UK Defence Forum

Ron5 wrote:Among the components being proven was a deployable operations facility, a large secure unit containing the classified computer servers and other systems and equipment to support UK F-35 operations.

I wonder how many of these we've actually purchased? Presumably more than 1. But do other nations purchase them as well or are they reliant on another F-35 user being present as well if they want to deploy overseas? i.e. with the Norwegians purchase a deployable unit or rely on a fixed installation or 2.

answer 1234

Timmymagic wrote:I wonder how many of these we've actually purchased? Presumably more than 1.

Ever optimistic I think, otherwise there would have been an announcement about our £160bn investment over 10 years allows us to buy 2
Appears they are built in Australia, who already have 2 and there is a total of 29 or order over the next 3 years. From 6 Mar 2018:
https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... australia/

Lockheed Martin has received the first two F-35 deployable facilities manufactured by Australia-based.. company Varley Group...The first two facilities are part of a total of 29 units to be manufactured by Varley Group over a period of three years.

However for some amusement here are a couple of questions in Parliament asked by Lord Moonie (yes true) 9 Oct 2018
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 9/HL10500/
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 9/HL10498/

New tv series
Fighter Pilot: The Real Top Gun
Tuesday 20th August 9:00pm-1000pm ITV




Press Release
https://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week ... al-top-gun

So when I was at Wattisham I spent a day at Marham which included a great visit to F-35 ground training unit which I can't really go into however what I picked up over the visit was when talking to a RN PO he was very pro F-35b and what it means to carrier strike however when talking to the RAF visits officer ( A AB pilot waiting to start on 207 ) it was very clear that he and many others feel the RAF should have F-35a all he could go on about how the A can carry more fuel , weapons and so on. I have to say it left me a little bit like all the old them and us is still very much alive

I would not take any notice what a baby pilot has to say. The Queen Elizabeth will soon have UK F-35Bs on board which will
increase in numbers.

First female marine pilot flies F35b

https://www.silive.com/news/2019/08/mee ... r-jet.html

Tempest414 wrote:I have to say it left me a little bit like all the old them and us is still very much alive

I'm sure the RAF would rather have the F-35A, I'm also equally sure that they'd rather not have to go to sea. But if you give them the real choice of sharing F-35B with the RN or nothing and they'd pick F-35B every time. I think the regular F-35A briefings to the press from the RAF (or rather in all probability 1 or 2 senior officers, possibly retired, with links to the press) are now almost over. Tempest killed them off.

The real battle that will be coming up is how the UK's inevitably reduced F-35B order is divvied up in terms of deployments etc. We're not going to get 138 (nor do I think we should). 70ish to 90ish seems about right. At the higher number there will be more scope for non-shipboard work, but at the lower end they'll basically be a Naval Strike Wing. At the lower point you have to wonder if the RAF switches its focus to Tempest and other platforms whilst just keeping their hand in on F-35B.
Mind you this is dependent on the UK MoD getting no more money...

Tempest414 wrote:So when I was at Wattisham I spent a day at Marham which included a great visit to F-35 ground training unit which I can't really go into however what I picked up over the visit was when talking to a RN PO he was very pro F-35b and what it means to carrier strike however when talking to the RAF visits officer ( A AB pilot waiting to start on 207 ) it was very clear that he and many others feel the RAF should have F-35a all he could go on about how the A can carry more fuel , weapons and so on. I have to say it left me a little bit like all the old them and us is still very much alive

I wouldn't necessarily read too much into the comments of two individuals.

My experience of FJ and RW pilots, crew and ground crew all enjoyed there respective time at sea on GR3-9, it also help to tick the boxes for promotion.

Some defence hacks are touting the possibility that “Tempest” may have killed off the split buy. Who knows!

If People want to see ghosts in the shadows they will.


Until a decision is taken over a production contract for tempest and what that looks like the future composition of the fast jet fleet will remain tbd. I don’t see the f35 expanding much beyond what’s currently there for the foreseeable.

SW1 wrote:I don’t see the f35 expanding much beyond what’s currently there for the foreseeable.

The price of them is way too high, also the running costs. So I don't expect any more than about 75.

We will get 138. 100 would be optimal with the spare funds channeled in to extra P8 buys.

Optimism love it.

If I were a betting man and I’m not I would say if a production contract appears for what’s coming out of tempest then we’ll buy less than 60 f35.

138 over the production run of the F35 is not that much if we are getting 48 by 2023, 138 - 48 by 2023 - 90 over the next 40 years (2063?) = 3 x F35 a year should do it !

if project tempest is like the EAP is to typhoon, then anything coming from it probably will only just start production in the late 2030's or early 2040's ? maybe a low production rate ( if no other orders from other countries ) to replace the early Tiffies & augment the later ones & eventually replace..

This article comes from Fox News but is still interesting in describing the use of laser to get a consistent finish to the surface of the aircraft
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/f-35-set-for-laser-boost and also mentions the use of lasers as a weapon of course

bobp wrote:The price of them is way too high, also the running costs.

It is the latter that is the killer (needs 30% lobbed off, only the Congress seems to have any muscle in this sphere... just that progress reports only come out about once a year).

I can still only see maximum of 48 F-35s being in-service at any one time, equipping three frontline squadrons and the OCU/OEU. The rest will be in storage for fleet management purposes, and later deliveries will replace earlier, versions rather then putting these through expensive upgrades. Look upon these first 50 the same as the Tranche 1 Typhoons.

seaspear wrote:This article comes from Fox News but is still interesting in describing the use of laser to get a consistent finish to the surface of the aircraft
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/f-35-set-for-laser-boost and also mentions the use of lasers as a weapon of course

What a load of waffle. Never ending nonsense from marketing departments on standard engineering practices. You only resort to shot peening of materials when they arrive out of shape or your margins are so wafer thin you getting worried by fatigue and wafer thin stress margins and it makes the stress department feel better...

SW1 wrote: What a load of waffle. Never ending nonsense

There should be a button, in the F-35 context, to push all that to a separate thread
... at a push of a button!

I note in the article that all the f35b,s and f35c,s will have this process including aircraft of partner nations
https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=110618
it would be likely to include those that the U.K is purchasing according to the controller of this facility ,that much of the parts of this aircraft are manufactured in other countries it could be good Q.A
Use of laser shocks to measure the bond strength of coatings on metals has been developed over a period of years in France called LASAT for Laser Adhesion Test.[27] This application is also based on the behavior of shockwaves to reflect from the rear free surface of a work piece as a tensile wave. If the back surface is coated with an adherent coating, the tensile wave can be tailored to fracture the bond upon reflection from the surface. By controlling the characteristics of the shock wave, the bond strength of the coating can be measured, or alternatively, determined in a comparative sense.[28]

Careful tailoring of the shockwave shape and intensity has also enabled the inspection of bonded composite structures via laser shocking.[29][30] The technology, termed Laser Bond Inspection initiates a shockwave that reflects off the backside of a bonded structure and returns as a tensile wave. As the tensile wave passes back through the adhesive bond, depending on the strength of the bond and the peak tensile stress of the stress wave, the tensile wave will either pass through the bond or rupture it. By controlling the pressure of the tensile wave this procedure is capable of reliably locally testing adhesion strength between bonded joints. This technology is most often found in application to bonded fiber composite material structures but has also been shown to be successful in evaluating bonds between metal-composite material. Fundamental issues are also studied to characterize and quantify the effect of shock wave produced by laser inside these complex materials.[31][32][33]

The above article suggests that this is a possibility for this use whether the durability of "stealth coating"is improved Im not sure and perhaps the article itself does not communicate well in what the aim of the process is

When you call for the shot peening of a part production take a huff they hate doing it, takes a while to set up ect, call for peening of a particular area of a part they take an even bigger huff because now they have to mask off areas of part and it takes even longer.. ask them to shot peen in situ and the toys come out of the pram. I mentioned why it’s done in my previous post, the question would be did you have to invent an entirely new process because so much of your structure is requiring it that it would never get out the door in the first place. In most programs if your that close to margin you redesign the part to avoid having to do it in the first place.... or maybe that’s were f35 structure started prior to material changes and the weight reductions to meet kpi’s and warnings that all they were doing was moving the problem out of development to inservice were ignored....

As for bond inspection a ultrasonic c-scan will pretty quickly tell you how good a bond is, it gives you a colour spectrum thickness plot if the thickness changes you have delam, doing these a lot recently as part of high speed impact testing of laminates and they are accurate. It’s been a round for some time now and mandatory on most primary structure joints, don’t now it this is what’s your referring to or if they’ve reinvented the wheel.

Indeed the sea looks spectacular.

SDL wrote:

A really spectacular image.

If we give back the small ones do u think they would give us the large one? The B2 is an exquisite aircraft.