. It doesn't matter how much kit you have if you can't get it to work reliably, as intended or on schedule.

Of course the number of airframes is less than ideal but if the tie up with the USMC allows the RN to practice with 16 or 24 planes now then it can surge when more UK F35s are available having already developed the expertise.

BZ the RN, RAF and the UK.
100% behind this comment. Tired of the anti-US, glass half full, whinging on here.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:Absolute bollocks. Partners are asked to pay for integration of their weapons
ArmChairCivvy wrote:The Uk has added no weapons to the list... so no bill will be arriving.
Ron5 wrote:like I said, to cover the cost of UK only capability integration.
A 'slight' discrepancy... please explain your 'bollocks' - a legal term :) .

So LM wants UK to pay that percentage... on what, EXACTLY :?:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by downsizer »

Ron5 wrote:
downsizer wrote:I never said his point wasn't obtuse.
Booo. Clearly forgotten your Falklands adventure. Oh right, it was a Navy campaign, token involvement by the RAF.
I'm not really sure of your point? I'm well versed on the FI and assistance provided.

I suspect you are just being a dick.

And your point, which is valid, that we could use US weapons; but that isn't the intention.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

downsizer wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
downsizer wrote:I never said his point wasn't obtuse.
Booo. Clearly forgotten your Falklands adventure. Oh right, it was a Navy campaign, token involvement by the RAF.
I'm not really sure of your point? I'm well versed on the FI and assistance provided.

I suspect you are just being a dick.

And your point, which is valid, that we could use US weapons; but that isn't the intention.
Hey, you called me obtuse, just responding in kind. Now you say I have a valid point so ??

Anyhow, I was under the impression the US supplied weapons to the UK during the Falklands conflict. Maybe I am wrong.

PS it's also not the intention to have a hot war starting tomorrow is it?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Absolute bollocks. Partners are asked to pay for integration of their weapons
ArmChairCivvy wrote:The Uk has added no weapons to the list... so no bill will be arriving.
Ron5 wrote:like I said, to cover the cost of UK only capability integration.
A 'slight' discrepancy... please explain your 'bollocks' - a legal term :) .

So LM wants UK to pay that percentage... on what, EXACTLY :?:
Simples. The LM charge is for adding capabilities that the UK has requested. Covered under the aforementioned partnership agreement. Your implied meaning that LM is just passing on its cost overruns to the Brits is incorrect.

PS "bollocks" means you are talking out of your euro hat :D

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:100% behind this comment. Tired of the anti-US, glass half full, whinging on here.
I think you're being a little thin skinned on this. It's not anti-US in anyway shape or form. The US government and US military have played a pretty straight bat on F-35. And no-one is complaining (or in fact doing much beside praising them for that) about their part in this. The USMC's desire to put some F-35B on the QE Class is genuinely amazing when you think about it. They seem to care more about getting the most out of the UK's carriers than our own politicians do..

But Lockheed Martin are not the US...they're a defence company who are getting paid handsomely to deliver a capability...and I would have thought that anyone who supports the F-35 programme at the same time has to have some misgivings around their handling of the programme. You can see the same criticism everywhere on this forum of BAE. And they're ostensibly a British company...you'll usually find some admiration for how the French and Italians work on restrained budgets as well..

It's not glass half-full or whinging to point out that the F-35's capabilities are being delivered later and later which will have a real effect on the aircraft's combat potential for the first 10 years, a significant chunk, of their operational life. You'll find that people were doing exactly the same thing about Typhoon. The difference is that that delay there was primarily political and monetary. When they were removed progress was comparatively swift. F-35 on the other hand suffers from none of this. It has oodles of cash thrown at it, but timelines keep being pushed out.
Ron5 wrote:You're pinning your logic to a weapon (Spear 3) that's not in service anywhere on any platform. Hurry up with its development and you might have a point however feeble.
PS Paveway IV is only good for ISIS??? Oh OK.
I'm not saying that Paveway IV is not good...just pointing out that flying within 20 miles of an enemy's air defence system, airbase or ship, even in an F-35 on internal weapons only, is probably not what an airforce or pilot wants to be doing given any choice in the matter. The UK already removed Storm Shadow and Brimstone from integration in an effort to get things moving, and partly as a result of the delays getting to this point. Now the weapon that we put in place, that we are pinning our hopes on is likely to be delayed.

Here's the baseline weapons that F-35 was supposed to have at this stage....its a tiny bit unfair, admittedly, as some of the weapons are no longer to be integrated (but that's primarily due to delays in the programme in the first place), and SDB1 is not listed nor Asraam on external pylon, Paveway IV isn't either but the differences between GBU-12 and PWIV aren't that great...but I've not put a cross through the internal gun either as that's still not working properly, and I've been generous on the JDAM versions...

Do you not think that there might just be a problem? No-one was planning on putting these weapons aboard just for fun, they were seen as necessary.

Image

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Got it: UK wonderful, US bad, Typhoon wonderful, F-35 bad.

By the way when has this ever been not true in any aircraft ?? " ... flying within 20 miles of an enemy's air defence system, airbase or ship, even in an F-35 on internal weapons only, is probably not what an airforce or pilot wants to be doing given any choice in the matter".

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Got it: UK wonderful, US bad, Typhoon wonderful, F-35 bad.
For gods sake I haven't said that....Typhoon's development was plagued by delays due to politics and its joint development nature, massive cost over-runs and the full potential of the aircraft is still not being realised due to politics and and financial pressures. And its likely that it never will at the rate we're going and with the service life left in the air system.

But F-35 isn't suffering from that. I've been around enough complex government programmes to know that when an organisation is unable to meet deadlines and performance after numerous warnings from its stakeholders that it either doesn't have the will, or more worryingly the capability to do so. And the US GAO tends to agree to agree on the final point...

Having the RAF's last 4 purchased major combat platforms failing to meet their potential or encountering huge delays and costs to get there isn't the best position to be in...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Regarding the Falklands, the Sidewinder "Lima" was just one of the things the US provided to the UK, otherwise the Sea Harriers would have been using the old "Charlie" version.

As for the F-35, with all the delays etc, and assuming all F-35s have basically the same software installed so if on service has a weapon in service then other could also use it, Why doesn't the Rn use the 2021 cruise to get acquainted with what the USMC brings along as part of its baggage? At least them if the balloon went up we would have some experience in using these weapons systems and could therefore tap into US stocks if we were operating together. WE could even lease/borrow limited stocks to have prepositions at UK bases and have date on said weapons added to our simulators to aid training. Of course we could return the favour once our new weapons such as SPEAR are brought on line, allowing the USMC to use them is the situation required their use.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:Regarding the Falklands, the Sidewinder "Lima" was just one of the things the US provided to the UK, otherwise the Sea Harriers would have been using the old "Charlie" version.
The AIM-9C was a radar guided version that never went anywhere. The UK had AIM-9B and AIM-9G in stock. The UK also owned some AIM-9L.
What and how 9L was supplied by the US is a little unclear. Basically there are 3 versions. 1 - The UK used its own new AIM-9L stockpile that had been recently delivered to Wattisham, the US released some missiles from its own domestic stockpile to replenish the declared NATO war reserve stockpile after the UK missiles were removed. 2 - The US diverted an order for Israel (with their blessing) to the UK. This doesn't sound credible given Menachem Begin's declared hostility to the UK, and the fact that Israel actively supplied Argentina with the aim of causing UK casualties (and we should never forget that one...), 3 - US missiles were flown in by C-141 to Ascension and transferred to the Task Force.
Whats certain is there was a US supply of missiles, but whether any of them actually went south is another thing. It made little difference in practice as every single Sidewinder kill was a rear hemisphere shot in perfect IR homing missile conditions (no countermeasures, no RWR on targets, cold background, little sun, targets running at speed with hot exhausts, pursuing fighters usually having speed advantage, comparatively short range). It's likely that the 9B's and 9G's would have performed just as well as the 9L's. No 'all aspect' shots were taken.
Lord Jim wrote:Why doesn't the Rn use the 2021 cruise to get acquainted with what the USMC brings along as part of its baggage? At least them if the balloon went up we would have some experience in using these weapons systems and could therefore tap into US stocks if we were operating together.
They will be using the CSG21 to get acquainted. The question about how the USMC works onboard QE is an interesting one. Where does ammunitioning occur? The USMC has a negligible footprint in the UK. Will the UK have a stockpile of munitions that will be held for the USMC and embarked as necessary or will QE have to dock elsewhere and embark kit and stores for the US contingent?

But in terms of munitions that the USMC will initially bring along, there really isn't any point in the RN doing anything other than familiarising themselves with how they move them to USMC weapons prep teams from the magazine and then load/unload on aircraft. Because the USMC is in the same boat that we are:
25mm gun pod - They have them, but don't seem to carry them much. We're never going to have them, and gunnery isn't just a thing you pick up briefly.
AIM-9X - We've got lots of Asraam, so no real point.
Amraam - Already in use with UK
GBU-12 - UK is already familiar with this as its used on UK Reaper, very similar to Paveway IV
JDAM - Possibly, but if the UK runs out of Paveway IV we've got bigger problems..

No SDB1 or JSOW for the USMC on F-35B. And thats it for USMC weapons at present.

But realistically there is enough going on setting up and training the carrier capability for the next 5+ years without getting diverted on a scenario that is unlikely to be ever needed. Whilst the F-35's software allows other users to purchase a weapon that has been integrated by another customer thats only part of the story. Training to use the munition, developing procedures, tactics etc. takes a whole lot more time. And there's little point doing that unless you're actually going to use the munition on a regular basis. You could practice the capability, but are the crew who have practiced it actually going to be around in 10, 15 or 20 years when you might need to do it? Probably not. On the RN's list of things to do I suspect that would be near the bottom of a very, very long list.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:And the US GAO tends to
be my favourite, unbiased source for this thread. Only because they run so much behind the latest developments, sometimes one needs to add a 'few cherries' onto the cake, from elsewhere
- there are conviction writers on this topic, who eschew sources. Luckily fewer here than 'elsewhere'. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't be countered... or shall I say "neutered" - in a neutral way, not literary, of course?
Timmymagic wrote: The US diverted an order for Israel (with their blessing) to the UK. This doesn't sound credible given Menachem Begin's declared hostility to the UK, and the fact that Israel actively supplied Argentina with the aim of causing UK casualties (and we should never forget that one...)
Double act is not to be dismissed from the realm of possibilities:
- Exocet was only 'in induction' and France withdrew their experts
- Begin sent the replacement team in in a clandestine way
- so for "nothing to see here, we ain't done none act to be credible - at least in the short term - such a blessing could well have been forthcoming. We 'all' know that his grudge against the UK derived (mainly) from one of his 'bomb buddies' having been hanged for terrorist acts
Timmymagic wrote:The question about how the USMC works onboard QE is an interesting one
- the details on the weapons are important
- but more important is to get experience in handling 'some' all the way from the mags, to the teams that onboard with the a/c. Call that an 'alpha' test... the 'beta' can then be done with much more understanding of the overall process and possible hiccups - should it become urgent to fulfill any gap in either inventory or capability
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Bring Deeps
Donator
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Bring Deeps »

I can see that the position regarding munitions is not ideal and that the program delays and cost overruns have been very damaging. Thanks to everyone for making that clear.

You just have to hope that the integration issues can be resolved before we next go to war against a peer level armed force.

It is worth remembering that for years lots of people said that the F35 was going to be a complete disaster. Maybe, if the the armanents fit remains limited, it still will be but at least the airframe now seems to have proved itself to be capable enough.

In any event we have been told that fixed wing naval aviation is also about soft power projection and for that a full suite of weapons is not required.

The 2021 joint deployment with the USMC will be truly remarkable and a superb opportunity for learning from each other. At the same time other navies will look on with admiration, the great and good will queuing up for a free lunch when the carrier is in port and China's reaction will be fascinating.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:For gods sake I haven't said that....
What you have said: F-35 delays caused by LM incompetence - Typhoon problems caused by lack of money/politics. IOW, dumb Yankee engineers, brilliant British ones.

Glib over simplifications no doubt fueled by jingoistic UK aviation magazines.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:dumb Yankee engineers, brilliant British ones.
There are British engineers working on the software now as well...

But if you're persisting on this theme then fine, piss poor LM Programme Management has plagued the F-35's development. Happy now?
Are you going to disagree with that?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Timmymagic Wrote
“Will the UK have a stockpile of munitions that will be held for the USMC and embarked as necessary or will QE have to dock elsewhere and embark kit and stores for the US contingent?“
Ever heard of RAS? Do you not think that one of the evolutions to be practiced might be to RAS from a USN supply ship, to acquire USMC munitions. If USMC F35B are to become a credible (or regular) component of a QEC air group, this will definitely have to happen, or the USMC munitions could be loaded in port (or by RAS) onto Fort Victoria and passed on by RAS to HMS QE.
Solutions may have been identified, but to be effective they MUST be practiced! :mrgreen:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:But if you're persisting on this theme then fine, piss poor LM Programme Management has plagued the F-35's development.
Evidence?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Evidence?
Knock yourself out...

https://www.gao.gov/search?q=joint+stri ... mit=Search

Each delay, restructuring etc is symptomatic of incompetent programme management. Very well run programmes deliver early and under budget, good programmes deliver on time and on budget. F-35 is neither.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A recent episode, when Block4 was starting to come to the fore, was when Congress threatened to withhold 75% of the requested funding unless detail of that "project" within the prgrm was lodged
... and in no time at all the total estimate quadrupled.

Btw, this is all upstream on this thread. Challenging, without providing counter-evidence, is not the best way to carry on this conversation. Just my opinion - no more; no less :) .
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

Scimitar54 wrote:Ever heard of RAS? Do you not think that one of the evolutions to be practiced might be to RAS from a USN supply ship, to acquire USMC munitions. If USMC F35B are to become a credible (or regular) component of a QEC air group, this will definitely have to happen, or the USMC munitions could be loaded in port (or by RAS) onto Fort Victoria and passed on by RAS to HMS QE.
Solutions may have been identified, but to be effective they MUST be practiced!
Yes I've heard of RAS...
You're not going to lift all the stores required for a 12 aircraft deployment via a RAS.
The RAS systems on USNS vessels (and Fort Vic) can't lift the weight of a significant number of items required.
So we're back to...is the RN going to have to wait for the USMC to airlift a load of stuff over and get it loaded in port, or dock in a friendly port along the way to meet up with that gear..

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Evidence?
Knock yourself out...

https://www.gao.gov/search?q=joint+stri ... mit=Search

Each delay, restructuring etc is symptomatic of incompetent programme management. Very well run programmes deliver early and under budget, good programmes deliver on time and on budget. F-35 is neither.
Oh pulease. You really have to do better than - "duh, it's obvious mate, innit?".

And by that definition the UK has never had a good program. Ever.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Timmymagic

1. It is on record as being an 8 plane deployment (Not 12).
2. It does not have to be RAS’d in one go.
3. Some Items F35 engines may be brought by MV22, if that is how the USN do it onto the Wasp class etc.

Finally, and I assume you read my earlier post fully??? Any proposed means of supply must be fully tested to ensure that it is viable/sustainable for a future larger deployment (12 or more) including the possibility of Crisis response. :mrgreen:

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Just Noticed, my last post must be the work of the devil! :mrgreen:

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by bobp »

Timmymagic wrote:So we're back to...is the RN going to have to wait for the USMC to airlift a load of stuff over and get it loaded in port, or dock in a friendly port along the way to meet up with that gear..
A lot of the US "gear" will be exactly the same as the UK gear including fuel. Remember its exactly the same Aircraft apart from Radios. So I would imagine that apart from US munitions, and spares there will not be a great deal of "gear". So I would imagine that it will be loaded in the UK before the QE sets sail.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by bobp »

Scimitar54 wrote:Any proposed means of supply must be fully tested
Yes we must test the American Beer, as they must test ours. And good old US steaks will need to be had too.

Post Reply