UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.

How do you feel about the F-35B for the RN and RAF? (2 votes per member)

GOOD choice for the Royal Navy
118
44%
BAD choice for the Royal Navy
10
4%
Uncertain (RN)
14
5%
GOOD choice for the Royal Air Force
48
18%
BAD choice for the Royal Air Force
36
14%
Uncertain (RAF)
40
15%
 
Total votes: 266

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

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

Postby seaspear » 27 Apr 2019, 02:30

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/23/marine ... ng-concept
This is an interesting article of the U.S.M.C plans for the F35B it may be something the U.K will consider in its own plans for this model of the F35

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3052
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Apr 2019, 03:02

The comments below the article are very enlightening. The USMC is worried the proliferation of AShMs and other systems aimed at area denial will make their traditional doctrines unworkable in a future conflict, and seem to think Island hopping is a viable option as you cannot sink and island. However you can fire enough IRBMs with conventional warheads to swamp any defence system in place and flatten anything there. Look no further than China for that doctrine.

SW1
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 27 Apr 2019, 12:51

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pa-457734/

The F-35 fleet is also suffering from mismatched parts. The DoD purchases certain sets of F-35 parts years ahead of time to support aircraft on deployments, including on US Navy (USN) aircraft carriers and US Marine Corps (USMC) amphibious assault ships. But the parts do not fully match the military services' needs because F-35 aircraft have been modified over time, says the GAO.

“For example, 44% of purchased parts were incompatible with aircraft the Marine Corps took on a recent deployment,” says the GAO. “Without a process to modify the sets of parts for deployments, DoD may be unable to meet the services' operational needs.”

To make matters worse, the DoD has spent billions of dollars on F-35 spare parts, but does not have records for all the parts it has purchased, where they are, or how much they cost.

“For example, DOD is not maintaining a database with information on F-35 parts the US owns, and it lacks the necessary data to be able to do so,” says GAO. “Without a policy that clearly defines how it will keep track of purchased F-35 parts, DoD will continue to operate with a limited understanding of the F-35 spare parts it owns and how they are being managed. If left unaddressed, these accountability issues will impede DOD's ability to obtain sufficient readiness within affordability constraints.”

What’s more, the DoD’s re-supply network for moving F-35 parts around the world is immature, says the accountability agency.

Overseas F-35 customers have experienced long wait times for parts needed to repair aircraft,” says GAO. “Without a detailed plan for the network, DoD may not be ready to support an expanding fleet.”

Ultimately, GAO concludes promises to do better next time will likely again fall short.

“While DoD is taking various actions to improve F-35 spare parts availability so that aircraft can fly and perform their missions, it will likely continue to struggle to meet warfighter requirements—due to how it is planning for and allocating spare parts,” it says.
“Overseas F-35 customers have experienced long wait times for parts needed to repair aircraft,” says GAO. “Without a detailed plan for the network, DoD may not be ready to support an expanding fleet.”

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3052
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Apr 2019, 15:16

No surprises there. Nearly as bad as it was for us on the introduction of Typhoon. WE knew where the parts were when we had then, the problem was we didn't have any.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 406
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Scimitar54 » 27 Apr 2019, 16:16

Sounds a bit like ALIS (or is it ALISS) in blunder land to me! :lol:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Apr 2019, 23:17

Lord Jim wrote:you can fire enough IRBMs with conventional warheads to swamp any defence system in place and flatten anything there. Look no further than China for that doctrine
And in reverse... no need for irBm's as the next fill for HIMARS (when talking about the USMC) will have a doubled range
SW1 wrote:What’s more, the DoD’s re-supply network for moving F-35 parts around the world is immature, says the accountability agency.
... that simply means that they will grab theirs first; then the rest of 'the club' can share what, if any, are available

topman
Member
Posts: 269
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

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

Postby topman » 29 Apr 2019, 16:17

The 44% figure stands out a mile for me from that article. Things like that are a pita to manage and put such a handbrake on deployments. They also soak up time and manpower trying to manage day to day flying, longer term dets, PEPS etc.

It's something that has come up time and again but 44% is very high. Also gives a good idea of the fleets within fleets we'll be juggling for years to come.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3052
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Apr 2019, 18:34

Scimitar54 wrote:Sounds a bit like ALIS (or is it ALISS) in blunder land to me!


Maybe we should give them a copy of LITS and see if they can get it to work as planned :lol:

On a lighter note I spotted this video introducing this year USAF F-35A Demonstration Team, pretty good.

SW1
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 29 Apr 2019, 19:37

topman wrote:The 44% figure stands out a mile for me from that article. Things like that are a pita to manage and put such a handbrake on deployments. They also soak up time and manpower trying to manage day to day flying, longer term dets, PEPS etc.

It's something that has come up time and again but 44% is very high. Also gives a good idea of the fleets within fleets we'll be juggling for years to come.


Given how divergent the design of the a/c became in a very chaotic and tetchy redesign the number doesn’t surprise me all that much. Somethings that were warned about a long time ago are now starting to manifest themselves as production numbers ramp up with an immature design. Fatigue with the b airframe will be another shades of the buccaneer..

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 29 Apr 2019, 21:19

topman wrote:Also gives a good idea of the fleets within fleets we'll be juggling for years to come.


Probably for the USMC and USAF that will be the case. But from what we know of the UK's F-35B that's less likely. We've only bought limited numbers to date, and those that we have were primarily procured after a number of changes to the airframe were made. This will be a similar problem to the aircraft that needed upgrading to hit Block 3F and 4 in the future. For the USMC it was a considerable issue, with talk of large numbers of the early airframes being seen as fit for training, but not combat unless extensive upgrade work was undertaken, but for the UK comparatively minor. Essentially the UK is going to benefit from letting the USMC do the early adopter work whilst we've bought enough to start the training pipeline and develop procedures etc.

topman
Member
Posts: 269
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

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

Postby topman » 29 Apr 2019, 21:46

Timmymagic wrote:
topman wrote:Also gives a good idea of the fleets within fleets we'll be juggling for years to come.


Probably for the USMC and USAF that will be the case. But from what we know of the UK's F-35B that's less likely. We've only bought limited numbers to date, and those that we have were primarily procured after a number of changes to the airframe were made. This will be a similar problem to the aircraft that needed upgrading to hit Block 3F and 4 in the future. For the USMC it was a considerable issue, with talk of large numbers of the early airframes being seen as fit for training, but not combat unless extensive upgrade work was undertaken, but for the UK comparatively minor. Essentially the UK is going to benefit from letting the USMC do the early adopter work whilst we've bought enough to start the training pipeline and develop procedures etc.


The numbers will be lower but the proportions won't be different, not in any massive way. And I don't mean Block 1/2/3/whatever it'll be the endless different build standards on dozens if not hundreds of items that will cause the problems. None of those different standards will hit the news, but they'll be there.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 Apr 2019, 21:58

Timmymagic wrote:For the USMC it was a considerable issue, with talk of large numbers of the early airframes being seen as fit for training, but not combat unless extensive upgrade work was undertaken

It is sort of funny that on this forum we can discuss these things as ' a matter of fact' when on many others, after so many years, the techno-infantiles that have not been weeded off the early years' LM marketing literature are still :lol: at arms.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5299
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

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

Postby SKB » 04 May 2019, 02:38

Image
(bobsurgranny) 14 April 2019
Wednesday 10th April. Two RAF F-35B Lightning II jets took off to go and train on the Holbeach bombing range in Lincolnshire. I managed to get some video of them returning to base, with their nozzles half cocked flying overhead which was a nice sound to the ears, before being wafted with the lovely smell of jet fuel


@ 3:30 F-35Binks ! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Halidon » 06 May 2019, 15:38


Lockheed Martin unveils potential maritime follow-on version of DARPA’s Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept at #SAS2019 today. Externally mounted to F-35C.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1595
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby bobp » 06 May 2019, 20:27

Back in the 1980's a friend in the USAF told me about spares that had gone missing including a complete mobile radar that was shipped back to the US after a deployment, never to be seen again...….

Fast forward 35yrs...

To make matters worse, the DoD has spent billions of dollars on F-35 spare parts, but does not have records for all the parts it has purchased, where they are, or how much they cost.
“For example, DOD is not maintaining a database with information on F-35 parts the US owns, and it lacks the necessary data to be able to do so,” says GAO. “Without a policy that clearly defines how it will keep track of purchased F-35 parts, DoD will continue to operate with a limited understanding of the F-35 spare parts it owns and how they are being managed. If left unaddressed, these accountability issues will impede DOD's ability to obtain sufficient readiness within affordability constraints.”
So nothing changes :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :crazy:


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pa-457734/

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

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

Postby seaspear » 07 May 2019, 02:42

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/ ... n/11085220
This article refers to the corrosion risk associated with the F35 because of its aluminium structure effected by salt and recomended measures including de humidfying ,has this been thought of for carrier based aircraft ?

topman
Member
Posts: 269
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

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

Postby topman » 07 May 2019, 14:40

I would imagine so but perhaps not with that information to hand. Dehumidifying isn't anything new, various types of equipment are in use in the MoD.
The question is how likely is it and where is it likely to appear?
If it's a case of what we've got is good enough it's no issue at all. If the report is saying they need to be stored in dehumidified buildings when not flying then you're looking at some cost infrastructure and equipment wise.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

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

Postby seaspear » 07 May 2019, 22:45

My thoughts on this are , Would the seaborne f35 models have a shorter life span than the a model not being exposed to as much salt , would the F35 be required to spend more time in the hangars than parked on the deck to prevent exposure or would the aircraft on deck have more frequent wash downs in clean water ?

topman
Member
Posts: 269
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

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

Postby topman » 08 May 2019, 08:48

I don't think it would reduce its life. As to what is put in place to reduce this risk, difficult to say without reading the report.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 08 May 2019, 10:05

Looks like the USMC/QE Deployment is all done and dusted agreement wise..

https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... -2021.html

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 08 May 2019, 10:16

Welcome news, its the only chance we have of seeing a 'full' carrier for a long while.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 May 2019, 10:27

The reason for this entry being posted onto this thread is at the end, in bold.

India did not buy at the offered price that was not 'damn costly' the Su-57 designs, prototypes (and tooling :!: ) so now they (Russia) want to sell the turkey... to Turkey :) . DID of today tells us:

"Russia wants to sell its Su-57 fighter jet to Turkey in case the F-35 deal with the US falls through, reports say. The US has warned Turkey that it would expel the country from the F-35 program if it accepts the Russian-made S-400 surface-to-air missile system as the US sees the purchase incompatible with Turkey’s commitments to NATO. The S-400’s radar system could enable the Russian military to figure out how the F-35 operates."

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby dmereifield » 08 May 2019, 14:34

shark bait wrote:Welcome news, its the only chance we have of seeing a 'full' carrier for a long while.


How many jets is a detachment likely to be?

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 406
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Scimitar54 » 08 May 2019, 15:47

Enough to bring total of F35 on board to 24! :mrgreen:

SW1
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 08 May 2019, 21:57

seaspear wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/williamtown-joint-strike-fighters-susceptible-to-corrosion/11085220
This article refers to the corrosion risk associated with the F35 because of its aluminium structure effected by salt and recomended measures including de humidfying ,has this been thought of for carrier based aircraft ?


To come to this conclusion there would need to be something more going on than it just being because it’s because it’s aluminium. There’s lots of aluminium aircraft in salty environments it’s a well understood material, the galvanic, and thermal fatigue cracking issues when in close proximity to composite are well known due to some very expensive lessons, and there mitigation’s in place.

The 7085 is newer temper within the 7000 series range which looks to improve impact damage and resistance. Ideally titanium would be used but aluminium is cheaper and lighter. Has caused issues in testing notable on the B.

The other option is the auditors haven’t fully understood a very specialised topic of material science, not entirely unheard of with KPMG audits in aerospace from experience also possible it’s not been reported accurately as they would have even less knowledge of the subject.


Return to “Joint Service”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests