F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
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.
Thank you, a mine of information as usual.

Are you aware of any operational limits on the tanks i.e are they all supersonic?

I remember reading the smaller tanks would confer an approx 100 mile increase in ROA, have you any updates to that?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

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 :think: .
External ordnance is Ok'ed for mode 4 so why wouldn't a drop tank? Of course it would require qualification as I mentioned.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote: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.
Have you ever seen an RAF Typhoon without drop tanks? Kinda rare outside the air show circuit. Very nice in pretty much all situations and ops.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote:
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 :think: .
External ordnance is Ok'ed for mode 4 so why wouldn't a drop tank? Of course it would require qualification as I mentioned.
As far as I remember the kpi for mode 4 recovery is 2 1k bombs plus 2 amraam and fuel for the stovl recovery profile and was the most weight sensitive of all the requirements. I don’t recall it ever including drop tanks and associated gubbins.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
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 :think: .
External ordnance is Ok'ed for mode 4 so why wouldn't a drop tank? Of course it would require qualification as I mentioned.
As far as I remember the kpi for mode 4 recovery is 2 1k bombs plus 2 amraam and fuel for the stovl recovery profile and was the most weight sensitive of all the requirements. I don’t recall it ever including drop tanks and associated gubbins.
Well we know that F-35B's have vertically landed with more load that that so I think it's rather out of date.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by serge750 »

Yes does seem to be a no brainer for external tanks ( money permiting :roll: ) another good reason to practice the rolling vertical landing....

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

Worth noting an F-35B can carry, off a 450 foot launch from the QE:

- Full internal fuel
- 4x 1000lb bombs
- 2x AMRAAM
- Full Expendibles
- Targeting Pod/EWAR (Fuselage)

And perform a 550nm radius combat mission, drop only two bombs, and then lug the rest back and perform a vertical landing. (So this doesn't include the SRVL 'bonus'.)

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... c_2017.pdf

Just to give an overall baseline of thought.

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

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

Post by seaspear »

The document also goes into the sortie rate expected that my earlier post cited , other posts have suggested this can be misleading and would depend on the mission or flying time of the aircraft involved but does it not suggest a very good turn around time for the aircraft involved in comparison to other aircraft and that the F35B a highly technical aircraft can be quickly turned around and not spend hours being assesed

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

seaspear wrote:The document also goes into the sortie rate expected that my earlier post cited , other posts have suggested this can be misleading and would depend on the mission or flying time of the aircraft involved but does it not suggest a very good turn around time for the aircraft involved in comparison to other aircraft and that the F35B a highly technical aircraft can be quickly turned around and not spend hours being assesed
The amount of flying is related to the amount of maintenance and by extension the length of the sortie. They are all connected to each other.

Which bit of the document are you looking at?

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

Lord Jim wrote: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.
Countries that do use them, use them in more of an emergency generally speaking, simply down to the small amounts of fuel they can offload.

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Are you aware of any operational limits on the tanks i.e are they all supersonic?

I remember reading the smaller tanks would confer an approx 100 mile increase in ROA, have you any updates to that?
A final design hasn't been presented to date. But they didn't look supersonic in their previous guises (a similar shape has been used on Rafale and is non-supersonic, plus you have to wonder if the F-35 could go supersonic with the additional weight anyway). I think the focus is on larger size rather than extreme aerodynamic performance. Never seen a pic of the 600 gallon tank which apparently was considered. They use that size on F-16 sometimes, and its an absolute monster.

As for range again not sure, but that wouldn't shock me. But those sorts of figures always need bringing to the fore. Lots of people still make the mistake of seeing a 50% increase in fuel and think it leads to a 50% increase in range (I know I used to..) rather than the reality of a significant proportion of fuel in an external tank being used to compensate for the additional weight and drag that the fuel tank has introduced...essentially burning 70-80% of the fuel in the tank to get the remainder of the fuel to where it can add range.

As to conformals I suspect its going to be a story that drags on and on, like the Typhoon's, until someone official states that its not possible. I've never seen anything about mounting points for conformals existing on any variant of F-35 so they'd need to be incorporated into new production, which realistically would need the US to be interested in them. There doesn't appear to be any sign of that. That would also realistically rule the UK out as by the time they were added as an option it looks like the bulk of our production would be concluded.

albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by albedo »

Speaking as an absolute non-expert here: But isn't it possible that future engine evolutions will offer more efficiency and hence more range (or at least more flexibility in trading off range vs performance) and might also do so on the same timescale as eg conformals.

(And yes I can see that it would be good to have double contributions to range from better engines AND eg conformals. But if you can only have one then probably you'd choose the lower hanging one?)

How many engines might an airframe expect to get through during its life? I'm guessing that engines are swapped out quite often for ease of maintenance but also that older engines get ditched (or put into reserve) and so there is some purchasing of new engines (latest model?) over the lifespan of the airframes?

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:As to conformals I suspect its going to be a story that drags on and on, like the Typhoon's, until someone official states that its not possible.
USN SH Block 3s have them (playing catch-up with the F-35C's strike range), from Forbes in June:
"The combat range of the Super Hornet has been an issue since it entered service. With an advertised range of approximately 1,200 nautical miles the fighter lacks the endurance of the 1,600 nautical mile-capable F-14D Tomcat, the aircraft it replaced on the carrier deck.

Modern anti-ship missiles like China’s DF-21D reportedly have a range of nearly 900 miles. If they’re accurate enough to actually strike an American aircraft carrier that would necessitate keeping the carrier roughly that far away from DF-21Ds in a conflict. Given that the combat radius of the Super Hornet is a little over 500 miles, the strike fighter’s ability to fly far enough to strike targets is questionable. For comparison, the F-35C’s combat radius is roughly 670 nautical miles.

Conformal fuel tanks (CFT) should help, slightly increasing the range of the Block III Super Hornet. Mounted flush to the leading edge extensions of the fighter’s wings, the CFTs “provide a low drag way to get more range” says Tebo. The tanks can hold 3,500 pounds of fuel she adds, making the Super Hornet “more compatible with the rest of the air wing to include the F-35.”

I [ the author, Eric Tegler] asked Boeing how much additional range the CFTs would give the Block III Super Hornet but Boeing spokesman Justin Gibson declined to provide a number, saying the range increase “puts it at comparable range with the F-35 so that both jets can continue serving as complimentary capabilities for the U.S. Navy.”
https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/i ... ropY2=3456
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)

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

As per @albedo, new engine for F-35 and conformals for SH (the latter's remanufacture will extend to mid 30s).
- we should batch our F-35 procurement in such a way that some will come with the next-gen engine... gets to be kinda expensive to rebuild every single plane
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)

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1429
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

RetroSicotte wrote:Worth noting an F-35B can carry, off a 450 foot launch from the QE:

- Full internal fuel
- 4x 1000lb bombs
- 2x AMRAAM
- Full Expendibles
- Targeting Pod/EWAR (Fuselage)

And perform a 550nm radius combat mission, drop only two bombs, and then lug the rest back and perform a vertical landing. (So this doesn't include the SRVL 'bonus'.)

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... c_2017.pdf

Just to give an overall baseline of thought.
Thx for pointer to Dec 2017 report, quick look and would point out the actual demonstrated performance/current estimate is :-

-2 JDAM (internal)
-2 AIM120 (internal),
-fuel to fly 450nm
-471 ft. STO

Half the weapons payload and 100nm shorter radius of action tho with shorter take off than the SAR Baseline Development Estimate figures you quoted, would be of interest if we had current figures and flight profile as that can drastically change range figures. UK F-35Bs should be able improve on above figures to limited extent with the ski ramp and rolling landing.

Also noted F-35 objective and threshold dates for achievement Milestone C were April and October 2019 respectively, reflecting the age of the report as to date F-35 has yet to achieve Milestone C.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

Weapons don't stay in current perfromance restrictions forever. The important thing is what they can do, not what current training allows.

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

NickC wrote:UK F-35Bs should be able improve on above figures to limited extent with the ski ramp and rolling landing.
Worth noting that the JDAM's listed are 1,000lb versions. Largest UK store is PWIV at 500lb. When Spear arrives the quad rack in the bay with be roughly 1,000lb when fully loaded, Meteor will also weigh slightly more than Amraam.

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

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

Post by seaspear »

topman wrote:
seaspear wrote:The document also goes into the sortie rate expected that my earlier post cited , other posts have suggested this can be misleading and would depend on the mission or flying time of the aircraft involved but does it not suggest a very good turn around time for the aircraft involved in comparison to other aircraft and that the F35B a highly technical aircraft can be quickly turned around and not spend hours being assesed
The amount of flying is related to the amount of maintenance and by extension the length of the sortie. They are all connected to each other.

Which bit of the document are you looking at?
Page 19 sortie rate given as 6
based on a just over one hour sortie With four 1000# JDAMs
and two internal AIM120s, full expendables,
execute a 600 foot (450
UK STOVL) STO from
LHA, LHD, and aircraft
carriers (sea level,
tropical day, 10 kts
operational WOD) and
with a combat radius of
550 nm (STOVL profile).
Also must perform
STOVL vertical landing
with two 1000# JDAMs
and two internal AIM120s, full expendables,
and fuel to fly the STOVL
Recovery profile.

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

albedo wrote:Speaking as an absolute non-expert here: But isn't it possible that future engine evolutions will offer more efficiency and hence more range (or at least more flexibility in trading off range vs performance) and might also do so on the same timescale as eg conformals.
The US has a large effort underway to develop more efficient and powerful engines for the F-35 using the adaptive cycle concept.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/03/0 ... er-engine/

Pratt and Whitney are also continuing to develop the F135. It's a real pity that the F136 wasn't selected as competition tends to drive results.
albedo wrote:How many engines might an airframe expect to get through during its life? I'm guessing that engines are swapped out quite often for ease of maintenance but also that older engines get ditched (or put into reserve) and so there is some purchasing of new engines (latest model?) over the lifespan of the airframes?
Just the 1 these days. They may switch engines out and replace with another that has cycled through maintenance with the replaced engine going into the cycle and then being fitted into another jet. At most with modern fighter aircraft procurement you will see 10 engines for 8 aircraft in the deal. And at the cost of a modern engine that is to be expected. For the Adaptive Engine to be a success it will need to offer some serious efficiency, economy and power increases in order to get retro-fitted as a replacement. It may become a new build option though.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

seaspear wrote:
topman wrote:
seaspear wrote:The document also goes into the sortie rate expected that my earlier post cited , other posts have suggested this can be misleading and would depend on the mission or flying time of the aircraft involved but does it not suggest a very good turn around time for the aircraft involved in comparison to other aircraft and that the F35B a highly technical aircraft can be quickly turned around and not spend hours being assesed
The amount of flying is related to the amount of maintenance and by extension the length of the sortie. They are all connected to each other.

Which bit of the document are you looking at?
Page 19 sortie rate given as 6
based on a just over one hour sortie With four 1000# JDAMs
and two internal AIM120s, full expendables,
execute a 600 foot (450
UK STOVL) STO from
LHA, LHD, and aircraft
carriers (sea level,
tropical day, 10 kts
operational WOD) and
with a combat radius of
550 nm (STOVL profile).
Also must perform
STOVL vertical landing
with two 1000# JDAMs
and two internal AIM120s, full expendables,
and fuel to fly the STOVL
Recovery profile.
Doesn't look a remotely realistic sortie example to me.
Probably chosen to tick a box somewhere.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Are you aware of any operational limits on the tanks i.e are they all supersonic?

I remember reading the smaller tanks would confer an approx 100 mile increase in ROA, have you any updates to that?
A final design hasn't been presented to date. But they didn't look supersonic in their previous guises (a similar shape has been used on Rafale and is non-supersonic, plus you have to wonder if the F-35 could go supersonic with the additional weight anyway). I think the focus is on larger size rather than extreme aerodynamic performance. Never seen a pic of the 600 gallon tank which apparently was considered. They use that size on F-16 sometimes, and its an absolute monster.

As for range again not sure, but that wouldn't shock me. But those sorts of figures always need bringing to the fore. Lots of people still make the mistake of seeing a 50% increase in fuel and think it leads to a 50% increase in range (I know I used to..) rather than the reality of a significant proportion of fuel in an external tank being used to compensate for the additional weight and drag that the fuel tank has introduced...essentially burning 70-80% of the fuel in the tank to get the remainder of the fuel to where it can add range.

As to conformals I suspect its going to be a story that drags on and on, like the Typhoon's, until someone official states that its not possible. I've never seen anything about mounting points for conformals existing on any variant of F-35 so they'd need to be incorporated into new production, which realistically would need the US to be interested in them. There doesn't appear to be any sign of that. That would also realistically rule the UK out as by the time they were added as an option it looks like the bulk of our production would be concluded.
The rule of thumb used to be if you carry two drop tanks, one is just there to make up for the drag of the other.

I don't believe the F-35 conformals story, never have. Neither do I believe we will ever see an RAF Typhoon with them.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Given that the combat radius of the Super Hornet is a little over 500 miles

You'll be lucky :D Try less than 400 with any kind of decent warload.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Pretty sure this was taking off from a gater. No words on how it landed or what with...

Image

This I think was on QE but I don't think it flew in that configuration...

Image

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Not an expert in bombs but are those not 500lb ones.

SDL
Member
Posts: 763
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by SDL »

Dunno if this is the right spot or if the US Armed Forces threat is the right one, but a US B has crashed after striking a KC-130J while refuelling... B pilot ejected safely and the KC-130J crash landed intact in a field with no injuries. there is a video on Twitter of the pilot-less B hitting the ground...

Post Reply