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 »

SKB wrote:Izumo at 248m long is 32m shorter than QE and will need a ramp.
It will, there was a cgi mockup of it somewhere. A bolt on job like the QE's, it fitted so well it was almost as if they'd designed it that way...

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

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

Post by Pongoglo »

Timmymagic wrote:
SKB wrote:Izumo at 248m long is 32m shorter than QE and will need a ramp.
It will, there was a cgi mockup of it somewhere. A bolt on job like the QE's, it fitted so well it was almost as if they'd designed it that way...
Is QE's 'bolt on' ? If so means we could take it off without too much fuss. A good bit of kit and effective I concede but from certain angles like broadside on IMHO its ugly as sin, she would look so much prettier without! The USMC seem to manage fine with no ski jump and with much smaller ships too. If we took it off it would give us some extra helo spots in the LPH role or even catapults for UAV's :-) Heresy on here I know!

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Pongoglo wrote:Is QE's (ramp) 'bolt on' ?
QE's ramp is not a single bolt-on structure. The ramp was fitted in several large sections to the bare metal flight deck surface during assembly and construction. Taking the ramp off would leave a 250 ft long bare metal "pothole" in QE's surface which would require resurfacing and heat proofing. It could be done, but it wouldn't be a quick process.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

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

Post by downsizer »

SKB wrote:Izumo at 248m long is 32m shorter than QE and will need a ramp.
Need a ramp? Need?

Not sure sure about that, the Essex is 257 and has no ramp.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Not just a ramp, but blast shields too
- in 2026 f-35b's will have 25% more thrust
- will anything (other than a/c) go 'flying' on our decks :o
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)

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

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

Post by sunstersun »

UK is the only partner that gets royalties for every FMS purchase.

On top of the fact that the a greater portion of the F-35B is produced by the UK.

nice

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

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

Post by seaspear »

Would blast shields of been practical for the Q.E.C or contributed?

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

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

Post by SW1 »

F35bs has a 600ft takeoff roll without ski jump or 450ft with can be less depending on stores/fuel so the Japanese ship should be capable of either.

Don’t see the need for a blast shield, stovl takeoff is dry thrust only with the rear nozzle depressed.

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

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

Post by dmereifield »

So are we expecting to see Japanese F35s flying off QE's deck in the 2020's? Would be great if so, when she deploys in the far East.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

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

Post by R686 »

sunstersun wrote:UK is the only partner that gets royalties for every FMS purchase.

On top of the fact that the a greater portion of the F-35B is produced by the UK.

nice
What royalties?

All FMS is that the items are actually ordered by the US DOD and generally making use of economies of scale available to the US.

I suspect the royalties you refer to are the parts made for the aircraft across the consortisim so therefore all nations across the build process wins as these are additional orders.

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

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

Post by sunstersun »

R686 wrote:
sunstersun wrote:UK is the only partner that gets royalties for every FMS purchase.

On top of the fact that the a greater portion of the F-35B is produced by the UK.

nice
What royalties?

All FMS is that the items are actually ordered by the US DOD and generally making use of economies of scale available to the US.

I suspect the royalties you refer to are the parts made for the aircraft across the consortisim so therefore all nations across the build process wins as these are additional orders.
Nope, no other nation gets royalties.

Being a tier one partner, the UK gets royalties (dunno how much) for every FMS sale.

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-f-3 ... ch-to-qec/

"Additionally, because the UK invested early in the programme as a Tier 1 partner, it also receives royalties for every FMS F-35 sold (eg Israel and South Korea). "

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

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

Post by R686 »

sunstersun wrote:
R686 wrote:
sunstersun wrote:UK is the only partner that gets royalties for every FMS purchase.

On top of the fact that the a greater portion of the F-35B is produced by the UK.

nice
What royalties?

All FMS is that the items are actually ordered by the US DOD and generally making use of economies of scale available to the US.

I suspect the royalties you refer to are the parts made for the aircraft across the consortisim so therefore all nations across the build process wins as these are additional orders.
Nope, no other nation gets royalties.

Being a tier one partner, the UK gets royalties (dunno how much) for every FMS sale.

Have you got a source for that?

Every single source I’ve come across makes no mention of royalties, but does go to show the level of input into the program as an example,being a their one partner also did not commit you to actually buying the aircraft. Just you level of development but if you have a source I’d be very interested in reading that.
Following the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the JSF Framework MOU with associated supplements, each partner signed as a tier one, two, or three partner. Partnership tiering, defined by the level of financial commitment each country makes to the system development and demonstration phase, comes with commensurate benefits. The UK, as a tier I partner, will be the first to pick its delivery schedule. Additionally, tiers define the level of insight into the design and development process. For example, for $2B, the UK is allowed 30 cooperative program personnel during the system development and demonstration phase of the program. As a tier II partner, the Italians, however, are only allowed 10 representatives in the program office andhave little influence on the capabilities except for their identified capability gaps in their ‘delta’ System Development and Demonstration version of the aircraft10 (see Table 1). The international representatives are dual-hatted, working for the US program director and their respective MoDs. They attend program reviews but are not allowed access to non- disclosure related content as defined by the National Disclosure Policy. Partner tiers also do not determine the level of industrial participation. Work share is defined as the percentage of industrial participation each partner secures. It is the holy grail of international cooperative programs and, by far, its most acrimonious component.

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

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

Post by sunstersun »

R686 wrote:
Have you got a source for that?

Every single source I’ve come across makes no mention of royalties, but does go to show the level of input into the program as an example,being a their one partner also did not commit you to actually buying the aircraft. Just you level of development but if you have a source I’d be very interested in reading that.
see edit.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

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

Post by R686 »

sunstersun wrote: see edit.
Thanks, not doubting you but would really like to see that in black and white in from an offical source

A couple I used

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a514284.pdf

ANALYZING THE MULTI-NATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACQUISITION ASPECT OF THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF) PROGRAM



http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat55.pdf

International Arament Cooperative Programs: Benefits, Liabilities, and Self-Inflicted Wounds – The JSF As A Case Study

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R686 wrote:The UK, as a tier I partner, will be the first to pick its delivery schedule. Additionally, tiers define the level of insight into the design and development process. For example, for $2B, the UK is allowed 30 cooperative program personnel
Although the input into weapons integration seems to have run out of 'influence' regardless how many 'heads' you have on the prgrm, the third element is (rather than royalties) that Tier I (i.e. the one and only) is exempt from paying FMS fees
- e.g. Canada, I think, is 'on the hook' for them regardless of what they decide to buy in the end
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)

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

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

Post by sunstersun »

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... rs-from-US

Hurray for Japan!

although this does put their domestic jet program into question.

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

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

Post by sunstersun »

R686 wrote:
sunstersun wrote: see edit.
Thanks, not doubting you but would really like to see that in black and white in from an offical source

A couple I used

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a514284.pdf

ANALYZING THE MULTI-NATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACQUISITION ASPECT OF THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF) PROGRAM



http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat55.pdf

International Arament Cooperative Programs: Benefits, Liabilities, and Self-Inflicted Wounds – The JSF As A Case Study
There's no way I can sim through official sources rn, but...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aer ... al_Society

Seems plenty credible to me as a source.

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

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

Post by dmereifield »

sunstersun wrote:https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... rs-from-US

Hurray for Japan!

although this does put their domestic jet program into question.
Blimey, an additional order of 100 on top of their prior planed purchase of 40. I wonder how many will be the B variant.

If this all goes through they will have the largest F35 fleet other than the US.

Good news for UK plc and for interoperability between Japanese and UK carriers. It will be great to see our F35s on their carriers and vice versa

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

dmereifield wrote:Blimey, an additional order of 100 on top of their prior planed purchase of 40. I wonder how many will be the B variant.
100 F-35A
40 F-35B
Apparently..

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »


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

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

Post by Little J »

:thumbup:

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jeez (no, not him, the modern day one):

Joint-ness reigns supreme?
https://news.sky.com/story/royal-navy-f ... s-11568074
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)

SDL
Member
Posts: 763
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by SDL »

seems there's been a government committee today involving the MOD.... some points made about the F35s

Tweets from @hthjones
SL says the variant of the other 90 after the initial 48 aircraft has not yet been confirmed.

Says that decision won't be made for a V. long time.
F-35A is the less complex aircraft, and is thus cheaper to procure says Poffley.

Interestingly he says a lot is dependent upon the orders of other nations
Poffley: for the avoidance of any doubt, all initial 48 aircraft will be Bs.

Describes likelihood of an order of As as "pretty remote", but "analysis will be done"

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

There's been chatter about the appointments of the next heads of the RAF & RN. Surprising choices as more senior names were overlooked and explained by saying Williamson wants younger guys with transformational mindsets.

Just a passing thought but what if "transformational mindsets" is code for guys that don't participate in inter-service warfare of the kind sparked recently by various RAF types musing out loud that the RAF would be better off with F-35A's.

If I remember correctly, one of those doing the musing is also one of those that has been passed over.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

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

Post by indeid »

Ron5 wrote:There's been chatter about the appointments of the next heads of the RAF & RN. Surprising choices as more senior names were overlooked and explained by saying Williamson wants younger guys with transformational mindsets.

Just a passing thought but what if "transformational mindsets" is code for guys that don't participate in inter-service warfare of the kind sparked recently by various RAF types musing out loud that the RAF would be better off with F-35A's.

If I remember correctly, one of those doing the musing is also one of those that has been passed over.
Who was that? It seemed that Atha was the main name, followed Osborne, although he was a Nav so that was unlikely :roll:. Maybe one will shift into CJO to wait for the next shot.

Great move for Fraser, hope he nails it and makes the next step up in a few years.

Considering the timelines involved with the F35 I doubt it had much if any impact on the decisions, there are much bigger issues closing in. Atha was a Harrier mate though.....

Post Reply