F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

Ron5 wrote:FWIW don't know about this story but that site has a long history of providing unreliable information.
That site often seems more concerned with French = Good, All else = Bad than about reliable news, I find.

There's some hilarious mental gymnastics it goes through to that end at times.

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by imperialman »

It's run by frequent anti-F35 tweeter Giovanni de Briganti (@JoedeBrig on Twitter), so take that as you will.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

(ANSA) - Rome, March 12 - Air Force Chief of Staff General Alberto Rosso told parliament on Tuesday that Italy has not paid "389 million euros in invoices issued in 2018" by Lockheed Martin for F35 fighter jets. Reporting to a joint session of the Lower House and Senate defence committees, Rosso expressed "major concern about uncertainty over the programme" and the "hypothesis of a quantitative reduction" in the number of aircraft Italy will buy.
The general said the alternative would be "older and more expensive" aircraft. The Air Force chief said that "this aircraft is the future.
"Any slowdown or fall in the number would be worrying not just for us, but also for the nation's industry, given the economic impact of the programme".

http://www.ansa.it/english/news/science ... 6f776.html

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

I would remind people that this thread is only for the UK's F-35B aircraft. This thread is in the UK Equipment section.
If you have international news of the F-35A/B/C, please use the international threads. Thankyou.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

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

Post by downsizer »

SKB wrote:I would remind people that this thread is only for the UK's F-35B aircraft. This thread is in the UK Equipment section.
If you have international news of the F-35A/B/C, please use the international threads. Thankyou.
I would remind you that you are not a mod. But that would be pointless because you think you are. :roll: :lol:

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

I know I am not a moderator, but this is a UK F-35B thread in the UK Equipment section. I know this because it was I who created this thread.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

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

Post by downsizer »

Good for you. Remind us again what percentage of threads across the forum were started by you? You had the stat a while ago..... :think:

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

What affects F-35s worldwide affects the UK's F-35s, both in service and via possibilities.

Personally, I see no reason to split discussion in this regard in two. If enough people feel otherwise, then happy to consider.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote:What affects F-35s worldwide affects the UK's F-35s, both in service and via possibilities
Yep, we are past the stage when we had a clear 'say' as Tier1 Partner.

And then there is that 'global support model' and interoperability ... et al ;)
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)

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

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

Post by downsizer »

Thirded.

What does the thread starter think tho?

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

I agree with above its all relevant. One day Italian F35B operating with ours and perhaps others.

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Some good news. Spear, Meteor and Paveway IV Penetrator on the way for UK F-35B.


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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

How far along its development path is SPEAR?

Online
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1430
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

It has been revealed that USAF is working on version of USN’s Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range, AARGM-ER to fit in the F-35A weapons bay, called the Stand In Attack Weapon, SiAW

The AARGM-ER sized to fit inside the weapon bays of the F-35C or externally and said can fitted externally to F-35B, though if carried externally will seriously degrade its stealth capabilities.

The AARGM-ER said to have between 20 to 50% longer range from the Mach 2 AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM), the latest variant of High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM).

To make it more effective and not just target active radar in light of the experience in 1999 when the Serbians shot down a F-117A by turning radar on only when needed, it has multi-mode guidance capability that includes a GPS assisted inertial navigation system and a millimeter wave radar seeker to use against a variety of time-sensitive targets, allows the missiles to hit targets that have stopped emitting RF, or may never have been emitting in the first place, or simply to hit a specific location based on intel. The missile has a two-way data link so can feed it new target information in flight from the launching aircraft or another source.

Sadly the ALARM missile was officially retired by the UK at the end of 2013 and never replaced, but said to be continued in use by the Saudis. The AARGM-ER must be near top of the RAF/RN wish list for the F-35Bs.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Could this have an anti AWACS capability?

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:Could this have an anti AWACS capability?
Technically yes. But the MMW seeker on AARGM-ER is configured for ground targets, as soon as the AWACS shuts its radar off it won't be able to home.

But it also doesn't out-range or go faster than Meteor so would have no real benefit to the UK. The sole benefit to it is the larger warhead, but realistically a Meteor will down any aircraft out there with 1 hit.

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

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

Post by topman »


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Was the old saying prepare 8 taxi 4 launch 2!

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... nt-of-time

Newly available data shows that less than 15 percent of the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighters and around just two percent of the U.S. Navy's F-35Cs were fully mission capable at any given time, on average, for more than two years at least. The details come as the readiness rates for aviation fleets across both services have plummeted in recent years. It is also a clear indication that they will have a difficult time meeting the target of 80 percent mission capability rates for both aircraft by the end of the 2019 Fiscal Year that former Secretary of Defense James Mattis had mandated.

"In response to POGO’s questions about the Navy’s fully mission capable rates, the Joint Program Office highlighted the entire F-35 fleet’s higher “mission capable” rate," Dan Grazier, the Jack Shanahan Military Fellow at the Center for Defense Information at POGO, wrote in a detailed status update on the F-35 program as a whole on the organization's website. This is "a less rigorous – and less useful – measure showing how often the aircraft can perform at least one of its assigned tasks. The office also identified the lack of spare parts as the biggest factor impacting availability."

The data that POGO obtained on full mission capable F-35Bs and Cs, also commonly known as "Code One" aircraft, is truly striking. The average number of fully mission capable Marine F-35Bs, aircraft with all of their systems functional and capable of meeting all mission requirements, never rose above 25 percent in more than two years. In October 2017, it dipped to 12.9 percent and by the end of 2018 it was hovering somewhere around 12 to 13 percent.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

Now compare that with availability of each new generation of fighter during its first entry to service.

Until we know that level of comparison, these reports are pretty much just scaremongering without anything to show this is anything different from normal.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Now compare that with availability of each new generation of fighter during its first entry to service.

Until we know that level of comparison, these reports are pretty much just scaremongering without anything to show this is anything different from normal.
The marine declared IOC 4 years ago and Elgin afb began receiving its jets 8 years ago, with over 350 a/c delivered worldwide its not like it was just delivered last year.

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

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

Post by topman »

The way the test and delivery phase ran side by side it was always going to end up like this for the first few years. No real surprises.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

topman wrote:The way the test and delivery phase ran side by side it was always going to end up like this for the first few years. No real surprises.
Yes the run before we can walk strategy!

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

SW1 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Now compare that with availability of each new generation of fighter during its first entry to service.

Until we know that level of comparison, these reports are pretty much just scaremongering without anything to show this is anything different from normal.
The marine declared IOC 4 years ago and Elgin afb began receiving its jets 8 years ago, with over 350 a/c delivered worldwide its not like it was just delivered last year.
Again I ask. Do we have comparisons to the availability rates of other planes from the same timeframe? There's a lot of things that have been very beneficial from this method of approach.

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

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

Post by topman »

From my experience its all familiar, yet at the same time because the issues are so familiar and predictable it's disappointing that it's happening again. But there we go.
It'll all come good in the future.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:The marine declared IOC 4 year
They declared it for a very reduced ... while not declaring the reduction ;) ... capability set
- done for A. legislative reasons, so that orders for more could go ahead (and so that "B" would not be cancelled altogether), and B. relating to the the one afore, the Alligator fleet was under threat and them not getting jets (=B's) flying off them, to make them self-contained in many types of Ops, would simply have killed the ship orders, too

This is a reverse snow-ball, and it speaks volumes of the USMC comms capability (LM & RN perhaps in supporting roles) that the past has not been unravelled
- may be the present and the near future has kept everyone occupied?
- that's a good strategy when auditors turn up: keep them busy, so that they can't find the "red thread" :D
topman wrote:the test and delivery phase ran side by side it was always going to end up like this for the first few years.
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)

Post Reply