F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[Gabriele]

The intent is to have a change kit that can rapidly turn any Meteor into a clipped fins Meteor. As for reduction of performance, that's not at all a given. The AMRAAM's smaller fins in more recent variants have not come with less performance, for example. I suspect the Meteor's early fins will get entirely replaced as production progresses.

Then there is the Japan factor to consider. Would be great to see that programme take a real leap forward and move fast and steady.

[Timmymagic]

Looks like the USAF aren't mucking around...

8 x F-35A to Lakenheath and then on to Estonia for a little light training.

http://www.janes.com/article/69807/usaf ... r-training

[shark bait]

They have a lot to prove ...

[S M H]

Don't be surprised if a flight from 617 squadron don't end up copying previous harrier ops in Norway. As part of U.K service integration work up operations.

[seaspear]

Is it known if the F35b can hold the Cobham 31-301 fuel tank used for buddy -buddy refuelling ?

[Tinman]

They have a lot to prove ...

Why??

[Defiance]

Is it known if the F35b can hold the Cobham 31-301 fuel tank used for buddy -buddy refuelling ?

It could probably hold it, but if the discussion earlier about the tanks not being worthwhile for the F-35 to fly with, why bother?

[shark bait]

Why??

Because so far the programme has been a complete failure, their so desperate to turn that around, declaring phony initial operating capability and sending it on PR tours because it has to prove its been worth all the shit so far.

[seaspear]

Is it known if the F35b can hold the Cobham 31-301 fuel tank used for buddy -buddy refuelling ?

It could probably hold it, but if the discussion earlier about the tanks not being worthwhile for the F-35 to fly with, why bother?

This has been a subject of discussion for a few years even with suggestion that the U.S.M.C were looking into it ,comparatively the f35b is a short ranged aircraft, if existing equipment can be used to extend the range and operating ability of this aircraft relatively cheaply as opposed to the use of Osprey why not ?

[Timmymagic]

It could probably hold it, but if the discussion earlier about the tanks not being worthwhile for the F-35 to fly with, why bother?

Purely for buddy fueling off QE. Can't see the point myself, fuel offload wouldn't be massive, could be a useful niche capability to have I suppose.

[Defiance]

This has been a subject of discussion for a few years even with suggestion that the U.S.M.C were looking into it ,comparatively the f35b is a short ranged aircraft, if existing equipment can be used to extend the range and operating ability of this aircraft relatively cheaply as opposed to the use of Osprey why not ?

I'm chalking it down to 'i'll believe it when I see it', fairly skeptical of it happening personally.

Purely for buddy fueling off QE. Can't see the point myself, fuel offload wouldn't be massive, could be a useful niche capability to have I suppose.

See above, I don't think we'll see it happening for a while

[seaspear]

A point I would make for the buddy system to be considered , is at yet there is no released information on how many refuelling pods may be carried by an F35b operating off a carrier ,how much fuel could be held in this way ,how far could mid air refuelling this way extend the range of the refuelled aircraft , a carrier carrying longer ranged aircraft would not have to be so close to its target to launch , certainly also space always being a premium on carriers a dedicated aircraft of an Osprey type would require a lot of room ,and regular maintenance ,pod kits that could be attached to aircraft on a needs case not so,

[R686]

The unrefueled range of the F35B is greater than harrier, storm in a tea cup.

Currently USMC use KC-130J if needed to give the Harrier longer legs, admittedly they have to have a friendly host nearby. RAF should have in future A400M which should do the job in future greater offload capacity but needs a fair degree of planning.

[shark bait]

The unrefueled range is greater than any other naval fighter apart from the F35c, which is what really matters for an aircraft performing fleet defence.

Why the A400m? we have voyager that does have refueling kits, and A400m that doesn't.

[serge750]

Well if some-one pays or helps pay for a buddy system on the F35 then it does make sense if you were only going to use it occasionally, if we were going to get some ospreys for JHC for assault, then converting some for tanking needs would be good but I can't realistically see that happening..as much as I would love to see it in my fantasy fleet

ps like shark bait says the F35 is not that short ranged (unless you consider a F18 short ranged) any news on a stealthy drop tank ???

[R686]

Why the A400m? we have voyager that does have refueling kits, and A400m that doesn't.

Thought you where buying the A400M plumbed for AAR, the idea of using the tactical lifter it give the UK the opportunity to develop in conjunction with the USMC FARP's using A400M,voyager cannot do the tactical austere stuff.

[shark bait]

Osprey wont happen for the RN, at least for over a decade. In the time being we shall borrow USMC kit.

There is no such thing as a stealthy drop tank, any tank will increase the observability of the aircraft. I expect the F35 will follow a similar method to the F22, which jettisons its stores pylon along with the tank to maintain it's low observability characteristics.

The RAF A400m doesn't do refueling, they have voyager for that so it didnt appear on Atlas. There is some chatter about helo support and "tactical austere stuff", but that would almost certainly be filled by c130.

Voyager is better for supporting carrier ops too, with greater range, payload, and its ability to blend making it easier to find a base willing to support.

[seaspear]

Any information I can access on comparative ranges of f35b Rafale and Super Hornet puts the b well behind

[Timmymagic]

Any information I can access on comparative ranges of f35b Rafale and Super Hornet puts the b well behind

The problem is any information you can acccess will not be comparing apples and oranges. Rafales range figures are usually quoted as 1,000 mile radius. But unfortunately thats with 2 massive tanks AND CFT's (ever actually seen any of these?). Whereas as far as we know F-35B goes out around 700 miles on internal fuel only with an internal weapons load without external loads. Add on 4 additional tanks and how far will the F-35 get out to? Of course it doesn't have Spectra.......which appears to be Frances very own plasma stealth.....F-18E/Fdefintely doesn't have the range in comparison, unless you're also counting lots of tanks and non-existent CFT's....

[seaspear]

Another consideration may be is that ranges for aircraft from sea based platforms can vary from land based ,the ski lift on the Queen Elizabeth may have an advantage and mean the same aircraft taking off from a U.S.M.C vessel needs more power or extra fuel for take off and be different again for land based aircraft , this was claimed for Harriers but I have not read details for this

[RetroSicotte]

Of course it doesn't have Spectra.......which appears to be Frances very own plasma stealth.....

What the F-35 has is substantially more powerful than Spectra.

Really, "Spectra" is a bit of a marketing blurb by Dassault. It's just their name for the same ECM system any top line fighter has these days, with a couple of more uncommon found elements attached. They always refer to it by that name alone in order to make it sound unique and special.

In truth, Super Hornet; Typhoon and Gripen all have comparatives. Superior in some ways, less superior in others.

[R686]

Another consideration may be is that ranges for aircraft from sea based platforms can vary from land based ,the ski lift on the Queen Elizabeth may have an advantage and mean the same aircraft taking off from a U.S.M.C vessel needs more power or extra fuel for take off and be different again for land based aircraft , this was claimed for Harriers but I have not read details for this

I have been lead to belive that the F35B can take off from both US & UK STOVL ships with the same fuel and weapons load, only diffrence is the UK are using a shorter run up with the ramp, the US using a longer run. It's the bring back which is different between the twowith the UK using SRVL

[seaspear]

I think the quotes are getting misplaced again I made no comment on what "Spectra" does , my comments on the ramp is that using a ramp takes less fuel than off of a normal flat top ,and possibly then increasing range ,

[RetroSicotte]

Indeed, I was a little confused when I saw the quote name appear myself.

Will look into it when I'm home.

[shark bait]

Any information I can access on comparative ranges of f35b Rafale and Super Hornet puts the b well behind

The internet figures I've seen compares the F35 on internal fuel only, to others with drop tanks. When external tanks arrive on the F35 it will be the longest ranged carrier aircraft, of course the 'b' will still lag behind the 'c', which is the price we pay for being British.

Any one know what's happened to the wing tanks or conformal tanks? All seems to have gone quiet, I guess whilst they focus on solving the many current issues before creating new ones...