F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[ArmChairCivvy]

Some wishful thinking: may be the new seeker head will be part and parcel of the next version?

"The program is likely to focus on the guidance technology in the Mitsubishi Electric AAM-4B air-to-air missile, which entered production in 2010 to equip Japanese Boeing F-15sand Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’s F-2s. Britain has sought "advanced sensor technology" from Japanese companies, says the Japan Times.

The AAM-4B seeker with an active, electronically scanned array (AESA), that should significantly outperform radars with mechanically scanned antennas used in other missiles of medium-and long-range, including the Meteor. The better the missile radar, the greater the distance at which it can detect a target andthe earlier the launching fighter can stop transmitting guidance commands and turn away for safety.

This may be a particularly important issue for a missile with very long effective range such as the Meteor; short seeker detection distance would force the launching aircraft to point toward the target for an unusually long period while the weapon covered the intervening space.
[...]

But the Meteor’s body diameter, at 178 mm (7 in.), is less than the AAM-4B’s 203 mm (8 in.), so the AAM-4B’s seeker would need to be repackaged for installation and the European missile and the antenna would have to be smaller. Mitsubishi Electric makes the "transmitter unit" of the seeker, says the Japanese ministry of defense.

Mitsubishi Electric and the Defense Ministry’s Technical Research and Development Institute are also working on AESA radars that, by using gallium-nitride as a semiconductor, can generate greater power than those of conventional gallium-arsenide technology...

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/japan-uk-to-c ... z3pnhSKOYu"

[jonas]

I'm not quite sure what I read into this article. Is it a novel idea (which it clearly is) or is it the end user finally saying we need an aircraft capable of carrying more munitions, (which they clearly do)
In either case it will mean greater expense, and something that I don't imagine the UK will be looking at anytime soon.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... kp-418317/

[ArmChairCivvy]

I think it is just rewarming some old news (like the one pasted below, from 2011) and facts that have been known all along (limited persistence of manned platforms, F35 no exception), in an attempt to maximise the USAF share of funding in the continuing squeeze... in the light that they just got quite a big Xmas present in the guise of the bomber funding:
"looking at ways to rationalise the force structure that supports a combat air patrol, Donley says. Previously, USAF officials have said that 168 people are required to operate a single patrol, which includes four aircraft and two ground stations.

The USAF also has had unfunded requirements to deploy a new ground station that allows a single operator to control up to four aircraft simultaneously. If that upgrade is funded, for example, the USAF could reduce the number of MQ-9 pilots by 56%, according to service officials."
- they have had quite a retention problem within the drone pilot community (so the 4 out of the above 168 is a bigger priority than reducing the residual 164)
- automated landing was also mentioned, may be that part has been funded
- automated transit would also have a big (about 10%) impact

All of these have been targeted, the funding status may vary.

Keeping a drone on station while the F35 is rearming is a good idea, sure. Not that they would normally operate alone. But with automated transit that "one on station" could be constantly replaced once the weapon load is exhausted, without much impact on the pilot crewing requirement.

[jonas]

Once again I'm not quite sure where I should post this article, but as the main headline is F35 related I ended up here. An interesting range of air assets mentioned particularly for the RN.

I'm a bit concerned in regard to the remark about the number of F35's he mentions,as I always understood that 48 was just a first batch, let's hope it is.
Although I guess we won't have much long to wait to find out.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-418270/

[Geoff_B]

Once again I'm not quite sure where I should post this article, but as the main headline is F35 related I ended up here. An interesting range of air assets mentioned particularly for the RN.

I'm a bit concerned in regard to the remark about the number of F35's he mentions,as I always understood that 48 was just a first batch, let's hope it is.
Although I guess we won't have much long to wait to find out.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-418270/

Well you wont like this bit from Flightglobal regarding thr SDSR and the P8 cancelled rumours, in the last paragraph they mention another 3 RAF squadrons, 2 as a result of retaining the Tranche 1 TYphoons past 2019, and the other the last F-35B RAF unit. which wont be increased in this SDSR but will be reviewed in the next.

The UK's overall F-35 requirement is predicted to remain at the previously requested 48, but “left open for upward review” in the 2020 and 2025 versions of the SDSR, the consultant says.

I still suspect that basically the MOD are unwilling to go all in with the F-35B till the design issues have been resolved and the aircraft has proven its capabilities, Plus the Carriers don't really become fully operational fleet units till after 2023 when the last of the 48 are delivered so they can expand the Carrier airgroups by increasing numbers in the next SDSR once the type has been proven.

[ArmChairCivvy]

suspect that basically the MOD are unwilling to go all in with the F-35B till the design issues have been resolved and the aircraft has proven its capabilities, Plus the Carriers don't really become fully operational fleet units till after 2023 when the last of the 48 are delivered so they can expand the Carrier airgroups by increasing numbers in the next SDSR once the type has been proven

That would be very sensible, as would be burning out the less capable Tranche 1 Tiffies (while delivering T3s straight into storage, and this is happening I believe, and will continue as long as the Boa Constrictor type of constraint is in place for the money for the RAF to operate x number of fast jet squadrons).

So a sufficient number of Tranche 3s in service to facilitate the orderly run down of the Tornado fleet (there are other constraints than money, e.g. long since discontinued training stream for the Tornado back-seat driver, sorry, weapons officer) while keeping the overall numbers up in the most budget-efficient way... will be the order of the day?

[Lugzy]

Lockheed Martin receives a order for 55 f-35s A/B/C versions worth 5.37b dollars . The order includes 6 f-35b for the UK .

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /75128086/

[bobp]

Good news !!!

[Geoff_B]

Good news !!!

Only in that they are actually ordered from LM now this is still only part of our iniitial batch of 14. Hopefully they will have designed the new stronger main gear bearing bulkhead by the time these are manufactured or else they are going to need a concurency rebuild before we can really use them in earnest.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Notice how the UK workload is put at "20%". Interesting. I have heard that figure used in place of the more commonly quoted "15%" before now and assumed that between the two it was representative of the UK's ballpark contributions. Perhaps this is just another ballpark reference but i do wonder as to if it is perhaps a more precise representation of our industrial input after all; or if UK input has actually perhaps increased? Most likely way too early to be in reponse to Canada's wavering if the latter however.

[shark bait]

Lockheed Martin receives a order for 55 f-35s A/B/C versions worth 5.37b dollars . The order includes 6 f-35b for the UK .

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /75128086/

Interesting. That gives a fly away cost at £64 million, I guess thats the production cost and not representitive of the actual cost.

[bobp]

Add a few million for the engine to your price as that is costed separately.

[jonas]

Add a few million for the engine to your price as that is costed separately.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -grow.html

I do tend to find though that 'defense-aerospace.com' seems to have a certain biase against the F35 in any form, and seem only too glad to point out the negatives of the aircraft.

[Gabriele]

Defense-aerospace,com is about as anti-F-35 as they come. The guy running the place, Giovanni de Briganti, is an F-35 hater of the worst kind, and known for building cases against it even where they do no exist. So...

The 6 F-35B in LRIP 9 were expected. Long Lead items were ordered back in 2014, as usual. This year there was the long lead contract for next year's LRIP 10 (which includes 3 UK aircraft).

The LRIP 9 was expected to come with the redesigned 496 bulkhead. We'll see if it'll be confirmed.

The 4 LRIP 8 aircraft will complement BK-3 to form the 5-strong OCU, first in the US then, from 2019, in the UK.

So it is likely that the 6 LRIP 9 will be the first ones to be destined for the frontline 617 squadron.

BK-4, which will soon be delivered, goes to 17 Sqn to join BK-1 and BK-2 as instrumented aircraft for test and development.

[Pymes75]

/\ What he said...

Source: http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/C ... cle/627545

[ArmChairCivvy]

Oh Boy! How far behind is the "C":

"procurement of 41 F-35A aircraft, including 26 F-35As for the Air Force; six F-35As for Norway; seven F-35As for Israel; two F-35As for Japan; 12 F-35Bs, including six for the Marine Corps and six for the British Royal Navy; and two F-35Cs for the Navy."

[RetroSicotte]

The C is simply a much lower priority. The Super Hornet is more than new enough for now, while the Harriers and F-16s are not. With no expecting export partners either, no urgent need and the Navy being quite content to just "slow walk" the C instead of forcing money in, the're fine to do as such.

[WhiteWhale]

Given how luke-warm at best the Navy's attitude has been towards the F35 I doubt they are really pushing hard for the aircraft!

[Old RN]

Given that the F35B has a better range and manoeuvrability than the F18E/F will thag mean that a USMC LPH will outclass/outrange a USN CVN?

[Ron5]

Given that the F35B has a better range and manoeuvrability than the F18E/F will thag mean that a USMC LPH will outclass/outrange a USN CVN?

I would have thought you'd be more titillated at the prospect of the QE's outclassing the CVNs

[Old RN]

Yes - but the USMC F35Bs are in service now!

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good point! Carrier Strike fully operational in 2022-2023? Can do Littoral Packages, with some F35 support (an expensive recce plane?) before that... well, must, as Ocean will be long gone.

In itself not hugely different from many other aspects of Force 2020 (e.g. Warrior enhancement for the main manoeuvre element of the army, their 3 AI Bdes).
- wait and see if the next formulation , due on the 25th or soon after, introduces any rapidity for any of the key capabilities

[Ron5]

Yes - but the USMC F35Bs are in service now!

Not at sea they're not

[marktigger]

The rate of production and the whole program will be interesting to watch post US presidential election. Especially if the new president tries to bring the US budget down.

Could the UK afford to fund F35B to block IV development by itself?

[WhiteWhale]

Could the UK afford to fund F35B to block IV development by itself?

The UK can't really afford to bolt existing missiles onto it's existing aircraft at the moment so not really.