So to kick off and try and preserve the CVF thread for what was intended:
Re GR4 replacement – If Fedaykin is saying that there are problems with UCAVs (as envisaged in 2012 rather than 2030) that are shared with cruise missiles- bandwidth, target discrimination etc, then the 1990s vision of an FLA with CASOM pouring out the back is just as problematic.
The issue is not launching Stormshadow, its hanging around undetected in enemy airspace ready to hit a number of targets. I don’t see the F35C as able to do that for very long. But I wouldn’t be surprised if optionally manned isn’t the answer to the GR4 question.
I notice today that the US NAVAIR have carried out drop testing of 9 weapon types from the F35B…. Can’t find what they are however.
And my point about VSTOL etc is that to assume that we will want or have to launch aircraft in the same way as the 1940s in the 2040s seems slightly narrow to me. It must be possible to envisage these ships in the future rather than operating as if they are straight out of Red Storm Rising?
By: mrmalaya - 24th July 2012 at 16:11
UK’s first F35B to begin operational evaluation
Flight Global reports on the UK’s first F35B moving to the operational evaluation unit at Eglin:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-uk-transfers-first-f-35b-to-florida-base-374654/
By: pilatus - 20th July 2012 at 21:23
By: mrmalaya - 20th July 2012 at 12:35
UK takes it’s first F35B, plans for 4th
Story from Flightglobal:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-to-order-fourth-f-35b-next-year-hammond-says-374552/
Marham is favourite for the basing of the F35B, and Hammond talks about ordering a 4th airframe in 2013.
It will be nice to move away from the old 3 airframe purchase – progress to my mind.
By: tantrum - 17th July 2012 at 17:51
Does anyone know whether the entire lift fan unit is designed to be removed from the aircraft for replacement or maintenance?
There is an interesting image of the F135 hooked up to the lift fan at the 2007 Paris Airshow.
By: djcross - 15th July 2012 at 07:00
An electric generator mounted on the engine’s low spool would provide a good boost to fuel efficiency. It could mount where the lift fan drive shaft takeoff is on the F135. Extracting bleed air and mechanical power from the engine’s core is inefficient. Watch for future turbine engines to employ low spool generators.
By: 19K11 - 15th July 2012 at 00:35
I cant see that as being a possibility at all.
By: tantrum - 14th July 2012 at 22:02
Since the plan always was, and still is, for the RAF to provide part of the air wing for “surge combat” operations, then the RAF and the RN are lock-stepped in terms of F-35 version.
What the RN gets the RAF will get, and vice-versa.
Could the lift fan assembly of the F35-B be temporarily replaced with an additional internal fuel tank? Would this give a significant increase in range? If so surely the aircraft could more effectively operate land-based RAF deep strike missions etc in this configuration and be swapped to STOVL for surge operations on RN carriers or for austere forward deployment.
Thrust vectoring would not be used with the lift fan removed but for simplicity the F35-Bs nozzle (and other STOVL related equipment) could be retained.
By: mrmalaya - 13th July 2012 at 13:41
UK’s second F35B takes to the air
From the DEWline blog:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/07/away-from-farnborough-bk-2-tak.html
Progress should be relatively rapid once we have 2 aircraft in our sweaty little flying gloves?
By: benroethig - 23rd June 2012 at 14:14
Traditionally, the RN only applies the prefix ‘Sea’ to an aircraft that has been adapted for naval service from a land based design, eg Sea Venom, Sea Hurricane, Sea Spitfire (shortened mercifully to SeaFire), and Sea Harrier. Those that had Naval operations in the original design brief don’t need the prefix, eg Phantom, Buccaneer, Gannet, Lightning. The Sea King is a bit of an anomoly, but the name was carried over from US practice and their criteria differ from ours.
U.S. Navy let’s the manufacturer pick the name and Sikorsky uses Sea for its Naval helicopters. Rather than Rename it like they had with previous Sikorsky designs, Westland decided to keep the Sea King name.
By: Obi Wan Russell - 23rd June 2012 at 08:55
So will the RN be calling “their” F-35s “Sea Lightning” while the RAF calls theirs Lightning?
Traditionally, the RN only applies the prefix ‘Sea’ to an aircraft that has been adapted for naval service from a land based design, eg Sea Venom, Sea Hurricane, Sea Spitfire (shortened mercifully to SeaFire), and Sea Harrier. Those that had Naval operations in the original design brief don’t need the prefix, eg Phantom, Buccaneer, Gannet, Lightning. The Sea King is a bit of an anomoly, but the name was carried over from US practice and their criteria differ from ours.
By: benroethig - 23rd June 2012 at 04:06
Nope. Lightning all around.
By: 19K11 - 23rd June 2012 at 03:28
So will the RN be calling “their” F-35s “Sea Lightning” while the RAF calls theirs Lightning?
By: John K - 22nd June 2012 at 15:59
Not at all, I just recognise that I do not have the right to access all facts. But where there are facts available, I seek them out and try not to make statements that are libellously in complete disregard for publically available facts, such as
Despite this being pointed out to you, you have neither withdrawn or apologised for the allegation. It seems to me therefore that you are content to remain ignorant of the truth
I suggest you come down from your high horse. The record of mismanagement and cost overruns on contracts between BAE and MoD is no secret. I have no reason to trust figures which have not been independently verified, even if you are happy to do so. If you want to start bandying around nonsense about libel you can talk to yourself for all I care. This is meant to be a discussion forum, not a place for the BAE fanclub to start acting like barrack room lawyers.
By: benroethig - 22nd June 2012 at 13:12
I think you will find they will use SRVL most of the time and only implement VL only when needed. Why because the SRVL is less stresful on the airframe, the engine/fan and of course the flight deck. That’s what Geoff Searle said when discussing the revision back to STOVL QEC and the use of SRVL.
Plus it increases bring-back substantially.
By: Prom - 22nd June 2012 at 13:09
I think you will find they will use SRVL most of the time and only implement VL only when needed. Why because the SRVL is less stresful on the airframe, the engine/fan and of course the flight deck. That’s what Geoff Searle said when discussing the revision back to STOVL QEC and the use of SRVL.
Hence why I said “revert” to VL for if needed because fuel was short.
Though actually thinking about it, even that isn’t needed, as SRVL is not expected to lead to bolters (which is why they are not changing to an angled deck)
By: Geoff_B - 22nd June 2012 at 12:28
SRVL is only needed for high pay-load bring back, so an aircraft could always revert to VL if fuel were low (dropping weapons if needed)
I think you will find they will use SRVL most of the time and only implement VL only when needed. Why because the SRVL is less stresful on the airframe, the engine/fan and of course the flight deck. That’s what Geoff Searle said when discussing the revision back to STOVL QEC and the use of SRVL.
By: Prom - 22nd June 2012 at 08:18
That being said, the F-35B does use a lot of fuel in hover and with SRVL, it will have to be a more conventional landing pattern.
SRVL is only needed for high pay-load bring back, so an aircraft could always revert to VL if fuel were low (dropping weapons if needed)
By: Jonesy - 22nd June 2012 at 01:04
19K11,
Buddy pods and recovery tanking are used, primarily, for instances where a returning aircraft is having issues with recovering aboard the ship (hence ‘recovery’ tanking). Bolters use up a lot of fuel in the climb out and after you’ve missed a few times at the tail end of your mission profile things can look twitchy….especially if there is no divert field in range. Thats when a recovery tanker would be launched off.
STOVL is fairly bolter-proof even with SRL. So no special need for a buddy tanker.
By: benroethig - 22nd June 2012 at 00:23
If I’m not mistaken……….carrier born tanking is not a requirement for STOVL because no STOVL a/c can carry a refueling pod. i’m not too sure if thats going to be the case with the F-35B tho. The carrier born “tanker” on a CATOBAR ship would be the F-35C so I’m not really seeing where your argument is coming from. Granted this is the first I’v heard of it so if you could maybe expand on it I would be greatful.
No, the carrier tanker would be the F/A-18E since it has 5 wet hardpoints instead of 2 on the F-35B&C. Both the B&C (Yes, the B can use the pod on a wet hardpoint) would have to be set up like the S-3 with the refueling pod on one wing and an external tank on another…just with less fuel than the Viking or a Super Hornet.
as for STOVL recovering tanking, it theory its not needed with a vertical landing since the aircraft just touches down and multiple aircraft can touch down at once. That being said, the F-35B does use a lot of fuel in hover and with SRVL, it will have to be a more conventional landing pattern.
Harrier can’t carry a refuelling pod, but that doesn’t tell us anything about what F-35B can do.
Theoretically it can, there just hasn’t been a need to fit it with one.
By: Prom - 21st June 2012 at 21:30
Not at all, I just recognise that I do not have the right to access all facts. But where there are facts available, I seek them out and try not to make statements that are libellously in complete disregard for publically available facts, such as
I do find it very suspicious that BAE is providing both the carriers and the F35B, and given the calibre of the senior people at MoD, I would not be in the least bit surprised if they have been led down the garden path.
Despite this being pointed out to you, you have neither withdrawn or apologised for the allegation. It seems to me therefore that you are content to remain ignorant of the truth
Sign In
April 19, 2012 at 10:47 am
