Glad the pilot escaped with his life. Hope that whatever caused the crash is resolved and that it will not impact future of fleet.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 17 Nov 2021, 15:51
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.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 17 Nov 2021, 17:38
by SKB
Tail/registry number of plane?
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 17 Nov 2021, 19:30
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 as long as it will be replaced by a new version
Will be interesting to find out what caused it ...
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 18 Nov 2021, 21:41
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 as long as it will be replaced by a new version
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
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 as long as it will be replaced by a new version
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
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 as long as it will be replaced by a new version
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
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
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 08:37
by topman
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 10:28
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.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 11:03
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.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 19:18
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
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 19:41
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
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.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 23:57
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 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).
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 21 Nov 2021, 12:57
by bobp
Good Article from Navy Lookout regarding the recent Loss of UK F35B.....
To paraphrase Monty Python, "Nobody expects the Spanish acquisition.."
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?
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 22 Nov 2021, 16:18
by Ron5
No doubt the UK will bung them the FSS orders to say thanks
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 23 Nov 2021, 18:08
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.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 24 Nov 2021, 22:25
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)....
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)....
Folding wings have nothing to do with size of the carrier and everything to do with the size of the wing required for the recovery on deck, approach speeds and glide slope and the fact that LO requirement limited the size and number of flap and slats.
The C variant was always us navy only it remains to be seen how many of each type will be built regardless of the number of operators.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 24 Nov 2021, 22:58
by Scimitar54
With regard to USN CVNs and F35Cs with folding wing tips, perhaps you had forgotten two considerations:-
1. The reduced number of Deck Edge Lifts (on the FORD Class).
2. The possible need to develop and retrofit larger Deck Edge Lifts on every CVN !
With regard to the second point above, even if such a project were feasible, the cost and the reduction in CVN availability would almost certainly rule it out. Much easier to have the “Folding Wing Tips”.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 24 Nov 2021, 23:44
by Jensy
SW1 wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 22:38
Folding wings have nothing to do with size of the carrier and everything to do with the size of the wing required for the recovery on deck, approach speeds and glide slope and the fact that LO requirement limited the size and number of flap and slats.
My point was not about wing area but rather deck/hangar footprint of the F-35C. Though you are quite right, hence the historic appeal of VG for carrier ops. Even as late as the very early 90s.
Scimitar54 wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 22:58
With regard to USN CVNs and F35Cs with folding wing tips, perhaps you had forgotten two considerations:-
1. The reduced number of Deck Edge Lifts (on the FORD Class).
2. The possible need to develop and retrofit larger Deck Edge Lifts on every CVN !
With regard to the second point above, even if such a project were feasible, the cost and the reduction in CVN availability would almost certainly rule it out. Much easier to have the “Folding Wing Tips”.
Both fair points, though I'd note that the USN has had aircraft of similar unfolded span in recent memory. Also the reduction in lifts is fairly in line with the declining size of the carriers' air wings.
as long as it will be replaced by a new version 
