F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[SKB]

And a move to Yeovilton?

[Timmymagic]

Thanks. I was reacting to a comment from SW1 that implied the US Marines would be uninterested in drop tanks because of their reliance on vertical landings. I didn't see the logic.

But then again, I've not seen any interest from the Marines in drop tanks period. Which probably mean their poor relations in the UK will have to do without.

I think given the recent paucity of information (over a period of years) on the potential for Conformal Tanks we can also put that one in the bin (especially following the news that Block III SuperHornet may not be getting them). Truth is they always sounded like a long shot....the hope of other aftermarket goodies that people were pinning their hopes on, from the Israelis in particular, should also be forgotten about.

I could see external tanks on F-35B, but not on ships, they would make sense on long transit flights for an additional safety margin. A limited clearance for conventional landing and takeoffs (with restrictions on manoeuvering for example) could be doable. This has been done in the past with tanks and baggage pods (which was also on the original list of items to be integrated).

One thing that a lot of people seem to have missed with all the discussion around the, inevitable, reduction in overall UK orders of F-35B is how that influences the UK integrating capabilities to it. If we only end up buying 48 everyone can forget about the integration of any further UK munitions after those already announced for Block IV (with the possible exception of Spear 'spiral' development). It just wouldn't be worth paying the money for a limited fleet of aircraft. And that means the A2G munitions will remain limited, or we buy US munitions specifically for F-35B (with the possible exception of the joint US/Norwegian JSM). In some ways that could be a good thing, purchasing some cheap JDAM or SDB1 would be sensible, gliding munitions like JSOW or longer ranged munitions like JSM are all a lot more affordable if you just buy them rather than pay for integration as well...

[ArmChairCivvy]

. And that means the A2G munitions will remain limited,

In the early days it was 'sold' as a self-escorting bomber

[Ron5]

Thanks. I was reacting to a comment from SW1 that implied the US Marines would be uninterested in drop tanks because of their reliance on vertical landings. I didn't see the logic.

But then again, I've not seen any interest from the Marines in drop tanks period. Which probably mean their poor relations in the UK will have to do without.

I think given the recent paucity of information (over a period of years) on the potential for Conformal Tanks we can also put that one in the bin (especially following the news that Block III SuperHornet may not be getting them). Truth is they always sounded like a long shot....the hope of other aftermarket goodies that people were pinning their hopes on, from the Israelis in particular, should also be forgotten about.

I could see external tanks on F-35B, but not on ships, they would make sense on long transit flights for an additional safety margin. A limited clearance for conventional landing and takeoffs (with restrictions on manoeuvering for example) could be doable. This has been done in the past with tanks and baggage pods (which was also on the original list of items to be integrated).

One thing that a lot of people seem to have missed with all the discussion around the, inevitable, reduction in overall UK orders of F-35B is how that influences the UK integrating capabilities to it. If we only end up buying 48 everyone can forget about the integration of any further UK munitions after those already announced for Block IV (with the possible exception of Spear 'spiral' development). It just wouldn't be worth paying the money for a limited fleet of aircraft. And that means the A2G munitions will remain limited, or we buy US munitions specifically for F-35B (with the possible exception of the joint US/Norwegian JSM). In some ways that could be a good thing, purchasing some cheap JDAM or SDB1 would be sensible, gliding munitions like JSOW or longer ranged munitions like JSM are all a lot more affordable if you just buy them rather than pay for integration as well...

Throwing away the UK's complex weapons program that has shown to be extremely productive, by buying US weapons seems a bit daft but quite in line with usual UK defense decisions i.e. short term gain for long term loss aka shiny penny syndrome.

[SW1]

A number of European countries that have f35 will be operating a fleet of 50 or less. It hasn’t stopped the likes of Norway integrating a Norwegian weapon of course that’s provided you are prepared to pay the US enough to do it and we haven’t been particularly gd at that across a number of platforms.

[ArmChairCivvy]

integrating a Norwegian weapon of course that’s provided you are prepared to pay the US enough to do it

They did not pay anything, but rather extracted (from the Pentagon) a $20 mln symbolic payment into the "joint" programme - meaning it became a gvmnt-to-gvmnt deal that the JPO could not, at whisk and whim cancel or reshuffle in the priorities
- so what they gave on their part (other than the pretty penny paid into the missile's dvlmnt) was the first firm quantity export order

[SW1]

[Defiance]

UK F-35 can use US weapons as long as the pilots are qualified to employ them

[Ron5]

Jarheads on QE

[bobp]

Jarheads on QE

Great pictures Ron

[bobp]

UK jets at Red Flag..........

[Timmymagic]

And a move to Yeovilton?

Given the investment in Marham it would make more sense for Marham to become a RNAS.

[Timmymagic]

Throwing away the UK's complex weapons program that has shown to be extremely productive, by buying US weapons seems a bit daft but quite in line with usual UK defense decisions i.e. short term gain for long term loss aka shiny penny syndrome.

I know what you're saying but the Complex Weapons programme can only cover so many bases, we just don't have the money, time and production orders to cover every base. The advantages that some US weapons have would be hard to realise in the UK alone. JDAM, for example, is incredibly cheap due to US production volumes. Could we develop a cheap UK PGM like JDAM? Absolutely, well within our capabilities, MBDA could probably build one from the parts bin in a heartbeat. But could we get it down to c$25k cost without the huge and long running, hot production lines that the US has? Very unlikely..and it would just be re-inventing the wheel for little gain (lets face it, if you're in the market for a GPS guided munition in the West you're buying JDAM, the number of platforms its integrated on seals the deal alone).

Focusing our resources for Complex Weapons on the more advanced weapons protects the UK's sovereign capability far more effectively than trying to do everything.

[SW1]

..........

[Jensy]

Francis Tusa dissecting the 15% UK F-35 build myth:

The overall point is a simple one: if the MoD is going to state, categorically that 15% of every F-35 is “made in Britain”, it’s going to have to show its workings. The F-35 was partly sold on the back of UK industrial participation in the programme.

Few key points:
- The MB ejection seats are built at a US plant
- Lift Fan 60% US built
- Survitec crew clothing from US facility

But if, as seems to be the case, the actual UK workshare is far less than 15%, the balance of investment case for staying within the F-35 sees one leg chopped away. On top of this, the business case for Tempest rises…

[Ron5]

But if, as seems to be the case, the actual UK workshare is far less than 15%, the balance of investment case for staying within the F-35 sees one leg chopped away. On top of this, the business case for Tempest rises…

Additional F-35B's including R&D = about $100m each.

New Tempest including R&D = about $400m each.

Real close

[Jensy]

But if, as seems to be the case, the actual UK workshare is far less than 15%, the balance of investment case for staying within the F-35 sees one leg chopped away. On top of this, the business case for Tempest rises…

Additional F-35B's including R&D = about $100m each.

New Tempest including R&D = about $400m each.

Real close

At that price I'd be arguing for a shed load of Typhoons and as many B-21s as can be afforded!

Time will tell though.

With the current size of the UK/Italy/Sweden(?) fast jet fleets, any 'Tempest' derived platform is certainly going to be closer to F-22 procurement numbers than even Typhoon. As such development costs will likely be proportionately higher. That's before considering LANCA, loyal wingmen etc.

However, on the other side of the pond, there seems to be some level of uncertainty about whether the F-35 will truly be the USAF's 'universal fighter':

Breaking Defence: ‘Clean Sheet’ F-16 Replacement In [sic] The Cards

The study will include a “clean sheet design” for a new “four-and-a-half-gen or fifth-gen-minus” fighter to replace the F-16, Brown elaborated. Rather than simply buy new F-16s, he said, “I want to be able to build something new and different, that’s not the F 16 — that has some of those capabilities, but gets there faster and uses some of our digital approach.”

Link:
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/02/cle ... ssion=true

[serge750]

Going down the rabbit hole

Would a non-stealth ( no RAM ) made out of convetional materials with the same engine & sensors be cheaper viable ? would save some design work but with the down sides of the design.......

[SW1]

Going down the rabbit hole

Would a non-stealth ( no RAM ) made out of convetional materials with the same engine & sensors be cheaper viable ? would save some design work but with the down sides of the design.......

What do u mean by conventional materials?

[serge750]

Metal, carbon fibre, basically what pre stealth aircraft were made from, Just non stelathy, didn't really know how to word it

[SW1]

Metal, carbon fibre, basically what pre stealth aircraft were made from, Just non stelathy, didn't really know how to word it

I know what your trying to say and it’s a hard one to answer become it’s complicated. F35 structure is made of carbon fibre and metal just like what other pre stealth aircraft are made off.

The requirement set being placed on the aircraft that is driving cost and it’s goes to the initial design lay out choices and the commonality of variants for the 3 different landing configurations.

If you take radio frequency, range and payload and changed these you would end up with an aircraft laid out differently to a f35. You may have had 2 engines you may have had a single smaller engine.

But you’ll probably find the sensors are costing more than the airframe.

[bobp]

Would a non-stealth ( no RAM ) made out of convetional materials with the same engine & sensors be cheaper viable ? would save some design work but with the down sides of the design.......

No it would be of little use in peer on peer engagement.

[Lord Jim]

As such development costs will likely be proportionately higher

One of the key drivers for Tempest is to develop a new technologies and new ways of doing things so that any resultant platforms costs are kept down, avoiding the current spiralling costs of each new generation of fighter. Unless the US comes up with a Stealthy low cost fighter they are willing to export, unlike the F-22, any platform resulting from Tempest should find a very health market for export. In addition with the requirement for both Carrier and land operations a core requirement of FCAS, the latter will possibly be more expensive than the result of Tempest. A key market will be users of the F-16, so as I mentioned earlier alot is going to depend on what the US comes up with. The "Clean sheet", design would be interesting but there is no money for it in the existing procurement plans so something will have to give to fund it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

with the requirement for both Carrier and land operations a core requirement of FCAS, the latter will possibly be more expensive than the result of Tempest.

History produces mixed success as for strengthening, after the fact, airframes for carrier use. However that does not prove anything about the process of working it the other way: design to carrier requirement first, and 'lighten up' later
- the French AF chief was presenting to the Belgian parlamentarians that they should buy into (when that fighter competition was still running) the Rafale development path, FCAS being a Rafale XL
- that thinking is still alive if there will be three prototypes built, as the next step... that will do nothing to help with the price of the end product, all in, though

[marktigger]

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/320 ... 7-E12fa3rs

interesting piece