F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

Has the number of jets per squadron been set/confirmed anywhere?

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

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

Post by R686 »

dmereifield wrote:Has the number of jets per squadron been set/confirmed anywhere?

As far as I'm aware its still 138, but over how many years is yet to be determined.

Pymes75
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:17
United Kingdom

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

Post by Pymes75 »

R686 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Has the number of jets per squadron been set/confirmed anywhere?

As far as I'm aware its still 138, but over how many years is yet to be determined.
138 per squadron?! :angel:

I remember reading from someone in the Joint Lightning Force that it will be 12x a/c per frontline squadron and a smaller number (8?) in the OCU but unfortunately I can't put my hands on a link to the comment (IIRC it could have been a tweet from one of the JLF COs).

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

By 2025 the OCU should be 12 strong as well, but I suspect that depends on the second pair of frontline squadrons being confirmed or not...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

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

Post by downsizer »

Ron5 wrote:
downsizer wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
whitelancer wrote:I suspect that SRVL will turn out to be the default technique both on land and at sea (at least on the QEs), with vertical landings only being used if their is a specific reason to do so. I could be wrong of course , we will have to wait and see.
I was thinking quite the opposite. There's risks involved with rolling landings that just are not there with pure vertical. Like a tire bursting, or brake fail, or good old pilot error like a too fast approach.
Equally dangerous doing a VL. Lift fan or engine failure gets nasty very quickly. Ever seen a Harrier fail when in VL mode? It goes wrong very quickly.
Yes I have seen a Harrier have VL problems however you clearly don't understand SVRL because that is also totally dependent on the proper functioning of both the fan and engine. SVRL at sea, adds to the list of critical components. On land, not so much.
The ejection envelope is much more favourable with a forward speed component, no matter if its 60knots or 200. :roll:

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
United Kingdom

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

Post by CameronPerson »

I just watched the Forces News coverage of the Lightning landings and they spoke to Guto Bebb, a defence minister, who still very much said that the question of what variant to buy after the first 48 remains to be decided.. utter stupidity if they decide to go to As at this point

EDIT: I’ve just seen an interesting commentary on this actually. Given that the number of squadrons with 138 aircraft is to be four (two NAS and two RAF) plus an OCU, should HMG decide they want F-35A after 48 Bs, what do you reckon the likelihood of the F-35B being solely operated by 809NAS and the as yet unknown NAS would be? Presumably the make up of the aircrew to each squadron would remain 60:40 to each relevant service, but there’s zero point in a naval squadron operating a CTOL aircraft. Where as some seem to think this would be a return of pre JF2000 days when the Shars were under direct naval control, this is unlikely to be the case - but do you at least think that carrier aviation would once again revert to being purely an FAA aircraft affair? Obviously the idea of cutting F-35B at the expense of As is a route i really hope we don’t go down, but I just thought it made an interesting discussion point as to how the Bs would be operated?

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

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

Post by R686 »

Pymes75 wrote:
R686 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Has the number of jets per squadron been set/confirmed anywhere?

As far as I'm aware its still 138, but over how many years is yet to be determined.
138 per squadron?! :angel:

I remember reading from someone in the Joint Lightning Force that it will be 12x a/c per frontline squadron and a smaller number (8?) in the OCU but unfortunately I can't put my hands on a link to the comment (IIRC it could have been a tweet from one of the JLF COs).


:o :o MEA CULPA serves me right for skim reading and not reading the whole sentence, must have been on the brain as someone posted a twitter say that 138 aircraft is still on the cards.

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

I was mentioned somewhere that 617 was going to be declared operational when it had received eight airframes. I know we still keep declaring that we intend to buy 138, but I cannot see more than four squadrons being operational plus the OCU.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 617 was going to be declared operational when it had received eight airframes
whereas the IOC at sea (has always been set for a later date) requires 12
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)

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

downsizer wrote:Having lived and worked at Marham, all I can say is you'd be gutted to move from the States to that Norfolk backwater.
Wasn't there a lot of grumblings about Marham being chosen as it was loathed by all and sundry?

Some stations appeared to have been universally popular. Coltishall, which isn't that far away seemed to be very popular. Never heard much about Cottesmore though. Finningley back in the day seemed to have been universally loved by all as well. Which for a base with Doncaster as its nearest town seemed perplexing...Wittering was a lovely place as well.

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

CameronPerson wrote:much said that the question of what variant to buy after the first 48 remains to be decided.. utter stupidity if they decide to go to As at this point
Agreed. If we were committed to buying 160 a split buy of 80 of each could make some sense. The RAF could have the A's, the FAA could run a JF F-35B with some RAF support. But with the time lines of the buy and the number it makes zero sense to split the purchase. You could even make a case for the C variant being a smarter buy than the A in the larger fleet context as it would leave the possibility of conversion of one of the QE Class to Catobar open (even though that would never happen and be a crazy decision).

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:The only operational experience is that the US Marines at sea, so far, have exclusively used VL. But maybe they're waiting for the RN to teach them
Indeed they are. The UK is the ones who have pushed the concept forward and done most of the sim work and testing work. Smart move on the USMC part. I suspect they'll look at it closely when they embark on a QE for joint operations. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Bedford Array appear on a LHD at some point as a result.

But do they have enough deck to safely undertake a SRVL?

The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is the USMC contingent on QE or PoW having to be forcibly removed at the end of the deployment as they don't want to leave behind the better accommodation, space, ski jump and bar....

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:But do they have enough deck to safelyThe F-35B has an incredibly powerful engine which creates a large amount of heat and noise. Cdr Deller, who was previously Cdr Air on HMS Illustrious said, “previously, we were limited to two consecutive landings on any given spot, any more than that and you were in danger of overheating the deck which could ca undertake a SRVL?
I was trying to point at that earlier.

In 2004 the rationale for the size of the flight deck of QE class was the ability (as an all out effort) to put 36 a/c up and form a strike package ("proper").

Now (as we are "poor" and cannot afford to dump expensive weapons, just to be able to land and bring them back) the ukdefencejournal puts it as
"The large flight deck enables the F-35B Lightning, a Short Take Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft the versatility to conduct multiple roles before returning to the ship with either a vertical landing or a Ship-borne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL). This technique provides additional lift making it possible to return with a greater amount of unused fuel or weaponry."

However, the same article then adds an interesting detail:
"The F-35B has an incredibly powerful engine which creates a large amount of heat and noise. Cdr Deller, who was previously Cdr Air on HMS Illustrious said, “previously, we were limited to two consecutive landings on any given spot, any more than that and you were in danger of overheating the deck which could cause tyres to burst”.["]

... supposedly this has now been solved: "The flight decks of both QE Class benefit from innovative British engineered technology called Thermal Metallic Spray (TMS)"
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
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »


(Forces TV) 7/6/2018
The first British F-35B aircraft have arrived at their new home at RAF Marham, following a 4,000-mile journey from the United States. Four of the fifth generation stealth fighters made the journey across the Atlantic. The UK has committed to purchasing 138 of the jets.
Reporter says five more 'planes will arrive by the end of August ^

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

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

Post by SKB »

No surprise appearance of F-35B at the Trooping The Colour flypast today.
Image

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

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

Post by Little J »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: ... supposedly this has now been solved: "The flight decks of both QE Class benefit from innovative British engineered technology called Thermal Metallic Spray (TMS)"
Do we know if there is any sort of water cooling of the deck? I would think that would be a prerequisite given the heats involved.

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

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

Post by topman »

Timmymagic wrote:
downsizer wrote:Having lived and worked at Marham, all I can say is you'd be gutted to move from the States to that Norfolk backwater.
Wasn't there a lot of grumblings about Marham being chosen as it was loathed by all and sundry?

Some stations appeared to have been universally popular. Coltishall, which isn't that far away seemed to be very popular. Never heard much about Cottesmore though. Finningley back in the day seemed to have been universally loved by all as well. Which for a base with Doncaster as its nearest town seemed perplexing...Wittering was a lovely place as well.
Marham is a marmite posting. For everyone dragged there, there's another that doesn't want to leave. Many have settled in the area over the years.

It'll be a manning headache as they people they want to move are those that want to stay and those they want to move in may well not want to go.

Me I enjoyed the 6 plus years i spent there, they flew by. I don't know where the time went. :eh:

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

downsizer wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
downsizer wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
whitelancer wrote:I suspect that SRVL will turn out to be the default technique both on land and at sea (at least on the QEs), with vertical landings only being used if their is a specific reason to do so. I could be wrong of course , we will have to wait and see.
I was thinking quite the opposite. There's risks involved with rolling landings that just are not there with pure vertical. Like a tire bursting, or brake fail, or good old pilot error like a too fast approach.
Equally dangerous doing a VL. Lift fan or engine failure gets nasty very quickly. Ever seen a Harrier fail when in VL mode? It goes wrong very quickly.
Yes I have seen a Harrier have VL problems however you clearly don't understand SVRL because that is also totally dependent on the proper functioning of both the fan and engine. SVRL at sea, adds to the list of critical components. On land, not so much.
The ejection envelope is much more favourable with a forward speed component, no matter if its 60knots or 200. :roll:
Asked my pal, a Lt Col who drives F-16s out of M-D with the AZ National Guard. his reply was along the lines of "bollox". Attitude matters, speed not so much.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Little J wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: ... supposedly this has now been solved: "The flight decks of both QE Class benefit from innovative British engineered technology called Thermal Metallic Spray (TMS)"
Do we know if there is any sort of water cooling of the deck? I would think that would be a prerequisite given the heats involved.
AFAIK no water just the magic thermal coatings.

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

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

Post by sunstersun »

When is it going through the mach loop?

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

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

Post by sunstersun »

Also, an excerpt from the latest Israeli F-35 front.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/middle- ... 018/06/09/

"According to the newspaper’s investigation, the IAF F-35 “Adir” planes penetrated Iran’s airspace, circled high above Tehran, Karajrak, Isfahan, Shiraz and Bandar Abbas – and photographed Iran’s air defense system.

One of the sources reported that Iran’s air defense system, including its Russian radar, did not detect the entry and exit of the fighter planes, and that Ismaili hid this information from the supreme leader to cover his corps’ failure. However, three weeks ago, Iranian intelligence discovered that the Israeli fighter jets had carried out this sortie as a test of the possibility of an undetected military attack on Iranian outposts and bases, during which they photographed those sensitive bases, evading the Russian S-300 missile system’s radar.

According to Al Jarida, Iranian intelligence received top secret information that the Israeli fighter planes even managed to photograph Iran’s underground bases. Khamenei, who received this information, now suspects a cooperation between Russia and Israel, and that the Russians gave Israel the secret code of the Russian radar in Iran – according to the Kuwaiti newspaper."

No punches pulled eh Israel? IOC, then off to scan Iran's air defence systems.

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

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

Post by Little J »

sunstersun wrote:When is it going through the mach loop?

From last year...

albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by albedo »

sunstersun wrote:When is it going through the mach loop?
Largely OT, but this is why it's so much easier to call it the mach loop (unless you're a local!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojWz0HnaZ2U

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

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

Post by seaspear »

Little J wrote:
sunstersun wrote:When is it going through the mach loop?
could be fun to go there with a radar gun lol

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

The major annual June US DOD GAO report on development of F-35, US total acquisition cost, R&D and Procurement, total now estimated at $406B, program was restructured three time since 2001.

Some highlights
1. F-35 development testing completed April, six months slip from last year.
2. Start of Initial Operational Test and Evaluation delayed 7-8 months to Q4 '18 due to slippage in availability of test a/c upgraded to final production standard and completion Q3 '19. Program Office estimates 501 a/c will be procured before IOTE completed.
3. Funding will be under threat from competing programs in near future, B-21, KC-46A and Columbia
4. Program Office working on 'Blueprint for Affordability' to lower production and support costs. Program meeting or close to four of its eight reliability and maintainability targets, the four metrics included in development contract, the other four metrics specified in operational requirement but were not in contract.
5. F-35A closest to full maturity, F-35B and C are less mature, estimated 2021 and 2024 respectively
6. DOD plans to defer resolving some critical deficiencies until after full rate production (77 per year) decision in October 2019 contrary to DOD policy. As of January 2018 111 Cat. 1 and 855 Cat. 2 deficiencies forecast to be outstanding when full production starts, the open deficiencies found in testing will not be resolved within the cost and schedule of development contract, will have to be funded from post development contract.
7. Modernisation of F-35 (Block 4/Continuous Capability Development and Delivery, C2D2), planned contract award slipped to June 2019 to allow another 10 months to wrap up original development contract, estimated cost up to 2022 $3.9B, no figure given for the out years.
8. Labour hours per a/c improving year by year, in 2017 F-35A, 41,541 hrs, B 57,152 hrs , C 60,121 hrs. A pointer to the additional cost of a B compared to an A is that it takes an additional 37.5% manufacturing hours. Another interesting point for discussion raised by these figures is why hours so much higher than WWII a/c, e.g. In 1944 a B-24 Liberator a much heavier a/c required only 14,500 hours and though with much simpler systems had none of the advantages of a 70 plus years in software design for ease of assembly and the development in computerised/robotic production systems.

The two GAO recommendations
1. Resolve all critical deficiencies before making full rate production decision
2. Ensure the F-35 meets reliability and maintainability requirements

GAO-18-321

Post Reply