Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 26 Oct 2019, 21:01
News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
A USN Hornet used an AMRAAM WVR over Syria because Sidewinder was ineffective.mr.fred wrote:
Quite why you’d want to launch a medium range missile while pulling severe negative g is another question.
This was in my mind also, it seems like a very dangerous thing to launch whilst flying inverted, especially as the motor ignites after separation.mr.fred wrote:Quite why you’d want to launch a medium range missile while pulling severe negative g is another question.
While pulling severe negative g?PapaGolf wrote:A USN Hornet used an AMRAAM WVR over Syria because Sidewinder was ineffective.mr.fred wrote:
Quite why you’d want to launch a medium range missile while pulling severe negative g is another question.
Ron5 wrote:Driving the studies are demands from multiple customers, especially Israel, to extend the reach of the F-35A beyond its advertised combat radius of 590 nm and ferry range of 1,200 nm using only fuel carried internally. This news also comes as the U.S. Air Force seeks funding from Congress to order eight Boeing F-15EX fighters, part of a long-term plan to acquire at least 144. The original F-15E boasts a ferry range of 2,085 nm with conformal fuel tanks and wing-mounted tanks.
Well for Israel, it has become a burning issue. Netanyahu has done a lot of pallying up with Putin, but would all that transfer over to a "Gantz gvmnt"? The strike route to Iran has always been through Syria, which now potentially could be "switched off" through the wider Russian presence (Saudis might offer a more direct route, under the current circumstances. But this would lack the benefits of contour flying on approach).Jun 13, 2019 Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology
The incident was well publicised. The only point I was making was that it’s sometime necessary to have a plan B. There might be a situation where a missile from the bay will need to be used WVR and in a dog fight situation.mr.fred wrote:While pulling severe negative g?PapaGolf wrote:A USN Hornet used an AMRAAM WVR over Syria because Sidewinder was ineffective.mr.fred wrote:
Quite why you’d want to launch a medium range missile while pulling severe negative g is another question.
What were the circumstances?
Would you be willing to compromise the performance of missile and or aircraft for it?
Alpha strike is really a US navy term. The RAF have been looking for a low observable aircraft capable of undertaking the interdictor strike role really since it first got the chance to fly the f117 when it was still a black program. The ability to use a 2000lb weapon in such a role or even a return to nuclear version is probably back in consideration for the first time since the Cold War.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Howabout for the RAF? Aside from carrier aviation the F35 procurement was presented as bringing RAF back to the alpha strike game. Conformals for Typhoons have not got much priority and perhaps in the upcoming fighter mix it will become even less so - primarily acting as quarterbacks to stealthier F-35s (finding the targets whereas the tiffies loaded to the hilt with long-ranged Meteors and lobbing them at designated targets from distance). But unhindered use of "air" requires also SEAD/ DEAD, very much an alpha strike priority. That's where the extra fuel would come in handy - but we only have Bs and will any of this apply? Or will it become a driver for the hotly debated mixed As and Bs fleet?
There might be such a situation. I’m not saying that there couldn’t be.PapaGolf wrote:The incident was well publicised. The only point I was making was that it’s sometime necessary to have a plan B. There might be a situation where a missile from the bay will need to be used WVR and in a dog fight situation.
Not to ignore SW1's excellent post, but surely the RAF's huge investment in air to air refueling makes their need for drop tanks a lower priority than the Navy's?ArmChairCivvy wrote:As this is on the carrier thread, thought that a snippet here might be useful, for a broader than carrier airwing discussion:Ron5 wrote:Driving the studies are demands from multiple customers, especially Israel, to extend the reach of the F-35A beyond its advertised combat radius of 590 nm and ferry range of 1,200 nm using only fuel carried internally. This news also comes as the U.S. Air Force seeks funding from Congress to order eight Boeing F-15EX fighters, part of a long-term plan to acquire at least 144. The original F-15E boasts a ferry range of 2,085 nm with conformal fuel tanks and wing-mounted tanks.Well for Israel, it has become a burning issue. Netanyahu has done a lot of pallying up with Putin, but would all that transfer over to a "Gantz gvmnt"? The strike route to Iran has always been through Syria, which now potentially could be "switched off" through the wider Russian presence (Saudis might offer a more direct route, under the current circumstances. But this would lack the benefits of contour flying on approach).Jun 13, 2019 Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Howabout for the RAF? Aside from carrier aviation the F35 procurement was presented as bringing RAF back to the alpha strike game. Conformals for Typhoons have not got much priority and perhaps in the upcoming fighter mix it will become even less so - primarily acting as quarterbacks to stealthier F-35s (finding the targets whereas the tiffies loaded to the hilt with long-ranged Meteors and lobbing them at designated targets from distance). But unhindered use of "air" requires also SEAD/ DEAD, very much an alpha strike priority. That's where the extra fuel would come in handy - but we only have Bs and will any of this apply? Or will it become a driver for the hotly debated mixed As and Bs fleet?
Yes, and the borrowing of it into UK usage was remarkable... but so were the monies being requested (for which just one rationale - carrier air - would not have "flown").SW1 wrote:Alpha strike is really a US navy term.
AbsolutelySW1 wrote: F35 or any tactical fighter can be as stealthy as it likes but a a330 is not.
Agreed. But as someone said upthread: It's good to have a plan BSW1 wrote:FCAS models doing the rounds are larger than f35. The RAF and indeed the UK will only likely acquire f35a if a production contract is not forthcoming for “Tempest”.
US Army is into that game and have set their "parameter" or rather goal at 500 km... beyond that air (cfr. ownership of cruise missiles, which are also 'air'. Russia - with INF now gone - is interestingly working on a cruise mutation of Iskander as it makes the missiles more difficult to counter than the ballistic ones)SW1 wrote: long range mlrs artillery systems and pressure to solely rely on strike aircraft in this area is reduced.
Sure, but in the UK (with UK budgets) having same/ similar capabilities in different services soon runs out of road - not enough money... as we hear here, oftenRon5 wrote:makes their need for drop tanks a lower priority than the Navy's?
Yes, letting one of Britain's greatest industries whither on the vine is such a good idea.ArmChairCivvy wrote:especially if it is other people paying for the development & testing
Huh? I wasn't actually suggesting the F-35B's only carry drop tanks when they're on a carrier. Just that the land use of tanks didn't have much of a case, while the RN has a strong one.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sure, but in the UK (with UK budgets) having same/ similar capabilities in different services soon runs out of road - not enough money... as we hear here, often
LRPF range is now being looked at for 800km+ which is apparently a fairly straightforward thing. Add in MLRS launched SDB1 to cover the 70-140km gap (if its procured) then ATACM and LRPF pushing out from there and the US will be spoilt for choice.ArmChairCivvy wrote:US Army is into that game and have set their "parameter" or rather goal at 500 km... beyond that air (cfr. ownership of cruise missiles, which are also 'air'. Russia - with INF now gone - is interestingly working on a cruise mutation of Iskander as it makes the missiles more difficult to counter than the ballistic ones)
I think the main use initially for tanks would be for a little extra cover on long range ferry flights, even adding 100 miles extra range makes it a whole lot safer for diverts. For the RN the ability to self deploy out to a carrier or reduce reliance on Voyager could be useful. But its a little ironic that when you really want the extra range, on the first day of war when you're trying to stay out of enemy range whilst you degrade them, the tanks wouldn't be that useful for the UK. With the range of the ordnance that we've currently got or are planning to get at present the tanks won't be that much use as you'd need to be comparatively close in for weapons launch, carrying the tanks would lose the stealth advantage. If we'd integrated Storm Shadow or perhaps when FCASW arrives they might make more sense. Wouldn't harm to be able to keep a CAP aloft for an hour longer though.Ron5 wrote:Huh? I wasn't actually suggesting the F-35B's only carry drop tanks when they're on a carrier. Just that the land use of tanks didn't have much of a case, while the RN has a strong one.
Next GMLRS will replace the former; is there a 'physical' missile for the LRPF (concept)?Timmymagic wrote:ATACM and LRPF pushing out from there
- are they not planned to be drop-able?Timmymagic wrote:need to be comparatively close in for weapons launch, carrying the tanks would lose the stealth advantage.
Not yet but its under development, the gist is that the 500km was an artificial range limitation.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Next GMLRS will replace the former; is there a 'physical' missile for the LRPF (concept)?
Only in an emergency. External tanks are not a consumable anymore, and haven't been for a long time. If you did drop them you'd need to lose the pylon as well, and in an F-35 that still wouldn't make you stealthy as the attachment points would still be uncovered.ArmChairCivvy wrote:- are they not planned to be drop-able?
Agree, but once you fire a wingtip ASRAAM, the attachment points fro which were carried over from the previous generation missile and the same happens... though they would be smaller, sureTimmymagic wrote:attachment points would still be uncovered.
You're severely underselling the advantages of drop tanks to the RN. Ask the Israeli'sTimmymagic wrote:LRPF range is now being looked at for 800km+ which is apparently a fairly straightforward thing. Add in MLRS launched SDB1 to cover the 70-140km gap (if its procured) then ATACM and LRPF pushing out from there and the US will be spoilt for choice.ArmChairCivvy wrote:US Army is into that game and have set their "parameter" or rather goal at 500 km... beyond that air (cfr. ownership of cruise missiles, which are also 'air'. Russia - with INF now gone - is interestingly working on a cruise mutation of Iskander as it makes the missiles more difficult to counter than the ballistic ones)
I think the main use initially for tanks would be for a little extra cover on long range ferry flights, even adding 100 miles extra range makes it a whole lot safer for diverts. For the RN the ability to self deploy out to a carrier or reduce reliance on Voyager could be useful. But its a little ironic that when you really want the extra range, on the first day of war when you're trying to stay out of enemy range whilst you degrade them, the tanks wouldn't be that useful for the UK. With the range of the ordnance that we've currently got or are planning to get at present the tanks won't be that much use as you'd need to be comparatively close in for weapons launch, carrying the tanks would lose the stealth advantage. If we'd integrated Storm Shadow or perhaps when FCASW arrives they might make more sense. Wouldn't harm to be able to keep a CAP aloft for an hour longer though.Ron5 wrote:Huh? I wasn't actually suggesting the F-35B's only carry drop tanks when they're on a carrier. Just that the land use of tanks didn't have much of a case, while the RN has a strong one.
Nahh, let's put our hand in their tiller (like all the other partner nations with Typhoon having been 'free riders')Lord Jim wrote: I think we should watch what the Israelis do very carefully with one hand on our cheque book.