F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[ArmChairCivvy]

"could" equals "if you are willing to pay for its development" which no one has even breathed a serious interest in for the B's.

Absolutely. Technical feasibility does not mean that it will get done and clearly the man from LM was doing sales talk.
- could it be that Israel's lower priority for drop tanks (or conformals) and heightened interest in getting more (?) F-15s are in some way connected?

[Ron5]

"could" equals "if you are willing to pay for its development" which no one has even breathed a serious interest in for the B's.

Absolutely. Technical feasibility does not mean that it will get done and clearly the man from LM was doing sales talk.
- could it be that Israel's lower priority for drop tanks (or conformals) and heightened interest in getting more (?) F-15s are in some way connected?

Not aware of any "lower priority", ASUI drop tank capability will be delivered as part of Block IV. Israeli's want them to bomb Iran from Israel which would require F-35's skill set.

[Ron5]

Any parasitic weight added to the operating empty weight of f35b thru drop tanks for conformal fuel tanks will degrade vertical flight regimes, this is both a limited and finite thrust to weight parameter one that Lockheed has forgotten before.

Yes, drop tanks make the aircraft heavier. A fact unlikely to be overlooked by Lockheed.

Of course would add to the value of rolling landings.

[SW1]

Any parasitic weight added to the operating empty weight of f35b thru drop tanks for conformal fuel tanks will degrade vertical flight regimes, this is both a limited and finite thrust to weight parameter one that Lockheed has forgotten before.

Yes, drop tanks make the aircraft heavier. A fact unlikely to be overlooked by Lockheed.

Of course would add to the value of rolling landings.

Stovl weight attack team may beg to differ on what Lockheed does and doesn’t overlook when making promises.

Are the US marines investigating ship rolling landings? If not they may not be that interested and with that would go funding.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Israeli's want them to bomb Iran from Israel which would require F-35's skill set.

If we take that as "the assumption" then it is in no way surprising that I introduced the triangle of
1. F-35 itself (a "skillset"
2. ways for extending its range (one of them is to fly tankers into a friedly airspace, bordering Iran's), and
3, Either the existing F-15 force, or a newer version added, to play a role. With their range and weapon carry

It is almost like the "iron triangle" for tank design... only so ever slightly modified as a thinking pattern. True?

[Lord Jim]

Off the books, Saudi Arabia would probably allow Israeli AAR Tankers to operate in their airspace for such a mission. Radar controllers would see civilian airliner transponders behaving strangely and doing circuits!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Off the books, Saudi Arabia would probably allow Israeli AAR Tankers to operate in their airspace for such a mission.

ways for extending its range (one of them is to fly tankers into a friedly airspace, bordering Iran's)

I think I could be in the diplomatic corps
... as for paraphrasing "delicate" things?

[Lord Jim]

We seem to have a lot of common ground separated by language here and elsewhere.

[ArmChairCivvy]

No need to be 'diplomatic' in Europe if someone has written in their national defence strategy that 'you' are the main adversary... or the enemy
- and behaving in the way that verifies that they mean it

[Ron5]

Any parasitic weight added to the operating empty weight of f35b thru drop tanks for conformal fuel tanks will degrade vertical flight regimes, this is both a limited and finite thrust to weight parameter one that Lockheed has forgotten before.

Yes, drop tanks make the aircraft heavier. A fact unlikely to be overlooked by Lockheed.

Of course would add to the value of rolling landings.

Stovl weight attack team may beg to differ on what Lockheed does and doesn’t overlook when making promises.

Are the US marines investigating ship rolling landings? If not they may not be that interested and with that would go funding.

You don't think F-35B's could vertically land with drop tanks? Odd

[Ron5]

Israeli's want them to bomb Iran from Israel which would require F-35's skill set.

If we take that as "the assumption" then it is in no way surprising that I introduced the triangle of
1. F-35 itself (a "skillset"
2. ways for extending its range (one of them is to fly tankers into a friedly airspace, bordering Iran's), and
3, Either the existing F-15 force, or a newer version added, to play a role. With their range and weapon carry

It is almost like the "iron triangle" for tank design... only so ever slightly modified as a thinking pattern. True?

I don't know what you are asking. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the Israelis would like to bomb Iran with F-35A's operating from Israeli bases. Once again it seems blindingly obvious that drop tanks would be a cost effective way of enabling that. Which explains why the Israelis have been developing F-35A drop tanks. Iron triangles have nothing to do with it.

[SW1]

Any parasitic weight added to the operating empty weight of f35b thru drop tanks for conformal fuel tanks will degrade vertical flight regimes, this is both a limited and finite thrust to weight parameter one that Lockheed has forgotten before.

Yes, drop tanks make the aircraft heavier. A fact unlikely to be overlooked by Lockheed.

Of course would add to the value of rolling landings.

Stovl weight attack team may beg to differ on what Lockheed does and doesn’t overlook when making promises.

Are the US marines investigating ship rolling landings? If not they may not be that interested and with that would go funding.

You don't think F-35B's could vertically land with drop tanks? Odd

F35 could land vertically with drop tanks depending on size. I think the statements around it being to do with ferry flights maybe quite an important caveat

F35 landing vertically in the defined operational configuration as specified in the KUR with the added weight of drop tanks no.

[Ron5]

Any parasitic weight added to the operating empty weight of f35b thru drop tanks for conformal fuel tanks will degrade vertical flight regimes, this is both a limited and finite thrust to weight parameter one that Lockheed has forgotten before.

Yes, drop tanks make the aircraft heavier. A fact unlikely to be overlooked by Lockheed.

Of course would add to the value of rolling landings.

Stovl weight attack team may beg to differ on what Lockheed does and doesn’t overlook when making promises.

Are the US marines investigating ship rolling landings? If not they may not be that interested and with that would go funding.

You don't think F-35B's could vertically land with drop tanks? Odd

F35 could land vertically with drop tanks depending on size. I think the statements around it being to do with ferry flights maybe quite an important caveat

F35 landing vertically in the defined operational configuration as specified in the KUR with the added weight of drop tanks no.

Weren't you the one telling us a few weeks ago that rolling landings would never be needed as the B could vertically land at max weapon load? Or was that somebody else?

[SW1]

Any parasitic weight added to the operating empty weight of f35b thru drop tanks for conformal fuel tanks will degrade vertical flight regimes, this is both a limited and finite thrust to weight parameter one that Lockheed has forgotten before.

Yes, drop tanks make the aircraft heavier. A fact unlikely to be overlooked by Lockheed.

Of course would add to the value of rolling landings.

Stovl weight attack team may beg to differ on what Lockheed does and doesn’t overlook when making promises.

Are the US marines investigating ship rolling landings? If not they may not be that interested and with that would go funding.

You don't think F-35B's could vertically land with drop tanks? Odd

F35 could land vertically with drop tanks depending on size. I think the statements around it being to do with ferry flights maybe quite an important caveat

F35 landing vertically in the defined operational configuration as specified in the KUR with the added weight of drop tanks no.

Weren't you the one telling us a few weeks ago that rolling landings would never be needed as the B could vertically land at max weapon load? Or was that somebody else?

Certainly wasn’t me

[Timmymagic]

Weren't you the one telling us a few weeks ago that rolling landings would never be needed as the B could vertically land at max weapon load? Or was that somebody else?

That was me an age ago, I actually said SRVL's were unlikely to be used very often at present or the near future as the circumstances where it would be required were few and far between.

F-35B is designed for bring back to ship with a VL with stores of c4,500lb's + recovery fuel (c2,200lbs) on a tropical day. For the UK that means that SRVL would be very unlikely to be necessary, as the current max weapon load of a UK F-35B is under 4,500lb's (2 x Amraam, 6 x PWIV and 2 x Asraam). When we get to Block IV configuration and more weapons are available (Meteor is heavier than Amraam and 8 x Spear is heavier than 2 x PWIV for the internal bays) the max weight would increase by c1200lbs. At that point you would be in SRVL territory. But the chances of an F-35B being launched with that exact configuration of weapons (and it has to be exact given where weapons are cleared for use) then having to return with all the munitions still present are scant.

The situation would be different if we procured the gun pod (which adds over 600lbs). External tanks wouldn't make any real difference as they're taking the place of 2 x PWIV and if you really need to get onboard you either burn off fuel or dump it.

You're not going to be landing on with 2 full external tanks....in either VL or SRVL mode..... as you'd be overweight, even without any other ordnance...a loaded 600 Gallon drop tank weighs c4,500lbs....

[Scimitar54]

Who said anything about size? (therefore weight).

[Timmymagic]

Who said anything about size? (therefore weight).

Lockheed Martin...

[Scimitar54]

One size definitely does NOT fit all!

[Jensy]

In news that will in no way shock anyone in these forums:



For those who can't read Twitter posts:

Perm Sec Lovegrove hints that UK won’t be buying 138 #F-35s. Says when MOD committed to that number Tempest wasn’t around @CommonsPAC

Tempest appears to be the new excuse, I seem to remember that it was previously some discussion of the "manned/unmanned force mix" that might reduce the Lightning order.

Of course when the "MoD commited to that number" (which was once briefly 150) FOAS was still around as a theorised platform and Typhoon was to number 232...

[ArmChairCivvy]

when the "MoD commited to that number" (which was once briefly 150) FOAS was still around as a theorised platform

Such a long time ago, but I seem to remember that the FOAS budget line was £ 1 bn and thus by wiping it out, the RAF contribution to the down payment for the Joint Fighter prgrm Level 1 Partner status was... 50% of the £ 2 bn

[Ron5]

Weren't you the one telling us a few weeks ago that rolling landings would never be needed as the B could vertically land at max weapon load? Or was that somebody else?

That was me an age ago, I actually said SRVL's were unlikely to be used very often at present or the near future as the circumstances where it would be required were few and far between.

F-35B is designed for bring back to ship with a VL with stores of c4,500lb's + recovery fuel (c2,200lbs) on a tropical day. For the UK that means that SRVL would be very unlikely to be necessary, as the current max weapon load of a UK F-35B is under 4,500lb's (2 x Amraam, 6 x PWIV and 2 x Asraam). When we get to Block IV configuration and more weapons are available (Meteor is heavier than Amraam and 8 x Spear is heavier than 2 x PWIV for the internal bays) the max weight would increase by c1200lbs. At that point you would be in SRVL territory. But the chances of an F-35B being launched with that exact configuration of weapons (and it has to be exact given where weapons are cleared for use) then having to return with all the munitions still present are scant.

The situation would be different if we procured the gun pod (which adds over 600lbs). External tanks wouldn't make any real difference as they're taking the place of 2 x PWIV and if you really need to get onboard you either burn off fuel or dump it.

You're not going to be landing on with 2 full external tanks....in either VL or SRVL mode..... as you'd be overweight, even without any other ordnance...a loaded 600 Gallon drop tank weighs c4,500lbs....

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.

[Jensy]

when the "MoD commited to that number" (which was once briefly 150) FOAS was still around as a theorised platform

Such a long time ago, but I seem to remember that the FOAS budget line was £ 1 bn and thus by wiping it out, the RAF contribution to the down payment for the Joint Fighter prgrm Level 1 Partner status was... 50% of the £ 2 bn

It's curious to think that the JSF is approaching its fourth decade since the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter programme kicked off. As such there's a great deal of fuzziness, not helped by some historical revisionism by Lockheed, about what exactly the UK paid for what.

I always thought it was the $200/10% contribution to the demo phase that bought the UK its Tier one status. The later investment was what gave us the disappearing industrial share. However there's little evidence of this left on the web and my books on the subject are rather out of date.

The FOAS main gate was 2008 but the project was long gone by then - Not sure the funding ever made it to nine figures - Leaving nothing but some prehistoric CGI (and possibly Replica) to remember it by:

[ArmChairCivvy]

there's a great deal of fuzziness, not helped by some historical revisionism by Lockheed, about what exactly the UK paid for what.

I always thought it was the $200/10% contribution to the demo phase that bought the UK its Tier one status. The later investment was what gave us the disappearing industrial share. However there's little evidence of this left on the web

I am pretty sure that your sources are better than mine, simply for the reason that I try to lean towards official records, which often are
A. lagging (budget lines getting revised 'after the fact'), or
B. as we saw in the T31 saga, there was no line whatsoever until the project was so far advanced (and in the public eye) that they had to add one (and for the near-years, rob some 'dosh' from the T-26 line in the EP, when going further out than one year's budget)

On the occasion I agreed (not that anyone would care ) but a similar question is if any of the two billion (and now we come to agreements, as they are of course in $, whereas the disappearing UK budget line was in £s) was actually settled by pledging VTOL tech as a contribution in kind. The lift engine factory is in the US; none left here
- this (the pledging) happening has been refuted here by knowledgeable contributors, but
... again it is down to who uses what sources

[SW1]

No great surprises it’s repeated now for near a decade in mod statements that CEPP achieves full operating capability when 809sqn becomes operational in 2023. Beyond that the decision is what replaces the 7 sqns of typhoon hence what was discussed around a switch to f35a or something that came out of tempest. Sovereignty of aircraft assembly and its systems and integration as well as industrial considerations in general suggest mood music is only going one way.

As things progress it’s likely loyal wingman drones with make up a bigger proportion of “mass” going fwd

[ArmChairCivvy]

repeated now for near a decade in mod statements that CEPP achieves full operating capability when 809sqn becomes operational in 2023.

They had the good sense to separate the carrier aviation ("carrier strike") OSD from the same for CEPP, which is a wider concept - for the latter it is 2026
... now don't ask me what CEPP is as for a decade or so been trying to find out