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
138
44%
BAD choice for the Royal Navy
13
4%
Uncertain (RN)
15
5%
GOOD choice for the Royal Air Force
60
19%
BAD choice for the Royal Air Force
42
13%
Uncertain (RAF)
45
14%
 
Total votes: 313

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 737
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

Lockheed exec says they're still in discussion with Spain regarding F-35A/B despite denial from Madrid

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai ... rid-denial

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

"British F-35 fighter jet crashes during routine operation in Mediterranean - pilot ejected safely, MoD says"

Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59323895

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 598
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

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

Post by Dahedd »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:"British F-35 fighter jet crashes during routine operation in Mediterranean - pilot ejected safely, MoD says"

Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59323895
It was going to happen eventually. Such a complex aircraft as that with the flight tempo they've had. At least the pilot is safe.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

Glad the pilot escaped with his life. Hope that whatever caused the crash is resolved and that it will not impact future of fleet.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

The pilot being safe and sound is the big thing, thank god for that.

Lets hope they're scrambling the salvage assets to recover the remains of the aircraft as soon as possible.

Hopefully the loss of 1 aircraft does not sour the view on CSG21. Its to be expected occasionally in operations, particularly from a ship. We've got accustomed with Typhoon to never having airframe losses, a very different (and welcome) position to be in following the cold war days of Tornado, Jaguar et al. where you could expect a minimum of a loss or 2 per year for each type.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7180
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Tail/registry number of plane?

serge750
Member
Posts: 823
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

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

Post by serge750 »

Yeh Glad the pilots OK, shame it happened this early into the RN getting back in the Carrier business, on the plus side it gave the recovery teams to put all their practice into reality !

Also one less airframe to update :twisted: as long as it will be replaced by a new version :thumbup:

Will be interesting to find out what caused it ...

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1976
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

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

Post by R686 »

serge750 wrote: 17 Nov 2021, 19:30 Yeh Glad the pilots OK, shame it happened this early into the RN getting back in the Carrier business, on the plus side it gave the recovery teams to put all their practice into reality !

Also one less airframe to update :twisted: as long as it will be replaced by a new version :thumbup:

Will be interesting to find out what caused it ...

Yes glad the pilot is fine, but it goes to show the perils of over water flight and recovery of the aircraft

Also highlights the need for attrition aircraft factored into buys, every military force goes through it no one is immune to it as the old saying goes "shit happens"

The RAAF and the growler fleet have found this out, not having the attrition air-frames puts force planning out of whack

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6287
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

R686 wrote: 18 Nov 2021, 21:41
serge750 wrote: 17 Nov 2021, 19:30 Yeh Glad the pilots OK, shame it happened this early into the RN getting back in the Carrier business, on the plus side it gave the recovery teams to put all their practice into reality !

Also one less airframe to update :twisted: as long as it will be replaced by a new version :thumbup:

Will be interesting to find out what caused it ...

Yes glad the pilot is fine, but it goes to show the perils of over water flight and recovery of the aircraft

Also highlights the need for attrition aircraft factored into buys, every military force goes through it no one is immune to it as the old saying goes "shit happens"

The RAAF and the growler fleet have found this out, not having the attrition air-frames puts force planning out of whack
Not wishing to contradict this in any way but there's a bunch of possible reasons for the crash that would have had the same result from a land base. Massive bird strike for example.

I took off from San Fransisco a few years back in a 3 engined aircraft, can't remember the type, for a flight to New York. We were a few hundred feet airborne when there was an almighty crash and the plane slowed as the engine note changed. We stopped climbing and made a very wide flat turn over the bay to come back into land. The pilot came on the intercom speaking rather quickly and told us our departure had coincided with the departure of a large flock of gulls and they'd taken out one of the engines and we needed to go back to the terminal and get a new ride.

Not a particularly rare story I expect but all the passengers were totally silent for the loooong circle back to the runway. You could smell the fear. We landed and I looked down and the paperback in my hand was soaking from my sweat. Then the guy in the next seat stirred and woke up saying, is this New York? He'd slept thru the whole drama. Bastard :D

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1976
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

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

Post by R686 »

Ron5 wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 12:58
R686 wrote: 18 Nov 2021, 21:41
serge750 wrote: 17 Nov 2021, 19:30 Yeh Glad the pilots OK, shame it happened this early into the RN getting back in the Carrier business, on the plus side it gave the recovery teams to put all their practice into reality !

Also one less airframe to update :twisted: as long as it will be replaced by a new version :thumbup:

Will be interesting to find out what caused it ...

Yes glad the pilot is fine, but it goes to show the perils of over water flight and recovery of the aircraft

Also highlights the need for attrition aircraft factored into buys, every military force goes through it no one is immune to it as the old saying goes "shit happens"

The RAAF and the growler fleet have found this out, not having the attrition air-frames puts force planning out of whack
Not wishing to contradict this in any way but there's a bunch of possible reasons for the crash that would have had the same result from a land base. Massive bird strike for example.

I took off from San Fransisco a few years back in a 3 engined aircraft, can't remember the type, for a flight to New York. We were a few hundred feet airborne when there was an almighty crash and the plane slowed as the engine note changed. We stopped climbing and made a very wide flat turn over the bay to come back into land. The pilot came on the intercom speaking rather quickly and told us our departure had coincided with the departure of a large flock of gulls and they'd taken out one of the engines and we needed to go back to the terminal and get a new ride.

Not a particularly rare story I expect but all the passengers were totally silent for the loooong circle back to the runway. You could smell the fear. We landed and I looked down and the paperback in my hand was soaking from my sweat. Then the guy in the next seat stirred and woke up saying, is this New York? He'd slept thru the whole drama. Bastard :D
Agree, that accident can happen anywhere, just have to watch the air investigation show to see that and the various reasons that planes run into trouble( watching the show nearly puts one of flying), my post was along the lines if something untowards happens over water you options are more rather limited in getting down safely and the recovery of the aircraft for the investigation into the incident

Glad it worked for you and your flight got on the ground safely without further incident

topman
Member
Posts: 564
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2679
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

I see a remake of for your eyes only in the offing!

Will be interesting to read the accident report if it’s released to see what went on.

Think this is the 7th hull loss for the f35 fleet globally.

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

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

Post by xav »

From back in June... I just remembered this short interview was still sitting on our hard drive, unedited...

LtCdr. Erwan from the French Navy (Marine Nationale) 11F squadron discusses the Integration between Rafale M and F-35B fighters during exercise Gallic Strike back in June 2021.


seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

Although integration was the theme Im fairly certain that the French aircraft carrier cannot actually host the f35b due to a lack of heat shielding,, to be fair why would they go to that expense when its not their aircraft, now if N.A.T.O was to fund this it could be of benefit tactically

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1976
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

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

Post by R686 »

seaspear wrote: 20 Nov 2021, 19:18 Although integration was the theme Im fairly certain that the French aircraft carrier cannot actually host the f35b due to a lack of heat shielding,, to be fair why would they go to that expense when its not their aircraft, now if N.A.T.O was to fund this it could be of benefit tactically

Would you even need the heat shield as the F35 can take off/land conventionally

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

This article suggests thrust from the nozzle is used on some landings
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ry-landing
Im not sure if any nay operating the f35b does not have a heat-shielding arrangement on its deck certainly from this article the Izumo does
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... ft-carrier

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1230
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

Conventional Landing within the length of CDG’s Flight Deck is not possible…. There is no arrester hook on the F35B ! If you are talking about SRVL, then the Jet Pipe is angled somewhat downward (as it also is for Take-off with or without a Ski-jump).

So whether or not heat protection for the deck is required may require trials to be carried out to assess the effect on the deck.

1. The UK probably does not have sufficient airframes for such trials.
2. France probably would not want to risk decreasing the availability of their only Carrier should
any modifications prove to be necessary following such a trial.
3. There is also probably insufficient benefit to either France or the UK operationally.

Should an F35B ever need to land on CDG (in an emergency) I am sure that it would be permitted, as it is repeated Take-offs and/or Landings that cause the damage.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1976
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

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

Post by R686 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 20 Nov 2021, 23:24 Conventional Landing within the length of CDG’s Flight Deck is not possible…. There is no arrester hook on the F35B ! If you are talking about SRVL, then the Jet Pipe is angled somewhat downward (as it also is for Take-off with or without a Ski-jump).

So whether or not heat protection for the deck is required may require trials to be carried out to assess the effect on the deck.

1. The UK probably does not have sufficient airframes for such trials.
2. France probably would not want to risk decreasing the availability of their only Carrier should
any modifications prove to be necessary following such a trial.
3. There is also probably insufficient benefit to either France or the UK operationally.

Should an F35B ever need to land on CDG (in an emergency) I am sure that it would be permitted, as it is repeated Take-offs and/or Landings that cause the damage.
Yep was talking about SVRL would have thought the down thrust was minimal as the aircraft is not in one spot whilst land unlike a vertical landing

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

This earlier article states there were investigations of a dedicated landing spot for the f35b on the French carrier, there is more likely trials of an f35b would include aircraft from the U.S.N marines than the U.K as per the Cavour
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-fre ... ding-spot/
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... irst-time/

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

seaspear wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 01:10 This earlier article states there were investigations of a dedicated landing spot for the f35b on the French carrier, there is more likely trials of an f35b would include aircraft from the U.S.N marines than the U.K as per the Cavour
A dedicated spot would also be useful for CMV-22 as it also generates significant heat on landing and takeoff (if not rolling).

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

Good Article from Navy Lookout regarding the recent Loss of UK F35B.....

https://www.navylookout.com/salvaging-t ... he-seabed/

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

To paraphrase Monty Python, "Nobody expects the Spanish acquisition.." :D



With Italy making a visit to HMS QE, one can see the strong appeal of a third European F-35b user and the potential for collaboration.

Still a long way to go, and no doubt Dassault will be sending in the heavy mob to do some intense lobbying.

I presume the Juan Carlos would need some upgrades though. Perhaps an opportunity for us to work with them and share our experience?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6287
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

No doubt the UK will bung them the FSS orders to say thanks :(

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

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

Post by sunstersun »

Potential F-35 B users and confirmed

UK, Italy, Japan

Korea, Spain, Australia, India(wildcard)

Man the Navy really got fuked. No potential C users ever.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

sunstersun wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 18:08 Potential F-35 B users and confirmed

UK, Italy, Japan

Korea, Spain, Australia, India(wildcard)

Man the Navy really got fuked. No potential C users ever.
Yeah, funny back in the early noughties, you'd think the B was the condemned variant and that the C would be snagged by 'probe & drogue' refuelling users who didn't want to fund the modifications for the A.

Fitting folding wings has seemed a bit of a peculiar choice with hindsight, considering:

1) The vastness of US CVN hangars, that haven't exactly been stretched by post-Cold War airgroups.

2) It's additional weight, alongside the other carrier mods negate most of the increased fuel capacity.

Then again the USN, having wasted a great deal of political capital on the A-12 and NATF, would probably have taken any stealth platform available by the late 90s...

Funny you should mention India. Was reading a rather scathing description of their experiences with the Fulcrum/ongoing Tejas woes last night, and came to think that their best option is probably the F-35B (assuming it would be available to them)....

Post Reply