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 »

No they are not willing to, but if it comes to it, they will be ordered to do so! :mrgreen:

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

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

Post by SW1 »

People make the capability and there’s an awful lot in the background not just a few pointy things and there not moving service.

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

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

Post by topman »

RichardIC wrote:
That made laugh :lol:

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 different take:


Royal Navy eyes 'catapult system' to launch drones and jets from aircraft carriers
Experts warn 'Plan B' launch and recovery systems needed for F-35

By Dominic Nicholls, Defence and Security Correspondent 8 March 2021 • 7:19pm
The Telegraph
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)

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

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

Post by bobp »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Experts warn 'Plan B' launch and recovery systems needed for F-35
Absolute dribble unless they are buying the C model.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Thx,
@tinman already sunk The Times
... Torygraph also seems to have (now) taken a hit below the waterline
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)

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Thought it worthwhile to copy this one picked up by Jensy to this thread, too
Jensy wrote:Meanwhile in Italy (a thread from Francis Tusa):


if we do procure
all 90 planes - will on its own absorb all or financial defence, making it impossible to invest in other projects more in step with the times."
Mamma mia...
Nowhere near ;) as radical as what the HASC committee chair said at the end of last month:

"“We’ve got to seriously scrub” programs like the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter in Congress instead of rewarding “people for failure, not results” in developing new weapons systems, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Friday.

Speaking in a Brookings Institution online forum, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said “there’s not an easy way out of” a program like the F-35 even despite his concerns on cost and performance. “It all comes down to not putting all your eggs in one basket,” as he said happened with the fifth-generation fighter.

Smith said he wasn’t saying the United States and its allies did not need modernized fighter/attack aircraft. “I want to stop throwing money down that rat-hole,” he said. Instead of buying more F-35s, he said the Air Force’s F-15EX could provide a model for other services to follow in adding capacity to their air fleets without retooling production lines already developed for foreign military sales."
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)

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Instead of buying more F-35s, he said the Air Force’s F-15EX could provide a model for other services to follow in adding capacity to their air fleets without retooling production lines already developed for foreign military sales."
Should we follow the Germans and purchase a limited number of Tranche 4 Typhoons instead of upgrading, or not, the Tranche 2 airframes? This would give the RAF a more homogenised Typhoon fleet, all with AESA and the latest avionics, software etc..

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

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

Post by bobp »

Lord Jim wrote:Should we follow the Germans and purchase a limited number of Tranche 4 Typhoons instead of upgrading, or not, the Tranche 2 airframes? This would give the RAF a more homogenised Typhoon fleet, all with AESA and the latest avionics, software etc..

A lot of sense in doing that, the infrastructure already exists, the running costs known, I would use the Tranche 2 jets for QRA, and retire the T1 airframes. Plus it would keep the production line busy until Tempest production begins.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

bobp wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Should we follow the Germans and purchase a limited number of Tranche 4 Typhoons instead of upgrading, or not, the Tranche 2 airframes? This would give the RAF a more homogenised Typhoon fleet, all with AESA and the latest avionics, software etc..

A lot of sense in doing that, the infrastructure already exists, the running costs known, I would use the Tranche 2 jets for QRA, and retire the T1 airframes. Plus it would keep the production line busy until Tempest production begins.
This would be my ideal solution for the UK fast jet fleet until whatever Tempest is going to deliver becomes clearer.

If possible, I'd also look to salvage as much as possible from the (roughly) 37 remaining Tranche 1s (engines/ejector seat/refuelling probe..etc). Stick them in 36 brand new airframes, or cycle them through the fleet, and give the QRA/Falklands roles to the Tranche 2s as you suggest.

Even if uncle Rishi gifts another two dozen F-35s, the fleet is never going to have the mass to take on less demanding land-based roles.

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

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

Post by seaspear »

It could be well to remember that the main role of the f35 in piercing air defences has not been shown to be able to be performed by fourth-generation aircraft, having just a token amount deployed to the navy when if situations develop means they are needed elsewhere in the land theatre suggests that a number of these aircraft should be enough to meet this possibility.
The purpose of aircraft procurement should be to meet the needs of the defence force not the manufacturing industry like the tail wagging the dog

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

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

Post by NickC »

seaspear wrote:It could be well to remember that the main role of the f35 in piercing air defences has not been shown to be able to be performed by fourth-generation aircraft, having just a token amount deployed to the navy when if situations develop means they are needed elsewhere in the land theatre suggests that a number of these aircraft should be enough to meet this possibility.
The purpose of aircraft procurement should be to meet the needs of the defence force not the manufacturing industry like the tail wagging the dog
Would think Typhoon with Storm Shadow will have a much higher probability of successfully placing its warhead on target than a F35B with Paveway IV bomb against a peer enemy, only when Block 4 F-35B a/c operational might that change with Spear 3

Storm Shadow ~300 mile range with ~1,000 lb warhead
Spear 3 ~80 mile range with ~50 lb ? warhead

F-35B with is short weapons bay will severely constrained in missiles it can carry internally, eg Kongsberg JSM too long as will be the new AGM-88G, if fitted externally the stealth aspect of F-35B will be compromised as will the range due additional drag and so limiting its ability in piercing air defences.

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

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

Post by Defiance »

Spear 3 does things Storm Shadow can't do, Storm Shadow does things Spear 3 can't do. Different tools to crack open different types of nut.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Defiance wrote:Storm Shadow is great if you know exactly where the thing you want to blow up is (and is unlikely to move). For things more mobile than a concrete box then it's not quite as useful, that's where SPEAR 3 comes in
Exactly the point; don't think it was a head-on comparison?

You have your quarterback... err, at the back: throws a hardball (is this still :crazy: American football?) at everything that is known.

The stealth fleet sneaks closer up. - Takes out the rest

And then the abundance of Typhoons we have stream through, take everything else than IADS out
- the battle won
- howabout the war? How many of these actions can we execute

A. concurrently
B. in different theatres (check out what teatr voennykh deistvii stands for in OpFor planning... I already did the the trans-literation from Cyrillic, so that Gary at Google can be of service :) )

and C. on an enduring basis

Capability vs. capacity?
Ugh :think:
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)

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

If you look through the eyes of operating as part of a like minded Coalition rather than as a single nation, during such operations we may not be able to bring the F-35 to the table but would be able to bring probably the best allrounder with the Typhoon, especially in its advanced form.

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

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

Post by SW1 »

There is quite a drive very understandably to not have manned platforms penetrate any air defence systems as its hazardous to health!

There is never only one way to crack a nut as shown time and time again.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:to not have manned platforms penetrate any air defence systems
Maybe there is some thinking in that vein to pair the F-35 and the F-15EX. The latter is the newest two-seater in the category (Growler is a navy plane, and older) and having a back-seat driver for all the wingmen might be an idea :idea:

Not to mention that if any F-35s scout ahead, in a stealth mode, the F-15EX nose cone allows for a humongous radar dish that can afford, given the distance, be visible to the OpFor
- just saying
- and this is of course for when we operate with like-minded allies, perhaps even operate with mixed fleets
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 survivability was not important for the f-15ex and would not fare well against peer forces
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... age-179792

I can understand the argument for a longer range patrol aircraft being cheaper to run and maintain , that may be useful as a bomb truck once the opposition air threats are minimised but the U.S.A.F has a much larger number of planes allowing it to have a variety of different platforms and also a larger number of airfields to disperse such aircraft which could be different to Europe where many airfields may be in reach of supersonic if not hypersonic missiles , certainly the f35 with its abilities of coordination of defence and attack would be extremely critical , perhaps there needs to be more understanding of the causes of associated costs for the f35

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:Europe where many airfields may be in reach of supersonic if not hypersonic missiles
Exactly the point. If you look at how the US forces in Europe are being redistributed within Europe
A. deployable HQs are moving frwrd (so that they can better integrate with local forces)
B. whereas USAFE is moving further back, to the "rear" areas, and

C. with "B" (as above) the F-15 range can only help, and
D. as all of this relates to the quote from you:
D'1 Russia is very afraid of the US (emerging) Prompt Global Strike 'complex'
D'2 that complex is not (quite) here yet, hence
D'3 Russia is making the most of pushing its growing TBM arsenal as close to 'targets' as possible,
to gain political leverage
D'4 If you need to shoot back at such an attack (tactical/ TBM level) then the F-15EX is the platform that has a bomb bay of the size to do that
... leaving
D'5 the strategic bomber force to do what is "in the name"
seaspear wrote:there needs to be more understanding of the causes of associated costs for the f35
You said it!
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)

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

In air to air combat, the F-15EX should be more than capable of handling the majority of peer opponents for some time to come. Both the Russian and Chinese stealth programmes are still some way for putting a true stealth platform into service that can matched either the F-22 or F-35. Legacy platforms such as those based on the Flanker are easy targets due to their size, radar cross section and IR output, so platforms like the Typhoon, Rafale and F-15EX should still get first shot.

The issue is verses Russian and Chinese developed GBAD systems and their A2/AD capabilities, which in turn highlights the need for SEAD capable stand off weaponry, but this in turn can be used by platforms such as the F-15EX, so again such platforms will remain viable for quite some time.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Legacy platforms such as those based on the Flanker are easy targets due to their size, radar cross section and IR output, so platforms like the Typhoon, Rafale and F-15EX should still get first shot.
Did I :) already mention the humongous nose cone on F-15s. If not :lol: , let's talk about the weapon carry (for a stand-off turkey shoot).
Lord Jim wrote: GBAD systems and their A2/AD capabilities, which in turn highlights the need for SEAD capable stand off weaponry, but this in turn can be used by platforms such as the F-15EX
Better than that, there is the 'back seat driver'- was it the weapons officer in RAF speak?
- stand off weapons -- pfhaff, old hat. OK, every trick in the book may be needed
- of course he would be driving a swarm of LANCAs into the danger zone. Oops, what ever the two US(AF) alternatives for doing the same are (and: they are already flying!)
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 is going off thread but
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... generation
this article suggests the SU-35 has a radar cross-section one third of the f-15ex which cancelled work to reduce its radar cross section
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... 20short%20
I certainly would not underestimate the capability of Russian radar in detecting ircraft

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Did I already mention the humongous nose cone on F-15s. If not , let's talk about the weapon carry (for a stand-off turkey shoot).
Don't think so, but if the F-15s have spotters forward, or use their superior radars in their low probability of intercept mode to see without being seen, they should still get first shot before the other side knows they are being shot at. Once the fur ball starts they it is simply a crap shoot. Point is the other side are still quite a few years behind the West, but the other point is we need to keep investing both in new tech and maintaining numbers or else the old "X" number of mustangs vs an F-16 comes to mind. The latter will shoot down at least a dozen Mustangs but eventually either the F-16 runs away or gets shot down.

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

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

Post by seaspear »

This article provides some of the reasoning behind the purchase of the fighter it's worth noting its about 7 thousand dollars an hour cheaper to fly than the F35 ,if the U.S.A.F tht originally wanted to keep to a fifth-generation force adopted this aircraft it could still order many whilst still having a high ratio of fifth-generation fighters ,Im not sure if that's the aim for the R.A.F in reducing the numbers of the f35b
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/joi ... he-f-15ex/

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RE:
seaspear wrote:https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... generation
on the previous page - I thought it was the last :oops: when I was writing this comment on it.

Good writing there, but with a clearly detectable bias.

A meal is made out of R-37M (hypersonic A2A) and of course Zircon (against ships and ground targets from the other 'biggie' Mig-31) which is not in the scope of the first article.

Upthread a point was made that F-15EX is needed as a platform for hypersonic missiles. That point is well validated in the linked articles.

Let's consider the punch line provided:
" The aircraft are set to fly supporting missions alongside the most advanced next generation platforms currently under development - the American Penetrating Counter Air Fighter and Air Dominance Fighter and the Russian Su-57 and MiG-41. The balance of power in the skies is more likely to be decided by these more advanced upcoming aircraft which integrate sixth generation technologies. Whether Russia or the United States will retain an edge in sixth generation warfare remains uncertain, as does the way in which evolving missile technologies will affect the roles of the Su-35 and F-15."

Missile tech (let the missiles do the turning :) ) undoubtedly is the key
- the wording for the next one from the US is wrong (watch headlines in 2022 ;) )

The next thing " supporting missions alongside the most advanced next generation platforms currently under development" is bang-on, but then abstracts away from the fact that the US has two generations of nxt-gen platforms in service... whereas Su-57 went back to the drawing board
... are 'we' - not the article, but the discussion here - assessing the balance 5-6 yrs ahead, or 10-15?
On my radar screen there is much more coming out from the US (some of it as catch up) over that 'shorter' term. About the longer one... I would have to :problem: ask Mystic Meg
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)

Post Reply