F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[Gabriele]

One would hope it has not been all dumped afterwards. I would really, really expect mat laying to still be an ability present in the Royal Engineers Air Support squadrons, especially considering the usefulness of matting beyond the construction of VTOL pads.

[bobp]

Regarding AM2 matting, I am not aware that any trials have yet been conducted with the f35B. The downward blast from its engine is far more powerful than that of the AV8B. On land it requires a special concrete pad at the moment due to exhaust temperatures melting tarmac etc. Even on board ship it requires a special deck coating to stop damage to the flight deck.

[SKB]

F-35B's won't (usually) be doing completely vertical hover-landings on the QEC's. Instead, they're doing short-roll 'vertical' landings (SRVL) cushioned by the vectored main engine thrust and lift fan. This also allows the heat of the engine to be less focused on one concentrated area of the flight deck during each landing.

[seaspear]

If the matting is acceptable for the f35 lets hope it wasn't sold off with the Harriers as surplus , would though an f35 landing vertically on a surface that may break up from the jet blast incur fragments flying up from such surface causing damage to its stealth coating .

[Gabriele]

Regarding AM2 matting, I am not aware that any trials have yet been conducted with the f35B. The downward blast from its engine is far more powerful than that of the AV8B. On land it requires a special concrete pad at the moment due to exhaust temperatures melting tarmac etc. Even on board ship it requires a special deck coating to stop damage to the flight deck.

Go back to the article i posted, it explains it. A lot of confusion has been made about this. The deck coating is only partially due to the F-35B, actually, and regarding AM-2, the F-35B has executed several hundred vertical landings on it. The VTOL pads in Patuxent River are made exactly with AM-2, as well as an Expeditionary Runway like those routinely built by Marines for the Harrier. An AM-2 Ex Run at Patuxent ends in the british-built ski jump, and ski jump trials are ongoing as we speak, according to recent news releases. The ski jump trials should wrap up by later this month.

[bobp]

Thanks Gabriele must admit I never read your article before opening my mouth.

[downsizer]

What you want to ask is when was the last time the matting was deployed for British Harriers. The time gap kind of indicates how likely it is that we have a usable stockpile.

We don't keep things just in case anymore.

[arfah]

...................

[Gabriele]

No one said it will be used all the time, but i think it is a capability that can still be employed, with some Royal Engineers help. I believe the RE emplaced a small amount of AM-2 in Northolt in 2012 in support of the 4 Typhoons deployed there for the Olympics. In front of three of the temporary shelters, in an overhead photo, three segments can be seen which appear to be made of AM-2. They lead to what are possibly fuel bladders or something, semi-dug in in the grass field.
Unfortunately, only vague information on the work done is available online, so i'm not 100% sure.
529 STRE, 20 Works Group (Air Support) Royal Engineers was involved in setting up the expeditionary infrastructure for the Typhoon detachment, alongside civilian contractors and 5001 Sqn RAF with the temporary shelters, the portable emergency arresting wire and other stuff.

[seaspear]

Is there information on how portable this matting is could it be delivered by Chinook for instance if road access unavailable or even how many engineers are required to assemble a usable take off/landing strip for the f35 and the time required

[downsizer]

No one said it will be used all the time, but i think it is a capability that can still be employed, with some Royal Engineers help. I believe the RE emplaced a small amount of AM-2 in Northolt in 2012 in support of the 4 Typhoons deployed there for the Olympics. In front of three of the temporary shelters, in an overhead photo, three segments can be seen which appear to be made of AM-2. They lead to what are possibly fuel bladders or something, semi-dug in in the grass field.
Unfortunately, only vague information on the work done is available online, so i'm not 100% sure.
529 STRE, 20 Works Group (Air Support) Royal Engineers was involved in setting up the expeditionary infrastructure for the Typhoon detachment, alongside civilian contractors and 5001 Sqn RAF with the temporary shelters, the portable emergency arresting wire and other stuff.

Look fella, I know your actual military experience is virtually nil, so let me help you with this. We (UK Armed Forces) are not going to be laying down entire runways and ASPs out of matting anytime soon.....or ever for that matter. See what I did at then end of that sentence

[Gabriele]

Look fella, I know your actual military experience is virtually nil, so let me help you with this. We (UK Armed Forces) are not going to be laying down entire runways and ASPs out of matting anytime soon.....or ever for that matter. See what I did at then end of that sentence

And that certainty is due to what?

[Think Defence]

Downsizer, do you think the whole expeditionary airfield thing is a capability worth retaining, perhaps as part of the Army/RAF Reserve

Regardless of the current stock of AM-2 (which I think is more or less the same as it has been for a while), the bomb damage repair mats and various other bits of ADR kit still on the books like protected plant, dynamic compactors, screed beams and volumetric mixers I think it is one of those little-used capabilities we should retain, if only on a skills maintenance basis.

[downsizer]

Look fella, I know your actual military experience is virtually nil, so let me help you with this. We (UK Armed Forces) are not going to be laying down entire runways and ASPs out of matting anytime soon.....or ever for that matter. See what I did at then end of that sentence

And that certainty is due to what?

Because I'm loosley acquianted with our ConOps for the F35. Established strips and ships is where it is at.

Sure something may change in the future, who knows, but it isn't on the menu at present, and hasn't been for a looooong time. A bit of airfield BDR and a parking pad for a fuel bladder is totally different.

[downsizer]

Downsizer, do you think the whole expeditionary airfield thing is a capability worth retaining, perhaps as part of the Army/RAF Reserve

For sure. But it can't be toyed with, it's all in or nothing IME. And all in costs money which takes us back to square one.

[Think Defence]

Thanks Downsizer, am thinking perhaps we need to look at the difference between carving a new expeditionary airfield out of nothing and improving an existing but austere/damaged location. A spot of runway repair, improve the fuel infrastructure, add a couple of temporary or shade hangars or some temporary instrumentation and you could make that location useful with much less effort than starting from scratch.

The other thing I thought would be for a temporary/emergency diversion location where non availability of such might constrain operations.

So if I were General for the day, I would like to maintain this as a capability with an occasional look at the more austere end of the spectrum. If the F35B is our aircraft of choice then it would seem rather to be an opportunity missed if we failed to exploit its potential for using non fully developed operating locations.

Also wondering what existing capability we actually have now across the Army and RAF, from both a kit and skills perspective, especially that which might have been purchased for Afghanistan (and not left there)

Not sure it is all doom and gloom you know

Or maybe it is!

But consider that the 4,700 tonnes of AM-2 for RAF Stanley was not in stock and not in the system from a training perspective either and yet in short order, both the skills and kit were obtained from our nice friends in the USA. Those very recently trained personnel then went on to conduct a massive infrastructure improvement exercise that remained until Mt Pleasant was built a few years later.

All from a standing start

Always wary of saying never

[Gabriele]

Established strips

What is an established strip, though? A fully fledged airport, a short runway from which doing short take offs and landings, perhaps assembling an AM-2 pad nearby for vertical landings to help keep the runway available for take offs...?

Lenghtening / repairing a strip, building a pad, or even a whole new AM-2 strip, is really no rocket science in itself. It takes a handful of men, a drill and a hammer to pin the AM-2 panels together. The complex part might be grading the field and making sure it can support the stress of air operations, but this is a capability needed elsewhere as well, and i don't think the Royal Engineers are going to stop doing this.
I would also hope that the capability to install fuel bladders and dig up weapons storage sites isn't going to be cut entirely.

It will never be as ambitious as the USMC's expeditionary airfields, but i really hope that such basic airfield enabling capabilities aren't being cut entirely from the roster. It would be spectacularly stupid.

Other major issues would be logistic and security of the strip, but much of the problem would be there at an established structure as well.

[downsizer]

I'll say it again

A bit of airfield BDR and a parking pad for a fuel bladder is totally different.

than proper deployed Ops. One we can do, one we can't and won't be.

[arfah]

..................

[downsizer]

As an aside, anyone else besides me assembled airfield matting?

Yes. 10 bad backs.

[topman]

I think worrying about matting of any description in the case of Lightning II is a little premerture to say the least. Deploying to some sort of forward airfield is so far down the list it's hard to explain. It will take all sorts of aspects to do it properly, metal sheeting/aircraft matting to taxi or t/o is one of many (many) issues in trying to operate in that way. We are many many years away from getting to point of operating from some field or bit of desert etc.

[bobp]

That's if we can afford any......
It would be a great pity to see a shi8p designed for 40 plus aircraft put to sea with only 6 on board.

[Think Defence]

Arfah, many years and six (ish) stone ago

Topman, I think we all agree that it would be a future aspirational capability but as I said, seems unwise to not exploit one of the aircrafts principle selling points. I thought it was always part of the concept of operations for JCA anyway?

If we think FOC is about 5-6 ish years away then I would agree, now is not the time but as I said above, not focussing specifically on the F35B as such and looking at the wider picture of expeditionary air operations for fixed and rotary, whether from scratch, or repairing/augmenting an already built facility seems to me at least, a bit of common sense.

Anyway, this is a nice video showing the Joint Operational Fuel System (JOFS) working, including a dracone like those used in 1982.



Wonder how the recent stories about the F35B fuel refrigeration will impact on expeditionary operations.

On a related point, does anyone know if we packed up and brought home all those new Rubb hangars at Bastion or were they left there?

All good discussion but I can't help getting a sinking feeling when Downsizer and Topman give us the current view from inside, thanks for the updates

[topman]

TD

It depends on what you mean by forward deployed, there are defintions of bare/austere/well founded (although I can't remember the exact definetions right now). I think when people think of 'forward basing' people tend to think of Harrier operating from fields and supermarket car parks. TBH I think that is unhelpful, this a/c is incredibly expensive and complex and complex a/c need lots of support, some of the problems are well known. What problems this causes, perhaps less so.

Looking back at your earlier post I think it is something we can do. Something worth bringing together at somewhere like Wittering. Although we have got the basics to build a fuel farm, put in radios, 5001 Sqn to put in rubbs and the RE to provide constuction etc.

To go back to the F35, I can't see the idea that seems to have taken root online that we need to be able to operate a sqn out of a field as being realistic at all. I think we can do a bit of patching up and setting up some fuel bladders etc. To use the F35, the more bare the base the larger the cost. I think starting us starting an airfield somewhere from scratch is beyond us.

[Jdam]

From the F-35 twitter, a nice shot of the F-35 with external stores, I wonder if the external gun pod will be the way fighters are designed in the future?