F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

NickC wrote:Block 4 F-35Bs with capability of carrying ASRAAM CSM, Meteor and Spear 3, only 13 a/c?

My understanding of UK contracts and future buy at current time
LRIP - Number
lot
3 ---- 2
4 ---- 1
7 ---- 1
8 ---- 4
9 ---- 6
10 ---- 3
11 ---- 2
12 ---- 2
13 ---- 6
14 ---- 8
15 ---- 7
16 ---- 6
Total -- 48

Understand 21 delivered, 18 in UK, last three arrived in December and think the first 2 will stay in US as were in effect prototypes? So it would appear 46 deliverable and only the 13 a/c of lots 15 & 16 will be Block 4, if as hinted previous a/c will not be upgraded.

If partial upgrade funding were forthcoming presuming upgrade cost would depend on the various build states and maybe some of the earlier pre build lot 15 build lots would be excluded on technical grounds and cost.
See my post on Page 203. There are 3 Instrumented Test Aircraft that will remain in the US until retirement. It's unlikely that they'll see the UK until they're shipped over for museum exhibition.

When it comes to upgrading to Blk. IV the majority of the UK's fleet is comparatively small hardware and software upgrades (new processor, new widescreen display and the unrelated EOTS upgrade amongst other things). Only the very oldest 'combat capable' aircraft, BK-03, is definitely in the $27m upgrade category, although the 4 a/c in LRIP 8 might be included. From that point on the aircraft definitely get progressively cheaper to upgrade, dramatically so for the newer aircraft. The UK has managed to get away comparatively lightly in upgrade costs, at least compared to the USAF and USMC, who have a much larger problem.

There was an answer to a select committee that advised the MoD might not upgrade all of the aircraft to Blk.IV. This makes me think that the 4 a/c in LRIP 8 might come under the higher cost as if it was just the one aircraft I think the MoD would bite the bullet and upgrade. Having 5 aircraft in that state might make assigning them permanently to 207 Sqn as a dedicated training fleet, a sensible (if not ideal) solution. Either way having 8 of a fleet of 48 aircraft being permanently 'hors de combat' would not be great.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

With just 5 the Red Arrows couldn't do their famous Diamond Nine :(
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)

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:They will carry 8 Spear 3's plus 2 Meteors internally plus more Spear 3's on underwing pylons if required.
Truth is we don't know. Nothing has ever been said about external carriage of Spear.

I think a lot will depend on if the US decides to attach BRU-61's on the inner and mid pylons for SDB1, SDB2 and perhaps (in the future) JAGM and or Goldern Horde thingies...If the US goes down that route the UK may follow. At the moment the only store we appear to have planned that will be cleared there is Paveway IV. We'll probably see external tanks at some point for the inner wing pylon. But wing mounting doesn't seem to be high on anyones priority list at present, it looks like the 'Sidekick' device will be ahead of any external AMRAAM carriage as well.
True but if the UK goes down the route of the triple pack for Typhoon, I think it unlikely they will not add that to F-35 as well. Time will tell.

I suppose the argument against is if you are in need of a stand off weapon, you would also be in need of operating in the most stealthy config and 8 internally carried per aircraft is a decent load.

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

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

Post by seaspear »

Is there any suggestion of the types of missiles carried by U.A.V.s accompanying aircraft ?

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:True but if the UK goes down the route of the triple pack for Typhoon, I think it unlikely they will not add that to F-35 as well. Time will tell.
MBDA do seem to be pushing their racks. I suspect we'll go with Triples on Typhoon and Cobham BRU-61 Quad's internally in the F-35, then see if the US pays for the external rig. The one thing I can't figure out is if the Triples for Spear are exactly the same as Brimstone. Both missiles in size are roughly the same dimensions, but Spear weighs more.
Ron5 wrote:I suppose the argument against is if you are in need of a stand off weapon, you would also be in need of operating in the most stealthy config and 8 internally carried per aircraft is a decent load.
Thats partly why I think the BRU-61 may be cleared by the US externally. It makes sense as a rack for SDB1 following the degradation of the enemies defences, but not so much for SDB2 in comparison (although it would be useful for anti-armour).

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

seaspear wrote:Is there any suggestion of the types of missiles carried by U.A.V.s accompanying aircraft ?
Not at present. Most of the proposed Loyal Wingmen haven't shown their cards on armament. The Australian Boeing one for example appears to be unarmed with the focus on ISTAR. The Kratos Valkyrie has the ability to carry SDB's and the 500lb JDAM internally. Nothing about air to air weaponry, although DARPA is also looking into Flying Missile Wings...ultimately its early day's.

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:I suspect we'll go with Triples on Typhoon and Cobham BRU-61 Quad's internally in the F-35,
As for the latter, we have already ordered the ERU units from L3 (to be made in Brighton; v clever pneumatic launchers that push the missile out far enough to be clear of the a/c)
- though can't think that the Meteor, hung onto the opposite side of the bomb bay door could be fired simultaneously; whereas the ASRAAMs, from the wing-tip pylons could
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)

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

Sorry not been following too intensely but when might UK get its first block 4 f35 delivered ?,cheers dudes :thumbup:

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

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

Post by xav »

xav wrote:SPEAR3 Mini-Cruise Missiles To Provide ASUW Capability To British F-35B
Image
In the absence of a true anti-ship missile for British F-35Bs, MBDA’s SPEAR will be the only option available for the Royal Navy to fly anti-surface warfare (ASUW) missions from the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. Each F-35Bs can carry up to 8x SPEAR missiles internally (in the weapons bay) meaning they remain low observable. Despite its subsonic speed and relatively small warhead (for anti-ship role) a single F-35 could theoretically launch a saturating attack of 8 missiles against a surface vessel. This is probably enough to disable or put out of combat most vessels, of frigate size and below.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ish-f-35b/

SPEAR3 is OK for ASUW but how about a true, long legged, next gen, anti-ship missile (until FCASW) ?

Lockheed Martin Progressing Towards LRASM Integration On F-35
Image
During the Surface Navy Association (SNA) 2021 Virtual Symposium held last week, Lockheed Martin was showcasing a new artist impression showing two LRASM fitted on a F-35 Lightning II.

This image was new to us. Naval News contacted Lockheed Martin to ask about it, wondering if it meant that the company is looking to integrate the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) aboard the next generation fighter. Here is what a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told us:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... n-on-f-35/



By the way, do we know for sure yet that FCASW will be integrated on F-35 ?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

just a question but given Marte ER has the same length as a Meteor at 3.6 meters could this be carried in a F-35B's weapons bay if so the UK and Italy could work together to fit Marte ER to the UK's and Italy's F-35's , Typhoons and Merlin's and it would fit nicely between spear 3 and Storm shadow

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

Since Italy is already paying to integrate it onto AW101 and Typhoon (Marte ERP), it would seem like a simple task to add it to both those platforms. Adding anything to the F35 seems to be problematic if it's not US built.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:Adding anything to the F35 seems to be problematic if it's not US built.
Does that come as a surprise :?:
- we've kept our industry alive by participating , but now is the time to take some more definitive steps (... with partners, of course :idea: - For affordability. We don't want an other TSR2 :?: )
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
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

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

Post by xav »

Update: F-35 Block 4 Upgrades And New F-35B At-Sea Users
Image
U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs and U.S. Navy F-35Cs will mature with Block 4 software upgrades. But Full F-35 Production Waits for the Biden Administration to Make Key Production Decisions. Meanwhile, the number of foreign operators of F-35B is growing.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... sea-users/

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

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

Post by bobp »

Excellent post XAV. So its possible that we may see drop tanks once Block 4 + rolls out to the UK.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

bobp wrote:Excellent post XAV. So its possible that we may see drop tanks once Block 4 + rolls out to the UK.
Wouldn't put money on it, I don't think we have heard anything about the gun pod yet let alone drop tanks.

Good to know the start of Block 4 software is months not years away, interesting to see when the UK weapons start to get tested.

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Drop Tanks are far more likely than the Gun Pod as they would allow far greater ferry range which may be of use if we wanted to increase the size of the embarked air wing rapidly. Additionally it would increase the range at which stand off launching missions could be carried out, increase CAP time and even allow for Buddy refuelling. Even so any and all will probably be a long way off.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Drop Tanks are far more likely than the Gun Pod as they would allow far greater ferry range which may be of use if we wanted to increase the size of the embarked air wing rapidly. Additionally it would increase the range at which stand off launching missions could be carried out, increase CAP time and even allow for Buddy refuelling. Even so any and all will probably be a long way off.
Drop tanks are rather cheap so that have going for them. I suspect an early UK buy for the reasons you mention, but only if they are qualified for the B. Right now all the talk has been of tanks for the A, particularly the Israeli A's.

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Agreed, but hopefully some of the data from the 'A' Drop Tank integration would be relevant to any programme for the 'B' reducing the timescale and costs somewhat.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Agreed, but hopefully some of the data from the 'A' Drop Tank integration would be relevant to any programme for the 'B' reducing the timescale and costs somewhat.
I doubt very much data transfers. Maybe your new fangled computer development stuff can do most of the airflow & separation analysis virtually :D

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I think the Israelis will solve it for us (and they are thinking of getting some 'B's too
- the conformals, though, they will keep :) for themselves
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)

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

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

Post by serge750 »

That would be a good out come for the Uk F35 ! even if we helped with the costs a bit...

Would of thought having even a small number of drop tanks would be a good thing to have even for ferry flights

I expect the US marines do not have a requirement for tanks as they would be closer to the target on their LHA's for close air support ? shame for our UK F35.....

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think the Israelis will solve it for us (and they are thinking of getting some 'B's too
- the conformals, though, they will keep :) for themselves
The Israeli's have handed off development of drop tanks back to the US. As for conformals, don't hold your breath.

All public talk of drop tanks has been for the A's.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: As for conformals, don't hold your breath.

All public talk of drop tanks has been for the A's.


Agree that conformals are as 'close' (=far) as all the talk over the years of the same for Eurofighter.

This is from the 2019 Paris Airshow
" A technology refresh slated for the 2023 timeframe is expected to add significant capability to the platforms, said Greg Ulmer, vice president and general manager of the F-35 program at Lockheed.

“We talked to several customers about how do we extend the range of the airplane,” Ulmer told reporters during a briefing. “We're looking at conformal fuel tanks as well as external fuel tanks on the airplane to increase the range” by about 40 percent. The F-35A currently has a combat radius of about 590 nautical miles.

Ulmer said the range could be extended for all three variants."
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)

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

"could" equals "if you are willing to pay for its development" which no one has even breathed a serious interest in for the B's.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Any parasitic weight added to the operating empty weight of f35b thru drop tanks for conformal fuel tanks will degrade vertical flight regimes, this is both a limited and finite thrust to weight parameter one that Lockheed has forgotten before.

Post Reply