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 »

Running the Electronic Attack mission on a single seater is not ideal to say the least though. In the early days of the JSF there were suggestions (but nothing more) that a 2 seater variant could be useful in some circmstances, suspect it will never happen though.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

I think it’s time we got back on the topic of the F-35 in UK service. Feel free to continue your Australian discussion in the Australian thread: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=19

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

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

Post by seaspear »

With regards to the F35 B this article suggests that the upgrading to block4 will add weight and affect range ,I dont know if this has been discussed elsewhere but in an aircraft operating off a carrier this suggests it would be vital for all of the F35B operating off carriers to be so upgraded to avoid having a reduced patrol range
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/prog ... n-road-map

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:would be vital for all of the F35B operating off carriers to be so upgraded to avoid having a reduced patrol range
As I have been hinting that getting through all of Block4 will involve constant rebuilding of the already delivered a/c (though at first look the last 13 of our confirmed purchase might be able to evade this), the remedy to the side effects of Block4 changes may be
A. "reduced fuel consumption by as much as 20%, with a 15% overall thrust improvement." or
B. ". The variable-cycle concept enables optimized operations at different flight conditions, saving up to 25% in fuel burn and generating up to 10% extra thrust" or
C. not fit with the B models at all

In no particular order; perhaps C. above should be B.
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)

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

seaspear wrote:With regards to the F35 B this article suggests that the upgrading to block4 will add weight and affect range ,I dont know if this has been discussed elsewhere but in an aircraft operating off a carrier this suggests it would be vital for all of the F35B operating off carriers to be so upgraded to avoid having a reduced patrol range
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/prog ... n-road-map
The changes necessary to get to Block IV vary dependent on the production batch they were built with. But realistically they're all fairly minor in terms of weight (in some cases no weight whatsoever as its all software). I'd take the affecting performance bit with a large amount of salt...looks like an engine manufacturer trying to drum up some additional revenue by an unnecessary upgrade path.

Personally I'd leave the upgrading of the engines and lift system at the bottom of the list. Lets get some use and life out of the ones we've got. If there is an engine change possible and proven by 2035 to get them through to end of life then perhaps then.

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:looks like an engine manufacturer trying to drum up some additional revenue by an unnecessary upgrade path.

Personally I'd leave the upgrading of the engines and lift system at the bottom of the list.
It should definitely be a MLU; I definitely hope it won't become another "must have" upgrade to make the already massive investment usable.
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:
seaspear wrote:With regards to the F35 B this article suggests that the upgrading to block4 will add weight and affect range ,I dont know if this has been discussed elsewhere but in an aircraft operating off a carrier this suggests it would be vital for all of the F35B operating off carriers to be so upgraded to avoid having a reduced patrol range
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/prog ... n-road-map
The changes necessary to get to Block IV vary dependent on the production batch they were built with. But realistically they're all fairly minor in terms of weight (in some cases no weight whatsoever as its all software). I'd take the affecting performance bit with a large amount of salt...looks like an engine manufacturer trying to drum up some additional revenue by an unnecessary upgrade path.

Personally I'd leave the upgrading of the engines and lift system at the bottom of the list. Lets get some use and life out of the ones we've got. If there is an engine change possible and proven by 2035 to get them through to end of life then perhaps then.
The article says one of the block IV weight gains was due to the weight of the additional weapon types that could be carried. Interesting logic. Apparently 10k lbs of old weapon types weighs less than 10k lbs of new weapon types. Kinda like which weighs more, a ton of feathers or a ton of lead?

The other weight gain was the additional sensors. Not aware of any but I'm no expert.

As for additional software. any fule knos it weighs more (eyes roll).

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by jonas »

Parliamentary written answers 14th July :-

Asked by Mr Kevan Jones
(North Durham)
[N]
Asked on: 09 July 2020
Ministry of Defence
Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft
71676
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 9 July 2020 to Question 69468 on Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft, what the estimated period of cover is for the (a) Deployed Spares Pack and (b) Afloat Spares Pack.
A
Answered by: Jeremy Quin
Answered on: 14 July 2020

The planning assumption for a Deployed Spares Pack is that it will support 12 aircraft for the first ten days of a land-based deployment. An Afloat Spares Pack is planned to support 12 embarked aircraft for 28 days.

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

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

Post by bobp »

jonas wrote:An Afloat Spares Pack is planned to support 12 embarked aircraft for 28 days.
So 24 aircraft on a three month cruise, would need 6 afloat spares packages? Does the RAF and RN carry that amount or do they have to be pre ordered.?

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

You expect to be resupplyed in that time. Items that are required to be returned to the UK would normally happen at the same time.

Although I wouldn't read too much into the answer, especially as it says 'planning assumption' at the beginning. Wait and see.

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

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

Post by Jdam »



Also interesting



I wrongly believed that we could fit 2 in each bay (the art released by MBDA had 2 in a bay). What does this mean for air combat patrol, does that mean pilots will need to choose between carrying 2 Meteor or 4 AMRAAM's radar guided weapons into combat?

Also did we have it confirmed they will be carried externally?

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Jdam wrote:

Also interesting



I wrongly believed that we could fit 2 in each bay (the art released by MBDA had 2 in a bay). What does this mean for air combat patrol, does that mean pilots will need to choose between carrying 2 Meteor or 4 AMRAAM's radar guided weapons into combat?

Also did we have it confirmed they will be carried externally?
1. The picture in the tweet shows two in the bay

2. NavyLookout is notorious for its mistakes

3. Suggest you hold judgement until confirmed from a more reliable source

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

P.S. Just checked MBDA website, they still describe 4 Meteors in bays and two ASRAAM on wing rails in air combat configuration. Only drops to one Meteor per bay when carrying other stores e.g. Spear 3.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:P.S. Just checked MBDA website, they still describe 4 Meteors in bays and two ASRAAM on wing rails in air combat configuration. Only drops to one Meteor per bay when carrying other stores e.g. Spear 3.
Is that a decent load out compared to the potential adversaries it might have to face? 6 missiles doesn't sound like a lot

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:
Ron5 wrote:P.S. Just checked MBDA website, they still describe 4 Meteors in bays and two ASRAAM on wing rails in air combat configuration. Only drops to one Meteor per bay when carrying other stores e.g. Spear 3.
Is that a decent load out compared to the potential adversaries it might have to face? 6 missiles doesn't sound like a lot
But they're British, they don't miss like those foreign ones.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by jonas »

Small article on page ten of the July issue of "Desider" in regards to meteor and F35B :-

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... der-v3.pdf

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

Ron5 wrote: But they're British, they don't miss like those foreign ones.
I hope so, you probably won't get 6 Meteor in an F-35B!

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

What about the other underwing pylons that can be fitted to the F-35? If needed surely these could also carry a number of Meteors?

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:What about the other underwing pylons that can be fitted to the F-35? If needed surely these could also carry a number of Meteors?
How are you going to sneak up on the bad guys if you do that??

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:What about the other underwing pylons that can be fitted to the F-35? If needed surely these could also carry a number of Meteors?
How are you going to sneak up on the bad guys if you do that??
Well if we're doing it Sneaky-Beaky like, they won't know how many planes we have in the air and will turn and run... :angel: :thumbup:

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

dmereifield wrote:Is that a decent load out compared to the potential adversaries it might have to face? 6 missiles doesn't sound like a lot
In short yes, its perfectly fine. Even Typhoon in full A2A configuration has 4 Meteor and 4 Asraam. That loadout is easily the best A2A loadout ever seen on a combat aircraft. Losing a couple of Asraam isn't a massive step down. Tornado F-3 used to carry 4 Sky Flash and 4 AIM-9L and was comparatively heavily armed. Outside of manufacturers PR stunts its very unusual to see a combat aircraft with more than 8 missiles in total. More usual is 4. When you see Russian aircraft with multiple missiles another thing to factor is that Russian doctrine is often to fire 2 missiles per target, one IR homer and a SARH/Active homer.
Lord Jim wrote:What about the other underwing pylons that can be fitted to the F-35? If needed surely these could also carry a number of Meteors?
LM has produced CGI of F-35s in 'Beast Mode' with 14 Amraam and 2 Sidewinder 9X....no-one will ever do that as its a PR stunt only. That number is dependent on the Sidekick rack (which can only be installed on the A and C variants) which allows 6 Amraam in the internal bays.
But there has yet to be any missile firings from any external pylons with the exception of AIM-9X and Asraam from the outer wing pylons. Adding Amraam either singly (on the outer pylon) or on a twin rack (or single) to the mid or inner wing pylon has yet to be seen in real life. I suspect its way down the list of nice things to have.

Image
This was produced before Sidekick was proposed, hence 2 per bay only. But it does illustrate the 'potential' for external carriage of Amraam. Can't imagine any situation where it would be needed though.
Image

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

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

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote:Typhoon in full A2A configuration has 4 Meteor and 4 Asraam
That is the baseline standard air defence layout not the full one and you can add in the important but often overlooked gun.

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote:That is the baseline standard air defence layout not the full one and you can add in the important but often overlooked gun.
I've never seen any flying, operational configuration of the Typhoon carrying more than 8 air to air missiles. You could switch the inner Asraam pair for Meteor or Amraam. But you'd still only have 8 air to air missiles. Don't think there has been any integration or firing trials for air to air missiles from the other pylons.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

RAF accused of wasting money on 'outdated' F-35 warplanes

Defence sources have expressed concerns regarding the procurement of F-35s with some planes unable to take off from new aircraft carriers
By Danielle Sheridan, Political Correspondent 18 July 2020 • 6:00pm

A row has broken out over the F-35s as the Royal Air Force has been accused of wasting money on “outdated” warplanes that cannot take off from the new £3bn aircraft carriers.

Ahead of the highly anticipated Integrated Defence and Security review, sources have told The Telegraph they are concerned about the RAF’s priorities regarding the procurement of F-35s, at a time when the Ministry of Defence’s budget will be coming under scrutiny.

The row centres over two versions of the planes - the F-35A and F-35B - the former being unable to operate from the UK's two 65,000 tonne Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

There are concerns the RAF may present the ‘A’ as more cost effective to purchase as they look to save money ahead of the review, which sources have deemed “shortsighted”.

One defence industry source told this newspaper that it was therefore “nonsensical” to hear that the “RAF are ramping up their push for the F-35A”.

“Why do they think they need F-35As when they cannot operate them from an aircraft carrier?”

They dismissed as an “excuse” arguments that the ‘As’ were cheaper because the craft does not have the Rolls-Royce lift system which enables the Bs to take off vertically from a short runway, and added that “they only want the ‘A’ because they want their own toys to play with”.

“If you are going to buy F35s you buy them to operate on aircraft carriers. What is the point in buying an outdated aircraft that you can’t send anywhere around the world?”

A separate source claimed they had seen a briefing slide by the RAF that was recently shown to the Treasury which set out the need for F35As and alleged it contained figures that were “invented fact”.

Tobias Ellwood, Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, said he was concerned “that we are even having such conversations”.

“It could very well be that the purchase of F35As makes strategic sense, but only after you’ve established what you want to do with them,” he said.

“I’m afraid it’s a pattern of behaviour that we see within the MoD. Let’s establish what we need to do. Then you can work out the necessary platforms to implement that strategy.

"Let’s have that Integrated Review that allows us to ask these questions which then point to you what our air component of a wider air strategy should be.”

The row comes after a National Audit Office report last month warned the Royal Navy's £3 billion aircraft carriers could be "constrained" by a lack of support fleet.

It also said that the MoD had yet to commit the funding required for enough F-35 lightning II fighter jets to sustain the carriers over their expected 50-year operating life.

The Telegraph understands that there is concern that "without these crucial supporting elements they are not going to use carrier strike in the way they want to use it".

It is understood that the MOD has Treasury approval to complete the Tranche 1 fleet of 48 F-35B aircraft, which are expected to be delivered by 2025, of which the RAF and Royal Navy are in agreement on.

A spokesman for the MoD said: “Decisions on future F-35 numbers and aircraft variant will ensure the right capability for our Armed Forces along with value for money.

"The upcoming Integrated Review will allow the UK to determine the best variant for future F-35 purchases.”

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

I would think that shoots the RAF in their Tempest foot but what would I know (not a lot says Timmy).

You have to wonder if the Navy had gone CATOBAR and F-35C, would Tempest have survived? or just boiled down to the unmanned sidekick. Maybe the RAF dodged a bullet.

Post Reply