F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
I suspect that SRVL will turn out to be the default technique both on land and at sea (at least on the QEs), with vertical landings only being used if their is a specific reason to do so. I could be wrong of course , we will have to wait and see.
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
(Aviation Videos & Wildlife FULL HD) 6/6/2018
A spotters eye view of the F-35B's landing at RAF Marham. Audio contains loud whining nasal sounds. And jet engines.
-
- Member
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
I recall Pete Wilson saying in an interview that SRVL would be standard on QE to preserve her flight deck coating but in bad weather a VL would most likely be used since hovering is a walk in the park now compared to the old days of the Sharwhitelancer wrote:I suspect that SRVL will turn out to be the default technique both on land and at sea (at least on the QEs), with vertical landings only being used if their is a specific reason to do so. I could be wrong of course , we will have to wait and see.
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
I was thinking quite the opposite. There's risks involved with rolling landings that just are not there with pure vertical. Like a tire bursting, or brake fail, or good old pilot error like a too fast approach.whitelancer wrote:I suspect that SRVL will turn out to be the default technique both on land and at sea (at least on the QEs), with vertical landings only being used if their is a specific reason to do so. I could be wrong of course , we will have to wait and see.
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Told you they were noisy barstewardsSKB wrote:
A spotters eye view of the F-35B's landing at RAF Marham. Audio contains loud whining nasal sounds. And jet engines.
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Having lived and worked at Marham, all I can say is you'd be gutted to move from the States to that Norfolk backwater.
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Equally dangerous doing a VL. Lift fan or engine failure gets nasty very quickly. Ever seen a Harrier fail when in VL mode? It goes wrong very quickly.Ron5 wrote:I was thinking quite the opposite. There's risks involved with rolling landings that just are not there with pure vertical. Like a tire bursting, or brake fail, or good old pilot error like a too fast approach.whitelancer wrote:I suspect that SRVL will turn out to be the default technique both on land and at sea (at least on the QEs), with vertical landings only being used if their is a specific reason to do so. I could be wrong of course , we will have to wait and see.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
That seems to be the idea. Mess up a RL or conventional landing? You can still glide and skid if needs be, and eject most likely.
Go wrong in a VL? That thing is going to be tumbling vertically, and you can't guarantee it'll land right way up. Ejecting when not level is not fun. Just recall that story of the F/A-18 pilot in the USN who ejected, the plane rolled mid-eject, and launcher her downwards into the sea. Can't recall if she survived or not.
Go wrong in a VL? That thing is going to be tumbling vertically, and you can't guarantee it'll land right way up. Ejecting when not level is not fun. Just recall that story of the F/A-18 pilot in the USN who ejected, the plane rolled mid-eject, and launcher her downwards into the sea. Can't recall if she survived or not.
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Interesting snippet in this BBC news item about the arrival of the 4 F35. When is a stealth aircraft not a stealth aircraft?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44368823
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44368823
The IDF published an unusual - some might say provocative photo - of one of their F-35's flying just off the Lebanese capital, Beirut. This was all part of Israel's increasingly public messaging campaign; a signal to Iran and its allies of the IDF's intent to push back on Iranian influence in the region.
Experts noticed something unusual in the photograph.
The aircraft seemed to be fitted with radar reflectors to change its signature - in this case possibly to make it more visible; in other words negating its stealth characteristics. If this assessment is accurate, it suggests that - well aware of powerful prying Russian radars in Syria - the Israelis want to reveal as little as possible of the F-35's radar signature for when they actually need it to perform in its full stealth mode.
-
- Member
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
pretty much the only time they're going to be flying internationally without these reflectors are in a war scenario.
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Yes I have seen a Harrier have VL problems however you clearly don't understand SVRL because that is also totally dependent on the proper functioning of both the fan and engine. SVRL at sea, adds to the list of critical components. On land, not so much.downsizer wrote:Equally dangerous doing a VL. Lift fan or engine failure gets nasty very quickly. Ever seen a Harrier fail when in VL mode? It goes wrong very quickly.Ron5 wrote:I was thinking quite the opposite. There's risks involved with rolling landings that just are not there with pure vertical. Like a tire bursting, or brake fail, or good old pilot error like a too fast approach.whitelancer wrote:I suspect that SRVL will turn out to be the default technique both on land and at sea (at least on the QEs), with vertical landings only being used if their is a specific reason to do so. I could be wrong of course , we will have to wait and see.
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
All the bad shit that can happen with a VL can happen with a rolling VL. The reverse is not true.RetroSicotte wrote:That seems to be the idea. Mess up a RL or conventional landing? You can still glide and skid if needs be, and eject most likely.
Go wrong in a VL? That thing is going to be tumbling vertically, and you can't guarantee it'll land right way up. Ejecting when not level is not fun. Just recall that story of the F/A-18 pilot in the USN who ejected, the plane rolled mid-eject, and launcher her downwards into the sea. Can't recall if she survived or not.
By the way, an F-35B at 60 knots landing speed (the reported landing speed for SVRL), will glide like a brick.
We'll find out the answer one day. Interesting to speculate though. The only operational experience is that the US Marines at sea, so far, have exclusively used VL. But maybe they're waiting for the RN to teach them The few F-35 landings I've seen at Davis-Monthan have been 100% conventional. No use of lift fans.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
That is true (all of it... no plural needed)Ron5 wrote:All the bad shit that can happen with a VL can happen with a rolling VL. The reverse is not true.
Like anything else ( like a third of the lift comes from the body... which is much more than for other fighter planes)Ron5 wrote: F-35B at 60 knots landing speed (the reported landing speed for SVRL), will glide like a brick.
Different decks; different ways of operating?Ron5 wrote:The only operational experience is that the US Marines at sea, so far, have exclusively used VL. But maybe they're waiting for the RN to teach them
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
60 knots is less than stalling speed. The aircraft would stall & crash without its fan & engine providing lift.ArmChairCivvy wrote: Ron5 wrote:
F-35B at 60 knots landing speed (the reported landing speed for SVRL), will glide like a brick.
Like anything else ( like a third of the lift comes from the body... which is much more than for other fighter planes)
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Kara Hultgreen, first female F-14 pilot. RIO survived but she got launched in to the ocean neck first. Overshooting approach to the carrier, rudder left to break, compressor stall in the left engine due to excessive yaw from the rudder. Compressor stall + high AoA turned in to a turning stall, afterburner applied to attempt to recover but all it did was push the left wing over further as only the right burner lit up. Aircraft rolled over as her seat started the delayed eject (RIO first, pilot second).RetroSicotte wrote:Just recall that story of the F/A-18 pilot in the USN who ejected, the plane rolled mid-eject, and launcher her downwards into the sea. Can't recall if she survived or not.
Sorry for off topic, just a very interesting case of a simple mistake (overshoot) going so wrong so quickly.
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Anyone know how many F35's left the US. Web rumours are that 5 left and one turned back but I'm guessing this is potentially BS or seriously fake news - call it what you will. BICBW.
-
- Member
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
The official plan for a long while now has been 4.albedo wrote:Anyone know how many F35's left the US. Web rumours are that 5 left and one turned back but I'm guessing this is potentially BS or seriously fake news - call it what you will. BICBW.
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
One was flying as spare I'll wager, in case another one had to drop out.sunstersun wrote:The official plan for a long while now has been 4.albedo wrote:Anyone know how many F35's left the US. Web rumours are that 5 left and one turned back but I'm guessing this is potentially BS or seriously fake news - call it what you will. BICBW.
Is it more embarrassing to explain away a diversion or only turning up with 3 when the national media expects 4?
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Even if there were actually five, couldn't the fifth one have been a USAF escort? It was their airspace afterall.
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Given that they employed SRVL for their first landing in the UK after a long flight across the Atlantic their seems to be no lack of confidence in the method at least on a normal runway. We will have to wait for the trials aboard QE in the autumn to see if their is the same confidence employing SRVL at sea. If no problems are found it seems to me adopting SRVL as standard is the logical choice with VL being the back up option, rather than the other way round. The choice may be different for the US Marines given the nature of the platforms they will be operating from.
-
- Member
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
I’d be interested to find out what the flying schedule of these four aircraft will be. I was under the impression that the vast bulk of 617 was still state side, I know more than four pilots came over but even so how much flying can you really get done with only four aircraft? Since a lot of the training is sim based do you think the chances of seeing them airborne will be rare for a few weeks, at least until the other five return in August?
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Given that wee video by the Conservatives can we now hold them to the figure of 138 aircraft ?
Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)
Last I heard they want to get 9 jets over here during the summer for RAF 100CameronPerson wrote:I’d be interested to find out what the flying schedule of these four aircraft will be. I was under the impression that the vast bulk of 617 was still state side, I know more than four pilots came over but even so how much flying can you really get done with only four aircraft? Since a lot of the training is sim based do you think the chances of seeing them airborne will be rare for a few weeks, at least until the other five return in August?