F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

Perhaps Emcat development should have been continued. A potential export opportunity perhaps ? :mrgreen:

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

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

Post by seaspear »

Seems like the Queen Elizabeth class dodged a massive bullet not going to catobar with the help of the U.S.N ,makes some people look like geniuses

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Defense Aerospace reporting big rise in cost of the latest F-35B engines to £22.6 million each - $27.8 million revealed by add on to Lot 14 P&W contract of four F135-PW-600 engines for $111.1 million, even though RR Bristol preform 9.5% of work by value and £ value fallen against $ would have pushed costs down.

Lot 14 engine contract was for 48 F135-PW-100, $521.5 million, $10.9 million each and 10 F135-PW-600, $241 million, $24.1 million each, and now the additional four 600's $111.1 million, $27.8 million each.

That makes the F-35B engine just over two and a half times the cost of a F-35A engine, a marker as to how much more expensive and costly the F-35B to buy and operate than the F-35A and perhaps why persistent talk of RAF buying the longer range and cheaper F-35A.

From <https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... onths.html>

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Down the road the RAF might be given the choice, F-35A or Son of Tempest, with pressure being applies to choose the latter.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote:Down the road the RAF might be given the choice, F-35A or Son of Tempest, with pressure being applies to choose the latter.
Linking to the latest RUSI report on the SDSR 2020 topic. If the focus is on “home defence” and multi-role assets contributing to further afield expeditionary ops (but in support not lead); should not the UK focus be on maximising air superiority fighters (like the Typhoon) over Stealth?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:should not the UK focus be on maximising air superiority fighters (like the Typhoon) over Stealth?
a good question, re: work in progress and called
Lord Jim wrote:or Son of Tempest, with pressure being applies to choose the latter.
. Seriously, would that prgrm deliver an a/c (rather than "modules") if not the RAF - and some others - have not 'chosen' it before then?
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)

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

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

Post by seaspear »

This article suggests that early ifnot present engines of the F35B will not reach expected service life by more than half ,I can understand the need for numbers of these aircraft to be delivered but would suggest waiting for the more mature versions with more efficient engines
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... rvice-life
I have not read any article that the present f35b is capable of the expected sortie rate for the ship and if this a result of the present maturity of the engines or design then this should be addressed first .

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A good find,
"Lockheed Martin's SWAT [team stood up in 2004] cut 2,700 pounds off the F-35B. The changes they made also resulted in 1,300 pounds of weight savings on both the F-35A and C models as part of the herculean effort that effectively saved the Joint Strike Fighter program. Since then, critics had questioned exactly what had to get sacrificed to meet those goals as reports of cracking and other component failures have emerged with the B variant in particular.

The Marine Corps' oldest F-35Bs are underperforming, in general, due in large part to their now thoroughly obsolete Block 2B software package and shortages of spare parts. In March 2018, U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General Steven Rudder, the service's Deputy Commandant for Aviation, informed Congress that these aircraft were mission capable, on average, less than 40 percent of the time.

Two points:
1. With our skijumps we can afford to order LM products with real parts, rather than substitutes. They will still fly, with all the weapons planned to be carried

2. At the time I wrote on many a defence fora about the haste that the USMC had with the IOC and being the first service to achieve that (in effect, NOT having the "B" cancelled on them altogether)
- got a lot of hate mail from the fan boys... but that is only good as it keeps discussion going (then, and in a milder form now)
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)

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

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

Post by seaspear »

My apologies if this article has already been placed here but it seems to cover many of the points of discussion e.g. the U.Ks contribution as a tier1 partner ,the incremental pace of introduction of block 4 upgrades etc.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

Good find!

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The Marine Corps' oldest F-35Bs are underperforming, in general, due in large part to their now thoroughly obsolete Block 2B software package and shortages of spare parts. In March 2018, U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General Steven Rudder, the service's Deputy Commandant for Aviation, informed Congress that these aircraft were mission capable, on average, less than 40 percent of the time.
I think we need to note that in 2017- 2018 all US fighter fleets were suffering from poor mission capable average rates due in part to lack of spears and hi turn over of ops in the years leading up to this

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Taken together with the intention to run down the Programme Office
"the act (P.L. 116-92) does not designate Block 4 and/orC2D2 as a major subprogram, but requiresthe Secretary of Defense to submit an annual integrated master schedule and past performance assessment for each planned phase of Block 4 and C2D2 upgrades"
means that foreign customers will lose their voice within Block
- the US services even having their own Congressional committees for considering what is money's worth (in funding what LM does next)
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: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

One of the F-35 Cat 1 deficiencies is the radar, the Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG-81 AESA radar, USN unhappy that in sea-search mode is limited to what is directly in front of the aircraft “snowplow mode”, USN wants to be able to scan a wider area when in sea-search mode eg to best able to find targets its anti-ship missiles, LRASM etc. To overcome will need substantial additional computing power with the more powerful computers of Tech Refresh 3 part of the Block 4 upgraded a/c coming off the production line approx late 2024.

PS Saab were a pioneer using GaN silicon TRM's from their own foundry in radar and have just test flown this April the first? next gen fighter a/c with AESA GaN X-band radar, as understand all previous flat panel AESA radars are all GaAs, GaN approx five times more powerful silicon giving much better electronic counter-countermeasures, small target detection and wider bandwidth, while consuming less power and generating less heat (rec'd a contract from USN Office of Naval Research).

Similar GaN silicon TRM's used in the Saab Erieye ER S-band radar employed in the GlobalEye surveillance aircraft and why Saab were upset that RAF did not purchase GlobalEye in preference to the five Boeing Wedgetail early warning and control aircraft in an almost $2 billion deal with its old gen radar.

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

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

Post by seaspear »

In respect of the SAAB radar can you provide any information as to any of the advantages it has over the Wedgetail ,
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-e-7 ... he-sentry/

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

The Wedgetail with its Northrop Grumman Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar dates back to the turn of the century, L-band, 1 to 2 GHz, electronically scanned array features three apertures, the two side arrays and a “top hat” array, that provides a 360-degree azimuth scan with no mechanical rotation. MESA’s radar/IFF system is powered by 288 TRM's. Wikipedia "When operating in look-down mode against fighter-sized target, the maximum range is in excess of 370 km. When used against maritime targets, the maximum range is over 240 km for frigate-sized targets."

Northrop Grumman ESSD (formerly Westinghouse) have a long history in AEW radars.

The Saab Erieye ER S-band radar, Extended Range, is the first airborne AESA radar to feature the new gen GaN silicon TRM's, allowing it to generate considerably greater power/range, plus 70% to 450 km compared with Saab previous generation non-GaN Erieye, with its 26 foot long, 1.1-ton antenna.

Saab say for long range surveillance, which requires low atmospheric attenuation, the L or S bands are best if you can have a large antenna, such as the 26 foot Erieye, between the two bands due to the growth of sophisticated jamming equipment they chose the S band as harder to jam thanks to its small/narrower beam and ultra low side lobes, though the S-band is more complex to use.

The GlobalEye/Erieye ER won a $1.27 billion contract from the UAE Government in November 2015 for two aircraft, which was increased to a third aircraft worth a further $235 million in February 2017, talk of adding a fourth at last years Dubai air show. The Saab GlobalEye beat off competition from the Boeing Wedgetail and Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye, which had been working on a deal for more than ten years, the first GlobalEye was rolled out February 2018.

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

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

Post by seaspear »

I appreciate the reply but when you state the Wedgetail has a range over some point and cant state the why the SAAB can exceed this its hard to understand your claimed advantage certainly also the Wedgetail,s L band is steerable so in one direction as required it can sweep further out but the full capabilitys of its range is likely sensitive I would not believe that the model offered to the U.A.E had the same performance as the R.A.A.Fs and as you can appreciate in the attached article it is more than just a radar platform


https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... f-its-game

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

seaspear wrote: I would not believe that the model offered to the U.A.E had the same performance as the R.A.A.Fs
We have, I believe, locked ourselves to the Ozzie upgrade path "Australia as lead customer can’t leverage off US experience for the upgrade work" and for once we have a partnership where we are learning from work just done/ being done and not paying for the same mistakes.
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: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

seaspear wrote:I appreciate the reply but when you state the Wedgetail has a range over some point and cant state the why the SAAB can exceed this its hard to understand your claimed advantage certainly also the Wedgetail,s L band is steerable so in one direction as required it can sweep further out but the full capabilitys of its range is likely sensitive I would not believe that the model offered to the U.A.E had the same performance as the R.A.A.Fs and as you can appreciate in the attached article it is more than just a radar platform


https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... f-its-game

Its not my claimed advantage but Saab's enabled by the new gen GaN silicon used in the TRM's, don't know the numbers of TRM's but expect thousands fitted in the 26 foot Erieye ER radar as opposed to just the 288 in the older MESA radar, in the Saab new a/c X-band GaN radar think 800 TRM's used in the very small area of the a/c nose.

What makes me think Saab claims realistic is Raytheon claim that their new Burke GaN radar, the SPY-6, is 100x more 'sensitive' than the old SPY-1 PESA radar, allowing for SPY-6 larger antennas would still be ~ 60x more sensitive than the old radar, MESA is a later gen radar than SPY-1, but it does give you a feel for gains GaN brings to the new radars.

The Arabs are tough negotiators and they would expect nothing less than the full fat product for the billions of $ involved, especially UAE with good relations to the US. As you say its much more than just the radar but would say Saab have a very good reputation for delivering practical operational kit.

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

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

Post by seaspear »

I dont doubt that the SAAB ERIEYE is a very capable aircraft but if comparing to an aircraft like Wedgetail SAAB would have to come up with a very good argument why it is superior and which I cant find any statement from SAAB of this

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

From the FlightGlobal report Saab were not allowed to compete for the RAF AEW contract, where there was an open competition in the UAR they won against the Wedgetail/MESA with their GlobalEye/Erieye ER, no wonder Saab were not happy.

"The early warning radar relies on gallium nitrate technology, and this helps with the efficient use of power, he adds. Still, the sensitivity of the radar creates problems. Better radar increases complexity. We can see birds, but we don't want to see birds, so we have to create a software solution for this."

Several reporters asked Tossman whether Saab would participate should the UK government decide to open a competition for AEW&C aircraft, and not move forward with a controversial plan to replace the Boeing E-3D Sentry with the 737-based Wedgetail. "We offer the most modern airborne early warning system today. We would certainly welcome an open, transparent competition - but it's up to the government what they want to do."

From <https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 19.article>

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

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

Post by seaspear »

I understand some of the main differences that are obvious is the the Global eye directs received information to ground based operators which is different to the Wedgetail and other AWACS aircraft which have their operators onboard ,certainly a question is why isnt everyone else doing this ,and was this important to the U.A.E .
The Wedgetail is capable of air to air refueling for very long patrols as it has demonstrated in Iraq where crews regularly performed 13 hour shifts and on occassion longer , the Bombadier aircraft the Global eye will be mounted on for the U.A.E is not as I understand it capable of air to air refueling or of even controlling drones to fly along with it ,the aircraft proposed for the U.K to mount the SAAB radar was of course the Airbus ,
Im not an expery on radar and take offerings from salesmen spruiking with a grain of salt e.g. did people stop making the Eurofighter and just buy the Rafale after that competition was won in India I have not come across anything in journals that places Global eye above other aircraft at this stage I believe the Wedgetail is delivering more in other capabilities and capacities than the Globaleye can

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

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

Post by downsizer »

Jesus the thread police will go spastic when they see this! :crazy:

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

Thick end of the wedge? :mrgreen:


Online
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:https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04 ... c-flights/

WASHINGTON — An issue that risks damage to the F-35’s tail section if the aircraft needs to maintain supersonic speeds is not worth fixing and will instead be addressed by changing the operating parameters, the F-35 Joint Program Office told Defense News in a statement Friday.

The deficiency, first reported by Defense News in 2019, means that at extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy’s and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability.

The problem may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.

“This issue was closed on December 17, 2019 with no further actions and concurrence from the U.S. services,” the F-35 JPO statement read. “The [deficiency report] was closed under the category of ‘no plan to correct,’ which is used by the F-35 team when the operator value provided by a complete fix does not justify the estimated cost of that fix.

The JPO had classified the issues for the "B" and "C" models as separate category 1 deficiencies, indicating in one document that the problem presents a challenge to accomplishing one of the key missions of the fighter jet. In this scale, category 1 represents the most serious type of deficiency.

While it may seem dire that an aircraft procured for flying at supersonic speeds will be unable to do so for extended periods, the F-35 may not need to do it that often.

For the F-35, as opposed to the F-22 where supersonic flight is baked into its tactics, the ability to fly supersonic is more of a “break glass in case of emergency” feature, said Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Hudson Institute and a retired naval officer.

Three other category 1 deficiencies have also been officially designated as “closed," meaning they have either been fixed or the performance of the aircraft is being accepted as is, the JPO reported.

The so-called green glow deficiency has been closed out as of last July. Green glow refers to a green light emitted by the helmet-mounted display’s LED lights. That glow obstructs a pilot’s view of an aircraft carrier’s deck lights during landing operations at sea in very low light, such as that experienced at night.

An issue created when the F-35A and F-35B blow a tire, which can result in a severed hydraulic line, will remain uncorrected, the JPO statement said, but it has not come up again since the program switched tires.

“The DR [deficiency report] was closed under the category of ‘no plan to correct’ based on the fact that the landing gear system design meets all F-35 safety standards,” the statement read. “Issues related to premature bursting of tires were resolved by tire design changes during early F-35 development and no instances of dual hydraulic system loss caused by a tire burst have ever been observed on an F-35.”

And an issue that forced the F-35 to land in cold weather because of battery trouble has been fixed, the JPO said. The issue was caused by extreme cold entering the plane when the doors to the jet’s nose landing gear were open, setting off alarm bells, according to “for official use only” documents exclusively obtained by Defense News.
Copied from another forum puts the supersonic limitation into context:

"If you read the original set of Defense News articles that came out last year, the deficiencies for the B and C exist simply because they each individually had a single test flight where their tails were damaged from extended afterburner usage, at around Mach 1.3 or so, at high altitude. They tried to replicate the damage to identify the exact conditions that caused it, but they were never able to cause the damage ever again (this was all back 5+ years ago).

In the period since that tail damage was observed, they did put new coatings onto the tail surfaces that face the afterburner plume, and that might have helped, but because they couldn't replicate the damage, and yet the damage did happen (maybe there was some atmospheric condition like atmospheric temperature that they didn't record and haven't been able to replicate), they can't verify that the issue is well and truly gone.

So some ~200,000 flight hours later, with no further cases of tail damage, they're leaving it as an open deficiency with a pilot-enforced time limit on afterburner use within a certain part of the flight envelope where they speculate some pilot might one day run into the conditions that caused the damage. If an F-35C or F-35B pilot does one day have the need to use their afterburner beyond the current restrictions, there's nothing stopping them from breaking the time limits, it's just that they'll need to have a reasonable answer as to why they broke the rule during the debrief.

According to the JPO PEO they've also decided to leave it open, rather than file it as 'closed with an acceptable pilot workaround', just so that (eg) 15 years from now, some JPO or USN F-35 integration office manager will hopefully be able to recognise that a new stealth material used for a hypersonic stealth platform is going to be worth investigating retrofitting onto the F-35B and F-35C"

Post Reply