F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:The way I see TEMPEST evolving is a platform that may be the equal of the F-35 in air to ground, but will seriously exceed it in Air to Air, which is what we want from a Typhoon replacement.
If it isn't clearly & demonstrably superior to F-35 & Typhoon, not even the UK will buy Tempest and the UK will be back to a split F-35A/B. The Treasury is rather unsentimental about such things. And I have no doubts that Tempest will.
I rather like the F-35, particularly in its B variant. I consider it to be a first class piece of engineering, albeit with some notable teething problems.

However, if the UK is unable to develop (with our likely partners) a multirole combat aircraft that is superior, in range, payload and speed, to any member of the F-35 family then we have a serious problem, and should probably call it a day for our military aircraft industry..

Much like Typhoon or F-15 we should be free to design a thoroughbred, unencumbered by the constraints of carrier landings and VTOL. Mach 2 performance, an internal weapons bay and low-observability might have been exotic 30 years ago but really shouldn't be now.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1699
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

If a split buy is ever seriously under consideration, then I would argue strongly for an F35b/F35c Mix. It would be absolutely foolhardy, given the 138 total buy, to do anything else if a mixed buy is what must happen. At least all the aircraft could still be operated from a Carrier, whatever quirks the future may hold. :mrgreen:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote:If a split buy is ever seriously under consideration, then I would argue strongly for an F35b/F35c Mix. It would be absolutely foolhardy, given the 138 total buy, to do anything else if a mixed buy is what must happen. At least all the aircraft could still be operated from a Carrier, whatever quirks the future may hold. :mrgreen:
Even land based, the C makes a lot of sense as a Tornado replacement. Well, except for the price.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

Perhaps not the unit cost but flying cost as pere this article
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -35-cheap/

Little J
Member
Posts: 970
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

Bit of gun porn anyone? :P


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7927
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »


(Forces TV) 11th September 2020
For the first time, F-35Bs from 617 Squadron have flown alongside their American counterparts during Exercise Point Blank. The first operational deployment of the British fighter jets with HMS Queen Elizabeth is getting ever nearer, with Point Blank a chance to hone interoperability between the UK and other nations.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »


bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2677
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

Came across this just today. No idea where the information came from. Thats 30 million cheaper.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7927
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Image
(Quotes from NavyLookout) 28th September 2020
RAF Air Marshall Richard Knighton says we are planning for the carriers to deploy with up to 24 British F-35s by 2023.
18 x F35s have been delivered with other 30 aircraft to come over the next five years. "We will need to buy more than 48 aircraft to sustain carrier capability over the long term"
The 48 F-35s on order allows for:

2 x Squadrons of 12
plus OCU and OEU

“Surge" up to 12 on each carrier
or routinely 6-8 on each carrier.

Does not allow for attrition and replacing old aircraft
AM Knighton says there is "no requirement for air-air refuelling from the carrier... carrier aircraft can refuel from Voyager or allied aircraft if required"

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

For all the chat something’s just never ever change


topman
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

SW1 wrote:For all the chat something’s just never ever change

:lolno:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

The original plan was to embark 4 squadrons on each carrier therefore 138 were needed???

If carrier aircraft need refueling they can use Voyager or allied aircraft???

Oh come on.

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:The original plan was to embark 4 squadrons on each carrier therefore 138 were needed???

If carrier aircraft need refueling they can use Voyager or allied aircraft???

Oh come on.
It's a misquote from Jonathan Beale. I saw the session. It was 4 squadrons if you want 2 carriers operational at the same time i.e. 2 on each carrier. No-one mentioned that 2 carriers simultaneous would only be available for 40% of the time though...or pointed out that for a significant portion of that time, one at least, would be working up or training. If we wanted 2 carriers available for ops we needed to have built 3...

Not a bad PAC session, but a lot of open goals missed...and key answers deflected with 'that will be in the ISDR in November...(which for once is a fair answer given its proximity).

Focus on carrier borne AAR was weird...no-one mentioned the lack of an external tank solution yet, which is far more obvious...

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2677
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

Timmymagic wrote:.no-one mentioned the lack of an external tank solution yet,
Do the planes have plumbing for external tanks.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4546
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

SKB wrote:
RAF Air Marshall Richard Knighton says we are planning for the carriers to deploy with up to 24 British F-35s by 2023.
18 x F35s have been delivered with other 30 aircraft to come over the next five years. "We will need to buy more than 48 aircraft to sustain carrier capability over the long term"
The 48 F-35s on order allows for:

2 x Squadrons of 12
plus OCU and OEU

“Surge" up to 12 on each carrier
or routinely 6-8 on each carrier.

Does not allow for attrition and replacing old aircraft
Routinely deploy 6-8 a/c from a fleet of 48 a/c?! Wow, that is lower than I thought. How many would we need to routinely deploy 24?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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: If we wanted 2 carriers available for ops we needed to have built 3...
Indeed.

This tweet=tweet loading NOT! is quite a tedious way of having a conversation?

Can we please have the key sentence of any such - compressed communications in itself....supposedly :lol: - here?
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:
SKB wrote:
RAF Air Marshall Richard Knighton says we are planning for the carriers to deploy with up to 24 British F-35s by 2023.
18 x F35s have been delivered with other 30 aircraft to come over the next five years. "We will need to buy more than 48 aircraft to sustain carrier capability over the long term"
The 48 F-35s on order allows for:

2 x Squadrons of 12
plus OCU and OEU

“Surge" up to 12 on each carrier
or routinely 6-8 on each carrier.

Does not allow for attrition and replacing old aircraft
Routinely deploy 6-8 a/c from a fleet of 48 a/c?! Wow, that is lower than I thought. How many would we need to routinely deploy 24?
I’m not sure why the surprise it’s been mentioned for donkey now and standard for decades for the U.K. fast jets. The typhoon fleet.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The original plan was to embark 4 squadrons on each carrier therefore 138 were needed???

If carrier aircraft need refueling they can use Voyager or allied aircraft???

Oh come on.
It's a misquote from Jonathan Beale. I saw the session. It was 4 squadrons if you want 2 carriers operational at the same time i.e. 2 on each carrier. No-one mentioned that 2 carriers simultaneous would only be available for 40% of the time though...or pointed out that for a significant portion of that time, one at least, would be working up or training. If we wanted 2 carriers available for ops we needed to have built 3...

Not a bad PAC session, but a lot of open goals missed...and key answers deflected with 'that will be in the ISDR in November...(which for once is a fair answer given its proximity).

Focus on carrier borne AAR was weird...no-one mentioned the lack of an external tank solution yet, which is far more obvious...

Thanks, that makes much more sense.

Folks tend to forget drop tanks as a range extender. Seems odd. The Israelis don't.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

bobp wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:.no-one mentioned the lack of an external tank solution yet,
Do the planes have plumbing for external tanks.
Yes and a tank is under development by LM. Might or might not be based on an Israeli design. Opinions vary.

Then there is the question of qualification. Who would pay for it to be done on the F-35B's?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Repulse wrote:
SKB wrote:
RAF Air Marshall Richard Knighton says we are planning for the carriers to deploy with up to 24 British F-35s by 2023.
18 x F35s have been delivered with other 30 aircraft to come over the next five years. "We will need to buy more than 48 aircraft to sustain carrier capability over the long term"
The 48 F-35s on order allows for:

2 x Squadrons of 12
plus OCU and OEU

“Surge" up to 12 on each carrier
or routinely 6-8 on each carrier.

Does not allow for attrition and replacing old aircraft
Routinely deploy 6-8 a/c from a fleet of 48 a/c?! Wow, that is lower than I thought. How many would we need to routinely deploy 24?
I assume "deploy" means sending them to some place like Afghanistan or Cyprus. Surely going for a RN boat ride is a lot, lot, simpler and would require fewer airframes.

Or maybe the RAF doesn't like going to sea .... :D

Be curious how that compares to USMC jets at sea.

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

bobp wrote:Do the planes have plumbing for external tanks.
Yes, different sizes have been proposed over the years. For F-35B it will be the inner wing tanks only as they're cleared for the weight and are plumbed.
Ron5 wrote:Yes and a tank is under development by LM. Might or might not be based on an Israeli design. Opinions vary.

Then there is the question of qualification. Who would pay for it to be done on the F-35B's?
Looks like its an LM design, but the driver is the A and I variant. Don't think the Israeli's are actually designing it. All of the talk of Israel developing conformals, other accessories or integrating weapons on F-35 seems to have come to naught to date. Israeli orders for US weapons in recent years, specifically to equip the F-35, seem to point to the Israeli's abandoning the idea, at least in the near future (and the truth is despite the hype about Israeli weapons they don't have as good A2A missiles as 9X or Amraam C and D, nothing as cheap as JDAM or SDB1 and nothing as advanced as SDB2).

The size of tanks previously looked at were 460 or 480 gallons. That's a c3,500lb external store (including pylon). Which is fine for the internal pylon on all variants. The larger 600 gallon tank recently mentioned is c4,500lb (including pylon). Again ok weight wise as the internal pylons are good for 5,000lb's. You could still mount the aircraft with 2 Asraam, 2 Meteor, 2 PWIV and 8 Spear (and a gun which we're not buying..) and get off the deck. Might need a longer run up though....

As to who would pay? At present no-one. Can't imagine the USMC and UK are desperate for it right now. But its the sort of thing that a collaborative approach would pay dividends on in a few years. Get all of the B variant users together and each chuck into the pot. It won't cost as much as a complex weapons integration but still won't be super cheap.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

I wonder how adding external fuel tanks to the f35b changes mode 4 operations or if there’s perhaps a reason the discussion of there development is predominantly associated with the A version :think: .

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote:I wonder how adding external fuel tanks to the f35b changes mode 4 operations or if there’s perhaps a reason the discussion of there development is predominantly associated with the A version
If its empty its unlikely to seriously affect VL's. Certainly will if they have a decent amount of fuel left in them though..

As for it mainly being talked of for A (and by default I variants) I suspect that is a question of scale. Lots more F-35A users and airframes out there.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

I guess external fuel tanks would be live returning to the ship with weapons, there is certain amount they could bring back.

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

It would be useful to ferry out aircraft to the carriers, of course doing the usual thing and using the fuel in the underwing tanks first before going to internal tanks. Also if you were going to use the buddy system to have a F-35 tanker available to top up returning aircraft from a long range mission it would help as well.

Post Reply