F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by serge750 »

Tempest414 wrote:As I said it would be impressive if in 2024 a UK carrier group took part in RIMPAC 24 a real training opportunity to work along side Allies
Would seem a good opportunity to show case a QEC and further UK & USMC F35b carrier integration, and would look good alongside a Canberra LHD, Japanese Izumo helicopter destroyer etc :thumbup:

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

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

Post by topman »

Scimitar54 wrote:Do not forget that QEC can operate from the Pacific as well as the Atlantic (an opportunity to visit a West Coast US Naval base perhaps). There is also something called A2A refuelling, otherwise how do they get there from the UK anyway! Red Flag is not a long deployment either, so it ought to be within the capability of a competent organisation to encompass it in a longer Carrier deployment. :idea:
Possible but unlikely, the pattern of exercise wave flying means too much flying time would be lost in transit. The work load in planning would increase by a large amount planning the additional transit time. The aircrew would lose a lot of value debriefing and planning in terms of the RF sorties. I don't think it's done remotely or is set up for it.
There's the odd sortie not from nellis but other than that all the a/c operate from nellis.

You could transit them from the ship to nellis for the exercise and then back post exercise.

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

topman wrote:As to OEM/approved manufacturers only on virtually all equipment, I'm not 100% sure but from what I understand it's a yes. Although don't take that as gospel.
Didn't used to be though, we had full access to all tech drawing for GSE and so could put contracts out to tender for both repair and manufacture. We could get GSE at half the price or better that when similar kit was OEM only. AS a case in point when the Adour went from the Mk104 to the Mk106 we had to buy a number of new design Module STCs. The new one were OEM from Rolls Royce and cost ten eight times as much as those for the previous engine even though the differences we only minor and we were not allowed to modify the earlier cases to the new standard.

As for not have enough kit to have a set on the duty carrier at all times, well as far as I am concerned and given the probable cost, not doing so would be short sighted and a false economy. We are not talking the amount of tooling required a "Depth" but rather at "Forward" if I get my terminology right, but then again I have little experience on the amount of work and to what level would be carried out on the carrier, and whether they have introduce a new procedural process. Using old school terminology I assume they will carry out first and second line maintenance but will they go as far as the equivalent of third line?

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

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

Post by topman »

Lord Jim wrote:
topman wrote:As to OEM/approved manufacturers only on virtually all equipment, I'm not 100% sure but from what I understand it's a yes. Although don't take that as gospel.
Didn't used to be though, we had full access to all tech drawing for GSE and so could put contracts out to tender for both repair and manufacture. We could get GSE at half the price or better that when similar kit was OEM only. AS a case in point when the Adour went from the Mk104 to the Mk106 we had to buy a number of new design Module STCs. The new one were OEM from Rolls Royce and cost ten eight times as much as those for the previous engine even though the differences we only minor and we were not allowed to modify the earlier cases to the new standard.

As for not have enough kit to have a set on the duty carrier at all times, well as far as I am concerned and given the probable cost, not doing so would be short sighted and a false economy. We are not talking the amount of tooling required a "Depth" but rather at "Forward" if I get my terminology right, but then again I have little experience on the amount of work and to what level would be carried out on the carrier, and whether they have introduce a new procedural process. Using old school terminology I assume they will carry out first and second line maintenance but will they go as far as the equivalent of third line?
No its not as much as depth, but still a wedge. But without going round in circles, I guess there's only way to find out.
It'll be first line only, as with all new contracts as much as possible 2nd/3rd line is contracted out. You wouldn't really want to be doing that sort of thing on an a aircraft carrier (or any other sort of detachment) anyway, bar a few bits and bobs.

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

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

Post by dmereifield »

I'll donate £24 to Help for Heroes if we ever see 24 (or more) UK F35B on one of the carriers by (and including) 2024. I doubt we'll ever see it outside a war (maybe not even then) unless F35B procurement suddenly increases post SDSR 2020

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

And I'll bet $100 every fast jet that lands on the QE in 2024 will have it's swiveling nozzle, lift fan, ejector seat and targeting laser, made in the UK.

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

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

Post by SW1 »

Do u send cheques?

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2015/03 ... -facility/

WASHINGTON — Rolls-Royce has opened a new repair facility for its F-35 engine components, a location the company intends to be the sustainment home of its portion of the F-35 business — at least for now.

The Plainfield, Indiana, facility will support the company's F-35 LiftSystem,

To coincide with the new facility, Rolls is consolidating the production of the core components on its LiftSystem to the region. Most of the parts are already being produced at a facility near Plainfield, while the company is moving production of its three-bearing swivel duct to the US. That work is currently done in the United Kingdom

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

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

Post by Jensy »

SW1 wrote: To coincide with the new facility, Rolls is consolidating the production of the core components on its LiftSystem to the region. Most of the parts are already being produced at a facility near Plainfield, while the company is moving production of its three-bearing swivel duct to the US. That work is currently done in the United Kingdom
Seems to be something of an "I am Spartacus" element to the Liftsystem production facilities:

https://www.aero-mag.com/f-35-liftworks ... n-bristol/
The Bristol site is not only making the LiftFan for UK jets, but for all F-35B jets on order across the world. Production at the site has been building up since 2009, with the official opening now marking the fact that the facility is heading towards peak manufacturing levels.
Later goes on to say:
40% of the work under this contract [LiftSystem] takes place in the UK, supporting 900 jobs across the supply chain.
Clear as mud.... but considering the potential USMC cuts to their F-35b order it's likely the UK will be getting a reduced slice of whatever size pie there is.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

From 40% we can go some way down, by a big fraction, to the 15% which allegedly goes for the programme overall. But that's just for the industrial benefits.

If the "B" gets relegated to a lower order of priority within the USMC budgets, then I would start to worry about its development path, over the service life
- the popular counter to this is that all models have a single code line (8+ mln), but I have heard that in the SW industry for 30 years. It is single until its not; and then some branches start - if not wither - but stand still (which in military aerospace terms equates to the same thing)
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 »

BTW, a side though on the lift engine: how much of our 2 bn contribution for Tier1 status was in cash; was some of it in V/STOL tech transfer
- the offensive future air budget line was only 1 bn and I never saw another one appear, to top that money up. Of course the MoD accounts are impossible to read; not just for outsiders but for themselves, at times, too
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)

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

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

Post by SW1 »

Jensy wrote:
SW1 wrote: To coincide with the new facility, Rolls is consolidating the production of the core components on its LiftSystem to the region. Most of the parts are already being produced at a facility near Plainfield, while the company is moving production of its three-bearing swivel duct to the US. That work is currently done in the United Kingdom
Seems to be something of an "I am Spartacus" element to the Liftsystem production facilities:

https://www.aero-mag.com/f-35-liftworks ... n-bristol/
The Bristol site is not only making the LiftFan for UK jets, but for all F-35B jets on order across the world. Production at the site has been building up since 2009, with the official opening now marking the fact that the facility is heading towards peak manufacturing levels.
Later goes on to say:
40% of the work under this contract [LiftSystem] takes place in the UK, supporting 900 jobs across the supply chain.
Clear as mud.... but considering the potential USMC cuts to their F-35b order it's likely the UK will be getting a reduced slice of whatever size pie there is.
The I’m Spartacus element specially on such government job announcements is right, fan blades are a speciality of manufacture in the UK.

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

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

Post by Jensy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:BTW, a side though on the lift engine: how much of our 2 bn contribution for Tier1 status was in cash;
This RAND Corporation paper from 2003 seems to suggest the contribution was entirely monetary and equivalent to 10% of the System Development and Demonstration phase, (Pages: 25/6):

https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1771.html

Interestingly there is substantial mention of the LiftSystem being wholly built in the UK, but we were planning on 150 b's and there was even talk of a further order of an 'upgraded model' to replace the Tornado back then.

Fair to say a lots changed since. One of the core questions examined by the paper was whether a UK Final Assembly and Check-Out facility was viable, with speculation that we could have won our own export orders. This was also back when the GE/RR F-136 was still on the table...

EDIT: Link fixed

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

dmereifield wrote:I'll donate £24 to Help for Heroes if we ever see 24 (or more) UK F35B on one of the carriers by (and including) 2024. I doubt we'll ever see it outside a war (maybe not even then) unless F35B procurement suddenly increases post SDSR 2020
Only a pitiful £24 at lest make it £2,400 and make worth there while at £24 you look like your not sure you will be right.

As for what kit the carriers carry for F-35 maybe @Phil J son could put some light on it

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:I'll donate £24 to Help for Heroes if we ever see 24 (or more) UK F35B on one of the carriers by (and including) 2024. I doubt we'll ever see it outside a war (maybe not even then) unless F35B procurement suddenly increases post SDSR 2020
Only a pitiful £24 at lest make it £2,400 and make worth there while at £24 you look like your not sure you will be right.

As for what kit the carriers carry for F-35 maybe @Phil J son could put some light on it
Put your money where your mouth is :D

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

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

Post by dmereifield »

Tempest414 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:I'll donate £24 to Help for Heroes if we ever see 24 (or more) UK F35B on one of the carriers by (and including) 2024. I doubt we'll ever see it outside a war (maybe not even then) unless F35B procurement suddenly increases post SDSR 2020
Only a pitiful £24 at lest make it £2,400 and make worth there while at £24 you look like your not sure you will be right.

As for what kit the carriers carry for F-35 maybe @Phil J son could put some light on it
I was trying to be consistent with the 24 theme, but if it makes you feel better it's 2400 pennies. How about if you're so confident, you donate 2400 pennies to Help for Heroes if there isn't 24 UK F35Bs on by the end of 2024?

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

dmereifield wrote:24 UK F35Bs
Was that not pencilled in for Jan (OK, I'm omitting the carrier part), and the rest of the year is leeway for the Covid-19 effect?
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)

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

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

Post by dmereifield »

No idea, I'm just confident with what we've heard so far on air wing compositions that we won't see 24 UK F35Bs on either of the carriers this decade (outside a potential shit hitting the fan scenario)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

dmereifield wrote:I was trying to be consistent with the 24 theme, but if it makes you feel better it's 2400 pennies. How about if you're so confident, you donate 2400 pennies to Help for Heroes if there isn't 24 UK F35Bs on by the end of 2024?
Firstly I am more than confident we will not see 24 UK F-35's on any of our carriers by 2024

Secondly I already have a monthly standing order to Help for Heroes and also return home to the UK each year to support my old Cadet unit to collect money on wings appeal weekend for the RAF benevolent fund and Poppy collection for the RBL which I have done for the past 15 years sun and rain and last year they collected £1850 which I think was great effort by our unit

PS my old Cadet unit also supports the Royal Norwegian Airforce veterans of 331 and 332 Sqn's as and when they visit the UK and as a side note 332 sqn now operate the F-35A

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

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

Post by dmereifield »

Good stuff, well done :thumbup:

I like to make donations myself, it's the least I can do

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

dmereifield wrote:Good stuff, well done

I like to make donations myself, it's the least I can do
I would say if people can they should volunteer to do collecting its a good day out and the people meet and stories you here are worth the time

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

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

Post by dmereifield »

Tempest414 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Good stuff, well done

I like to make donations myself, it's the least I can do
I would say if people can they should volunteer to do collecting its a good day out and the people meet and stories you here are worth the time
Thanks, hadn't really thought about that before

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Good way to catch the virus too. Get yourself some herd immunity.

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

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

Post by SW1 »

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.

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

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

Post by seaspear »

Among some of the deficiencies noted for the f35 was the issue of limited radar in sea search mode
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden- ... s-in-half/
This may not be such an issue for the U.S.N which has other aircraft for its carriers performing this role but for navies with just the F35B it may be more critical

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ever wondered why the USN keeps buying other fighters along with the F-35Cs?

"Members of Congress want to make it illegal for the U.S. Navy to accept delivery its next Ford-class aircraft carrier, the future USS John F. Kennedy, unless it can launch and recover F-35C Joint Strike Fighters. But the proposal highlights something that is perhaps more damning, that the USS Gerald R. Ford cannot deploy those stealthy aircraft in its present configuration. This just adds to the woes for the troubled first-in-class flattop two years after its delivery.

The House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces included the provision in a draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the upcoming 2020 Fiscal Year, which it released publicly on June 3, 2019. "
- there's a bitter war fought behind the closed doors about the price caps imposed, which then force cutting corners, in the belief that the deficiencies introduced can be corrected "in better times"

Has anyone picked up on new developments since the summer of last year? https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... -for-years

PS Trump got so steamed up about the issue that he was publicly talking about 'ordering' steam catapults back
PPS Perhaps the 44% accepting vote at the top of this page should notch up... a recount! :)
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