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
127
44%
BAD choice for the Royal Navy
12
4%
Uncertain (RN)
14
5%
GOOD choice for the Royal Air Force
54
19%
BAD choice for the Royal Air Force
39
13%
Uncertain (RAF)
43
15%
 
Total votes: 289

inch
Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Postby inch » 17 Oct 2019, 11:34

Cheers SDL :-)

NickC
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby NickC » 20 Oct 2019, 12:00

The delay of the F-35 able to complete IOT&E due to delays of 'F-35 In-A-Box' (FIAB) proving it can operate in a high threat environment against peer enemies pushing back Milestone C, full production authority to possible 2021, but seems to have little effect as high production rate continues under LRIPs.

What is of concern that until IOT&E/F-35 In-A-Box' (FIAB) completed that any of the UK buy of current aircraft might not be able to be bought up to full specification or require expensively upgrades, making actual number of our limited buy of F-35 fully operational capable fewer still, presume one reason why simulation for FIAB is required as it will require Block 4/TR3 (incl'd new software and more powerful computers) upgrades planned for Lot 15 a/c due for delivery in 2023.

DefenseNews
Pentagon acquisition chief Ellen Lord said during a Friday press conference she signed a program deviation report this week that "documented an expected schedule threshold breach in milestone C full-rate production of up to 13 months."

The U.S. Defense Department will not clear the F-35 fighter jet for full-rate production this year, and it may even have to push that milestone as far as January 2021, the Pentagon’s acquisition executive said Friday.

But before Lord signs off on the production decision, the F-35 must complete operational testing, the results of which will be validated by Robert Behler, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation.

Joint Simulation Environment continues to face delays in its own development, JSE, is needed to conduct simulated evaluations of the F-35 in a range of high-threat scenarios.

Lockheed Martin are lagging behind in integrating the "'F-35 In-A-Box” — the simulated model of the F-35 and its sensors and weapons — into the JSE, reported Military.com, which broke the news of the testing delay in September.

The JSE simulations project characteristics such as weather, geography and range, allowing test pilots to prove the aircraft's "full capabilities against the full range of required threats and scenarios," according to a 2015 Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) report.

From <https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/18/the-f-35-may-hit-full-rate-production-more-than-a-year-late/>

Military.com
JPO - F-35 In-A-Box' (FIAB) model, which is the simulation of F-35 sensor systems and the overall aircraft integration.
JPO - IOT&E for the purposes of determining the weapons systems' operational effectiveness and operational suitability for combat."
DOT&E - The JSE simulations project characteristics such as weather, geography and range, allowing test pilots to prove the aircraft's "full capabilities against the full range of required threats and scenarios,"
DoD - This final phase of IOT&E will occur when the JSE is ready to adequately complete the testing //The JSE is required to adequately perform F-35 IOT&E against modern adversary aircraft and dense ground threats in realistic scenarios // require high-fidelity F-35, weapons, threat and environmental models to be able to provide the operationally representative scenarios and data required to complete IOT&E
LM "We have delivered on all requirements for this software to be integrated with NAVAIR's JSE and are providing our full support to ensure successful integration and testing as soon as possible,"

From <https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/09/27/f-35-testing-delays-continue-even-aircraft-has-made-its-combat-debut.html>

S M H
Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby S M H » 20 Oct 2019, 12:32

NickC wrote:What is of concern that until IOT&E/F-35 In-A-Box' (FIAB) completed that any of the UK buy of current aircraft might not be able to be bought up to full specification or require expensively upgrades, making actual number of our limited buy of F-35 fully operational capable fewer still, presume one reason why simulation for FIAB is required as it will require Block 4/TR3 (incl'd new software and more powerful computers) upgrades planned for Lot 15 a/c due for delivery in 2023.

That makes our procurement of enough aircraft to cover basic operational carrier operations sensible. Procuring the later is finantualy prudent. As the later aircraft will not require expensive upgrades and with full rate production cheaper than the present fly away cost.

SDL
Member
Posts: 729
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SDL » 23 Oct 2019, 19:44


User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Phil R » 23 Oct 2019, 20:01

Never before noticed that the weapon stations have such different carry angles.
The bay door missile launch angles look like they have very shallow clearance from the airframe.

Edit: what are those bay door missiles?

Phil R

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 13836
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Oct 2019, 20:03

S M H wrote:That makes our procurement of enough aircraft to cover basic operational carrier operations sensible. Procuring the later is finantualy prudent. As the later aircraft will not require expensive upgrades and with full rate production cheaper than the present

Also, the new engine is 'just around the corner' - why buy two engines for the same planes?

Jdam
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jdam » 23 Oct 2019, 21:12

Phil R wrote:Never before noticed that the weapon stations have such different carry angles.
The bay door missile launch angles look like they have very shallow clearance from the airframe.

Edit: what are those bay door missiles?

Phil R


Amraam I believe

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 13836
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Oct 2019, 07:08

I wonder if the close-to-wingtip stations being so strongly angled downwards has to do
- with ASRAAM launch method and its fairly big tail
- or, with the alleged stealth (the tail fins being the angled surfaces, basically hiding them from more radar angles)
or with both. Anyone know about this?

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1869
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 25 Oct 2019, 10:51

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wonder if the close-to-wingtip stations being so strongly angled downwards has to do
- with ASRAAM launch method and its fairly big tail
- or, with the alleged stealth (the tail fins being the angled surfaces, basically hiding them from more radar angles)
or with both. Anyone know about this?


Same pylon with AIM-9X, believe it was for aerodynamic purposes relating to that pylon location. The pylon itself has a reduced RCS allegedly. But latest versions of AIM-9X are treated with radar absorbent material, have to wonder if a similar treatment is being applied to Asraam CSP.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 25 Oct 2019, 16:28

Has the Lockheed Martin marketing department now taken over the carrier twitter pages. 22K lbs of ordnance on a f35 whilst showing a configuration with less than 4K lbs mind you if they did somehow load it with 22klbs of bombs and missiles I’d love to time the length of that sortie and views it’s post landing maintenance checks..


ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wonder if the close-to-wingtip stations being so strongly angled downwards has to do
- with ASRAAM launch method and its fairly big tail
- or, with the alleged stealth (the tail fins being the angled surfaces, basically hiding them from more radar angles)
or with both. Anyone know about this?


Most likely inflight wing tip bending and the aero interaction for a/c control surface response will have be the considerations.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 13836
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Oct 2019, 16:47

SW1 wrote:inflight wing tip bending and the aero interaction for a/c control surface response

... and the launch method?

Someone already mentioned the fairly narrow clearing for AMRAAMs when the internally mounted ones are dropped... doing that while the a/c has the belly up is a no mean feat and having some Asraams/ Sidewinders will come in handy

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 25 Oct 2019, 17:02

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:inflight wing tip bending and the aero interaction for a/c control surface response

... and the launch method?

Someone already mentioned the fairly narrow clearing for AMRAAMs when the internally mounted ones are dropped... doing that while the a/c has the belly up is a no mean feat and having some Asraams/ Sidewinders will come in handy


No sure what you mean? Asraam is rail launched, the tips are asraam/sidewinder only I think

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2093
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby bobp » 25 Oct 2019, 21:37

[quote="SW1"]Has the Lockheed Martin marketing department now taken over the carrier twitter pages[

A F35A can carry six 2000lb bombs, 2 on each wing and one in each bomb bay, that equates to 12000lbs plus wingtip missiles, and the rest must be fuel to get a total of 22000lbs. the B version would not be able to carry the 2000 pounders internally.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4724
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Oct 2019, 23:55

Are the AMRAMMs actually dropped or are they physically ejected at launch like the F-22 does from its internal bay.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2093
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby bobp » 26 Oct 2019, 06:36

Lord Jim wrote:Are the AMRAMMs actually dropped or are they physically ejected at launch like the F-22 does from its internal bay.


AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor. But it can be dropped from a wing station before firing the motor.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2093
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby bobp » 26 Oct 2019, 06:36

Lord Jim wrote:Are the AMRAMMs actually dropped or are they physically ejected at launch like the F-22 does from its internal bay.


AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor. But it can be dropped from a wing station before firing the motor.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2093
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby bobp » 26 Oct 2019, 06:36

Lord Jim wrote:Are the AMRAMMs actually dropped or are they physically ejected at launch like the F-22 does from its internal bay.


AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor. But it can be dropped from a wing station before firing the motor.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2093
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby bobp » 26 Oct 2019, 06:36

Lord Jim wrote:Are the AMRAMMs actually dropped or are they physically ejected at launch like the F-22 does from its internal bay.


AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor. But it can be dropped from a wing station before firing the motor.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2093
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby bobp » 26 Oct 2019, 06:41

Sorry for posting a reply four times something screwed up when I pressed submit. I tried to delete the posts but was not able to do that :crazy: :problem:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 13836
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Oct 2019, 09:02

bobp wrote:AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor.
This is what I meant by my reference to launch method: the trapeze needed for integrating ASRAAM with the F-35 for internal carriage never saw the light of day.

Whether the 5,000 psi is enough for a safe launch during hard manuevering and the the bomb bay momentarily pointing up is beyond me to say

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2093
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby bobp » 26 Oct 2019, 09:07

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Whether the 5,000 psi is enough for a safe launch during hard manuevering and the the bomb bay momentarily pointing up is beyond me to say


Not sure if I would wand to try it in the first place especially as the bomb bays can carry two AMRAAM's each. Block 4 is supposed to increase this to 3.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 897
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby mr.fred » 26 Oct 2019, 10:15

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
bobp wrote:AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor.
This is what I meant by my reference to launch method: the trapeze needed for integrating ASRAAM with the F-35 for internal carriage never saw the light of day.

Whether the 5,000 psi is enough for a safe launch during hard manuevering and the the bomb bay momentarily pointing up is beyond me to say

Like all air-launched munitions, there will be g-limits for release. I would expect that the F35 incorporates interlocks that prevents launch if the ejected munition presents a risk to the aircraft.

Quite why you’d want to launch a medium range missile while pulling severe negative g is another question.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 13836
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Oct 2019, 10:33

ArmChairCivvy wrote:having some Asraams/ Sidewinders will come in handy
in case you've ended up WVR
mr.fred wrote:Quite why you’d want to launch a medium range missile while pulling severe negative g is another question.

and a very valid one. Maybe you haven't expended all 4 pre-merge, but have already fired the two Asraams that you carry, in addition
... a good thing that internal Amraan carry will go from 4 to 6

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 26 Oct 2019, 11:42

bobp wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Whether the 5,000 psi is enough for a safe launch during hard manuevering and the the bomb bay momentarily pointing up is beyond me to say


Not sure if I would wand to try it in the first place especially as the bomb bays can carry two AMRAAM's each. Block 4 is supposed to increase this to 3.


An option to do that maybe included in block 4. But will unlikely to be available on the f35b

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4972
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 26 Oct 2019, 12:47

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
bobp wrote:AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor.
This is what I meant by my reference to launch method: the trapeze needed for integrating ASRAAM with the F-35 for internal carriage never saw the light of day.

Whether the 5,000 psi is enough for a safe launch during hard manuevering and the the bomb bay momentarily pointing up is beyond me to say


I thought the reason for the external mounting was to enable lock before launch. Sidewinders are externally mounted too.


Return to “Joint Service”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lord Jim and 9 guests