F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by jonas »

shark bait wrote:I also thought the same thing when watching. perhaps hes dumming it down for general consumption.
You mean unlike our self proclaimed resident experts ;)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

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

Post by Pseudo »

jonas wrote:
shark bait wrote:I also thought the same thing when watching. perhaps hes dumming it down for general consumption.
You mean unlike our self proclaimed resident experts ;)
I think you mean "resident self-proclaimed experts" unless you mean that they're experts who describe themselves as being resident. ;)

Yes, this pedantry stuff is fun, isn't it. :D

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Gabriele wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Jdam wrote:

A great video of the F-35 at sea, I'm surprised how little deck space they are using to get the F-35 into the air also nice and smooth when it comes in to land :)
I doubt if they are carrying any stores.
They should be carrying standard internal load (2x 1000 lbs bombs, 2x AMRAAM). They started with 550 feet take off runs, and eventually ended up doing it in as few as 400 when they saw it worked comfortably.
Good news for the RN then. I believe there was doubt whether they could vertically land with a full stores load. Or maybe that only applies to hot days?

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 »

Ron5 wrote: Good news for the RN then. I believe there was doubt whether they could vertically land with a full stores load. Or maybe that only applies to hot days?

Depends on what we mean with "Full stores". With a big load of externally carried weapons? No, it won't land vertically. The vertical bringback requirement is 5000 lbs of payload (remaining fuel and weapons), and is expected to be met.
That is a good 2000 lbs more than for Harrier, if i'm not mistaken, and just 1000 lbs less than for the Hornet carrier bring back. Super Hornet has a carrier bring back of 9000 lbs, or at least so i read a while ago.
With rolling vertical landing, the F-35B should be able to settle on deck with some 2000 lbs extra.

Despite having been pointed out like it was a faliure, bring back values for the F-35B are actually very good, and way more ambitious than anything the Harrier could do.

Found a photo of arming procedures ongoing at night on the USS Wasp.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

It will be a while before we see UK F-35B's with much in the way of external stores. I'm expecting the the two 1000 lb bombs plus internal AMRAAM and a couple of external ASRAAM to be a standard loadout for quite some time. So if this is well within vertical landing limits in all climates, that is indeed excellent news. Well perhaps only news to me :-)

Thanks for your replies.

Nearly forgot to mention that I wonder if the 2,000lb extra for a rolling landing is worth it. Rolling landings will need extra bring back fuel to allow for a bolter or two (something that's not required for a vertical landing) so the extra fuel might well use up most of the extra weight making the rolling landing rather pointless.

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

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

Post by downsizer »

Be interesting to see us bring back 1000lb'ers as we won't be using them on F35.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:It will be a while before we see UK F-35B's with much in the way of external stores. I'm expecting the the two 1000 lb bombs plus internal AMRAAM and a couple of external ASRAAM to be a standard loadout for quite some time. So if this is well within vertical landing limits in all climates, that is indeed excellent news. Well perhaps only news to me :-)

Thanks for your replies.

Nearly forgot to mention that I wonder if the 2,000lb extra for a rolling landing is worth it. Rolling landings will need extra bring back fuel to allow for a bolter or two (something that's not required for a vertical landing) so the extra fuel might well use up most of the extra weight making the rolling landing rather pointless.

One would assume that they would know, if the fuel required made the concept not useful. If it is being pursued, it is because it brings benefit for the heavier loadouts.
As for external loads, the F-35B will enter service with Paveway IV qualified for both internal and external carriage. So it is not impossible that we will occasionally see F-35Bs with 2 external ASRAAM and 4 external PW IV from early on.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
CR4ZYHOR5E
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 02 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by CR4ZYHOR5E »

For a given set of conditions the rolling landing will use less fuel versus a vertical landing (assuming the roller doesn't go around) and the engine will be exposed to lower temps (which effects longevity of 'lifed' components). The SRVL looks inherently safer when you look at the fly away case to some of the more obvious [potential] failures/conditions such as compressor surges etc...

I would expect SRVL to be the default means of recovering to the ship.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

SRVL does look much more sophisticated than the other methods.
Something I also think is noteworthy is much less structural stress than arrested landing too which reduces through life costs.
@LandSharkUK

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Gabriele wrote:
Ron5 wrote:It will be a while before we see UK F-35B's with much in the way of external stores. I'm expecting the the two 1000 lb bombs plus internal AMRAAM and a couple of external ASRAAM to be a standard loadout for quite some time. So if this is well within vertical landing limits in all climates, that is indeed excellent news. Well perhaps only news to me :-)

Thanks for your replies.

Nearly forgot to mention that I wonder if the 2,000lb extra for a rolling landing is worth it. Rolling landings will need extra bring back fuel to allow for a bolter or two (something that's not required for a vertical landing) so the extra fuel might well use up most of the extra weight making the rolling landing rather pointless.

One would assume that they would know, if the fuel required made the concept not useful. If it is being pursued, it is because it brings benefit for the heavier loadouts.
As for external loads, the F-35B will enter service with Paveway IV qualified for both internal and external carriage. So it is not impossible that we will occasionally see F-35Bs with 2 external ASRAAM and 4 external PW IV from early on.
OK let's assume the RAF have the notion of a bolter with no handy AAR :-)

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by S M H »

The stress of vertical landing on the engine lift fan and airframe will be mitigated by the use of S.R.V.L. With the fitting of the Bedford array the S.R.V.L. will be the default landing method on the carriers. This will negate the previous practice of dumping expensive ordinance that was done when returning to the invincible; s The vertical landing will be use in higher sea states giving the F35 B on ops ability when C.O.B.A.R aircraft would be unable to operate.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

what exceptional stresses does vertical landings put on the airframe?
@LandSharkUK

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by jonas »

We keep hearing that due to its advanced design the F35 is heavy on maintenance, this would apper to confirm that. Though from what we are told things seem to have gone OK ?.

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

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

I wouldn't say that's unusual. Any new kit will be a bugger to maintain until it matures and people fully understand the kit
@LandSharkUK

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

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

Post by SKB »

Anyone know the ratio of time spent in maintenance per hour flown? Hope it isn't like the F-22 ;)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

SKB wrote:Anyone know the ratio of time spent in maintenance per hour flown? Hope it isn't like the F-22 ;)
I saw a figure the other day, sorry but I dont remember the source. The best squadron achieved an availability of 50%.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
CR4ZYHOR5E
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 02 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by CR4ZYHOR5E »

Some of the best footage of OT-1 that I've seen...


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

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

Post by topman »

No mention of changing the engine at sea though...

User avatar
Think Defence
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:56
United Kingdom

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

Post by Think Defence »

I think I might have read somewhere they didn't have the right lifting tackle, an easily rectifiable issue!
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/ - A blog about UK Defence and Security Issues, and containers

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by jonas »

shark bait wrote:I wouldn't say that's unusual. Any new kit will be a bugger to maintain until it matures and people fully understand the kit
Where did I say it was unusual.

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 »

While not intended to simulate actual air wing operations, the trials were intended to run through specific test cases. As an example, maintainers conducted a full engine removal and replacement and also attempted to demonstrate a lift-fan removal. Both were prioritized to ensure that it was shown the work can be done in the confined space of the hangar in the belly of the ship, says Lt. Cdr. Beth Kitchen of the Royal Navy, who was overseeing maintenance issues during the trials. The U.K. and possibly Italy are foreign partners buying the F-35B, which is designed for short takeoff and vertical landing.

In the case of the lift-fan removal, operators discovered that an extra shackle would be needed for the onboard task; this was one of many lessons from the trials, Kitchen says. Each, however, is manageable and there are “not going to be requirements maintenance procedures changes to the joint technical document” as a result of findings thus far in the trials, she says. They are “easily rectified.”

During the trials, 91 maintainers were aboard the Wasp contributing to the F-35 mission, the number now used for Harrier deployments.
This was in the aviationweek report from USS Wasp.


Also, there have been two contract awards for LRIP 10 over the last two days. 156 million for long lead items for the engines, and 950.35 million dollars for long lead for the aircraft themselves.
94 aircraft in LRIP 10, 3 of which are UK F-35Bs.

Honestly, i had expected four as 4 in LRIP 8, 6 in LRIP 9, 4 in LRIP 10 would have given the famous 14. Now we have 13. The 14th, we have to assume, is actually BK-3 (BK-1, BK-2 and the yet to be delivered BK-4 being instrumented and destined to 17 Sqn for OEU activity).

LRIP 10 is the last production lot with a chance of delivering within 2018, the target date for having a first 9-aircraft squadron in Marham plus OCU flight (5) in Beaufort and 17 Sqn (3) in Edwards.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

Only having 9-14 in 2018 is a horrifying thought when Tornado goes.

The imagery of an RAF with only 120ish combat jets is not a good one.

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

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

Post by R686 »

Gabriele wrote:
While not intended to simulate actual air wing operations, the trials were intended to run through specific test cases. As an example, maintainers conducted a full engine removal and replacement and also attempted to demonstrate a lift-fan removal. Both were prioritized to ensure that it was shown the work can be done in the confined space of the hangar in the belly of the ship, says Lt. Cdr. Beth Kitchen of the Royal Navy, who was overseeing maintenance issues during the trials. The U.K. and possibly Italy are foreign partners buying the F-35B, which is designed for short takeoff and vertical landing.

In the case of the lift-fan removal, operators discovered that an extra shackle would be needed for the onboard task; this was one of many lessons from the trials, Kitchen says. Each, however, is manageable and there are “not going to be requirements maintenance procedures changes to the joint technical document” as a result of findings thus far in the trials, she says. They are “easily rectified.”

During the trials, 91 maintainers were aboard the Wasp contributing to the F-35 mission, the number now used for Harrier deployments.
This was in the aviationweek report from USS Wasp.



Also, there have been two contract awards for LRIP 10 over the last two days. 156 million for long lead items for the engines, and 950.35 million dollars for long lead for the aircraft themselves.
94 aircraft in LRIP 10, 3 of which are UK F-35Bs.

Honestly, i had expected four as 4 in LRIP 8, 6 in LRIP 9, 4 in LRIP 10 would have given the famous 14. Now we have 13. The 14th, we have to assume, is actually BK-3 (BK-1, BK-2 and the yet to be delivered BK-4 being instrumented and destined to 17 Sqn for OEU activity).

LRIP 10 is the last production lot with a chance of delivering within 2018, the target date for having a first 9-aircraft squadron in Marham plus OCU flight (5) in Beaufort and 17 Sqn (3) in Edwards.

You would not have the total breakdown by chance would you?
By jeez 96 aircraft in LRIP 10 you could nearly call it FRP

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 »

R686 wrote:
You would not have the total breakdown by chance would you?
By jeez 96 aircraft in LRIP 10 you could nearly call it FRP
The breakdown is as follows:

44 F-35A for USAF
9 F-35B for USMC
2 F-35C for USN

3 F-35B for UK
2 F-35A for Turkey
2 F-35A for Italy
2 F-35B for Italy
8 F-35A for Australia
6 F-35A for Norway
16 F-35A for "various Foreign Military Sale customers" (Japan and Israel, maybe even the first for South Korea)

Only having 9-14 in 2018 is a horrifying thought when Tornado goes.

The imagery of an RAF with only 120ish combat jets is not a good one.


No, it is not a good image. Then again, at this point, there are very few bright images anywhere across the armed forces. Pieces are falling off almost everywhere.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

RetroSicotte wrote:Only having 9-14 in 2018 is a horrifying thought when Tornado goes.

The imagery of an RAF with only 120ish combat jets is not a good one.
Take out the tranche 1 typhoon and the situation looks even more bleak! Its totally inexcusable.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply