F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[topman]

Well that is how it was done in the Falklands war to reinforce the Task Force's Sea Harrier fleet, So someone somewhere is probably dusting off those plans just in case.

Those OJARs don't write themselves eh?

[AndyC]

Well the first thing that should be done with the extra defence funding is restore the target of having 48 F-35B in service by 2024 rather than 2025 and then confirm an order of six per year from 2025 onwards.

Simple!

[ArmChairCivvy]

restore the target of having 48 F-35B in service by 2024 rather than 2025 and then confirm an order of six per year from 2025 onwards.

I forget already what caused the slippage, but from the CEPP milestone onwards it is not simple, but rather involves some fundamental choices. Not only the combat effectiveness of the whole fleet (of fast jets) for several decades to come, by getting the mix of types within it right - for the available money, but also whether we maintain the sovereign capability to keep ourselves in the forefront of airpower. Not implying any specific quantities, but the simple fact that up in the air there are no silver medals up for grabs, nor is fighting to a stalemate a likely outcome.

[Timmymagic]

Well the first thing that should be done with the extra defence funding is restore the target of having 48 F-35B in service by 2024 rather than 2025 and then confirm an order of six per year from 2025 onwards.

Simple!

Even with additional funding that may not be possible, the fast jet training pipeline has been a mess in recent years, its only recently that steps have been taken to sort it out. We could order jets early...but have no pilots for them...

IF there was any more money (and its not clear there is...) a far more useful use would be making sure all of the 18 'combat capable' jets we'll have by years end (excluding the 3 test aircraft) are funded to bring them to the full Block IV standard, and then spend any spare cash on spare parts....that would have a far greater effect on the fleets utility in the short to medium term. If we buy any more, more quickly, we'll probably end up cannibalising them for spare parts regardless...lets concentrate on getting the 48 we'll have in 2025 piloted, supported, to the same standard (no more fleets within fleets) with all the planned UK munitions integrated and deployed before we do anything else...only when we've done all that is contemplating buying more worthwhile..

[Defiance]

This comment could be replicated across so many programs - lets get our s**t in order before we start throwing out wish lists

[Ron5]

Loyal wingman as I understand takes off a conventional runway,the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers with their ramps would likely require something very different

Take off is relatively easy to solve, the candidates are small airframes. A rocket assisted ramp or a large rubber band would do. It's landing that's a tad difficult which is why the RN reached out to industry to ask them for their thoughts a few months ago.

[Ron5]

The delay of the last order by one year has been described as purely financially motivated i.e. to balance the books

[seaspear]

Loyal wingman as I understand takes off a conventional runway,the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers with their ramps would likely require something very different

Take off is relatively easy to solve, the candidates are small airframes. A rocket assisted ramp or a large rubber band would do. It's landing that's a tad difficult which is why the RN reached out to the industry to ask them for their thoughts a few months ago.

This article only suggests a derivative of a Loyal wingman for sea based options I would of found it interesting if such a craft could be deployed from the Canberra class ships a good drone design would be a force multiplier the f35b and its carrier

[serge750]

Loyal wingman as I understand takes off a conventional runway,the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers with their ramps would likely require something very different

Take off is relatively easy to solve, the candidates are small airframes. A rocket assisted ramp or a large rubber band would do. It's landing that's a tad difficult which is why the RN reached out to industry to ask them for their thoughts a few months ago.

Would be good to Re - hash some old ideas, automomous or remote control VTOL take off pad thing

Maybe not as dramatic a landing as CATOBAR but....

http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/2 ... aaqsk.jpeg

[Lord Jim]

Would be good to Re - hash some old ideas, automomous or remote control VTOL take off pad thing

Maybe not as dramatic a landing as CATOBAR but....

http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/2 ... aaqsk.jpeg

Thunderbirds are GO!!!

[Lord Jim]

Take off is relatively easy to solve, the candidates are small airframes. A rocket assisted ramp or a large rubber band would do. It's landing that's a tad difficult which is why the RN reached out to industry to ask them for their thoughts a few months ago.

Well they are supposed to be semi-disposable so give them a floatation device so they can ditch near the taskforce if they survive the mission and be retrieved by boat or helicopter.

[seaspear]

I forgot to add this it makes sense on my previous post
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/loyal ... ased-ucav/

[ArmChairCivvy]

some fundamental choices. Not only the combat effectiveness of the whole fleet (of fast jets) for several decades to come, by getting the mix of types within it right - for the available money

Some folks may wonder about (even be irritated by?) the fact that I keep talking about the mix (for the ongoing IR that's the RAF and FAA then) and not just over the next two years, but over the next decades. Let me borrow from a linked article, used in the ASPI piece contributed by @seaspear above on this F-35 thread (F-35 numbers are topical in the IR, but it is not the only thing that determines the mix in two years time... or in two decades from now)

" models work best when the sides are roughly equal in terms of weapon effectiveness.

But they’re not without application [when that assumption is not valid] either. For example, when the RAND Corporation modelled an air war over the Taiwan Strait a [few] years ago, they produced a set of numbers that allow us to test Lanchester’s models [that derive from as early as the emergence of air power during WW1]. From the RAND data, the American forces had a clear aircraft-on-aircraft superiority over Chinese forces, ranging from a whopping 27:1 for the F-22 Raptor [class, or 'quality' of assets] to better than two and a half to one for the F/A-18 Super Hornets. When the number of sorties by each is taken into account, the US and Taiwanese aircraft collectively had an average effectiveness of almost five times the Chinese ones.

Advantage [arranged by 'silver bullet-ness' factor]
F-22

27 : 1
F-15

4.6 : 1
F/A-18

2.6 : 1
Taiwanese

2.3 : 1
Average

4.7 : 1

So the US wins, right? Well, no—despite the numbers above, the RAND shows that China wins in a great many of the simulations. The reason, as Lanchester would have known, lies in the number of sorties generated. RAND puts it this way:

The effects of China’s missile barrage [presumably A2A missiles; one should include l-r artillery missiles and 'carrier killers'] are dramatically apparent: on the first day, the PLAAF generates about 3.7 times as many sorties as do the United States and Taiwan combined. … China’s ability to suppress or close… bases could give the PLA Air Force an almost overwhelming numerical advantage that—coupled with the rough qualitative parity that now exists between the two sides—could allow China to attain air superiority over Taiwan and the strait.

The US response to this calculation could be to renew production of the F-22, which I imagine would make the F-22 cheer squad very happy. But it would be wrong—buying more expensive ‘silver bullet’ platforms actually misses the point of this sort of analysis. The rational Chinese response depends on the relative cost of improving the quality of its aircraft to reduce the 27:1 advantage and further increasing numbers. They don’t have to achieve parity—if they get close enough, numbers will do the rest, as they do in RAND’s analysis. Success in any future air campaign will be about numbers, persistence [how you generate sorties, or prolong* them] and technical quality—probably in that order."

-----------
* will not deal with the problem in intensive engagements of running out of missiles; hence better loadout (from 4 to 6 internal AMRAAMs) or smaller missiles to achieve the same effect are constantly being worked on

[Timmymagic]

Well they are supposed to be semi-disposable so give them a floatation device so they can ditch near the taskforce if they survive the mission and be retrieved by boat or helicopter.

Kratos' target drone approach is a well worn path for that. Problem is that when parachuted and ditched in sea water the target drone goes back to the manufacturer for a re-build before re-use. There are lots of STOVL or VSTOL drones or indeed aircraft in the works (particularly in the e-VSTOL space). None appear to be aimed at the speeds or ranges necessary to have utility as a loyal wingman for fast air. I'm afraid a Loyal Wingman for F-35B from the QE Class will be a chimaera for a very long time. The solution is there in the form of the F-35B's lift fan, but developing a smaller one (or even re-using the RR LiftSystem) would be very expensive.

[Ron5]

Well they are supposed to be semi-disposable so give them a floatation device so they can ditch near the taskforce if they survive the mission and be retrieved by boat or helicopter.

Kratos' target drone approach is a well worn path for that. Problem is that when parachuted and ditched in sea water the target drone goes back to the manufacturer for a re-build before re-use. There are lots of STOVL or VSTOL drones or indeed aircraft in the works (particularly in the e-VSTOL space). None appear to be aimed at the speeds or ranges necessary to have utility as a loyal wingman for fast air. I'm afraid a Loyal Wingman for F-35B from the QE Class will be a chimaera for a very long time. The solution is there in the form of the F-35B's lift fan, but developing a smaller one (or even re-using the RR LiftSystem) would be very expensive.

A simple wire arrestor system is the most likely choice.

[Lord Jim]

Careful you might get the RAF excited about ordering F-35Cs.

[Scimitar54]

That should substantially reduce the cost of CATOBAR conversions for the QEC Carriers.

[seaspear]

The U.S.N could be looking at drones with two different functions one being the mq-25a which is being used now in refueling midair the f35c and considerably extending its range https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/1 ... nker-drone
It would also assist the f35 to have an accompanying ucav similar to these already in production https://www.defenseworld.net/feature/43 ... 769hc0zaUk nothing about this expensive craft suggest ditching and picking up later certainly the opportunity what these craft bring as force multipliers to the f35b suggests a need to devise some means of its introduction to the R.N

[Timmymagic]

It would also assist the f35 to have an accompanying ucav similar to these already in production https://www.defenseworld.net/feature/43 ... 769hc0zaUk nothing about this expensive craft suggest ditching and picking up later certainly the opportunity what these craft bring as force multipliers to the f35b suggests a need to devise some means of its introduction to the R.N

That would require a full CATOBAR set up....which would cost $1.5bn per ship....not going to happen.

Setting up a Kratos Valkyrie or a Mako on a rail for a rocket launch off the deck on QE isn't going to happen either.

[Lord Jim]

Well this is making a strong case for FCASW to be integrated with the F-35B to give it substantial stand off range against top tier GBAD threats.

[BlueD954]

Well this is making a strong case for FCASW to be integrated with the F-35B to give it substantial stand off range against top tier GBAD threats.

That will likely be too large for the internal bay.

[Ron5]

That would require a full CATOBAR set up....which would cost $1.5bn per ship....not going to happen.

Tru dat.

Setting up a Kratos Valkyrie or a Mako on a rail for a rocket launch off the deck on QE isn't going to happen either.

Of course not. It will be the Boeing ATS that will be launched and recovered from the QE's. Duh.

By the way, would the drone have to be RAF rather than FAA?

[Ron5]

Well this is making a strong case for FCASW to be integrated with the F-35B to give it substantial stand off range against top tier GBAD threats.

That will likely be too large for the internal bay.

Does that matter if "substantial stand off range" ??

[seaspear]

i dont know if the dimensions of this device would fit in the internal bay of the f35b
https://newatlas.com/military/f-35a-moc ... ight-test/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... lear-bomb/
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ation-bomb
Does this have anything to do with Germany not ordering this aircraft?

[BlueD954]

Well this is making a strong case for FCASW to be integrated with the F-35B to give it substantial stand off range against top tier GBAD threats.

Yes.still makes it un steathly and sucks up fuel

That will likely be too large for the internal bay.

Does that matter if "substantial stand off range" ??