UK F-35B flies

Mike Pryce

Mike Pryce

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
21 December 2006
Messages
1,132
Reaction score
614
The UK's first F-35B has flown (on Friday 13th!):

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-lockheed-flies-uks-first-production-f-35-370710/

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2573e35d-1b65-43d7-b8b5-10470047af2b&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Almost exactly fifty years to the day since the first UK operational requirement for an RAF/Royal Navy supersonic V/STOL aircraft was issued!

getasset.aspx

Image copyright Lockheed Martin (via Flightglobal.com - http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=45269)

(As the F-35 topic is still locked I can't post this there).
 
Re: UK F-35B flies and carrier decision

From the Financial Times:

Aircraft carriers will not be reconfigured for French

By Carola Hoyos in London

The UK will not reconfigure its aircraft carriers so that French fighter jets can land on them, senior government officials have told their French counterparts.

The move, confirmed by parliamentary officials, makes it increasingly unlikely David Cameron, the prime minister, will avoid an awkward U-turn in announcing the UK will buy the Stovl B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the version of the aircraft that can land on British carriers without the catapult and trap needed by French planes.


Rest of story at:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f276fbaa-87e4-11e1-b1ea-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1sFAlib4P
 
Yay! looks good. Wonder if they make blue and red/pink stealth paint for the roundels yet? ;)
 
So, the 'carrier-share' agreement might not have worked anyway, eh? ::) *chortling into my mug of tea*

As an aside, I've read that F35C was to eventually replace Tornado - will that still be the case now we're to have the 'B'?
 
Re: UK F-35B flies and carrier U-turn

I doubt it is the actual weight, but maybe the old Newtonian issue of F=MA on touchdown, or some other annoying mix of features (tyre pressure vs. static deck load limits or oleo collapse leading to a pierced deck etc.).

CdG was probably not considered as a prospective F-35C platform when that aircraft's undercarriage was designed.

Dealing with 'designed in' load limits on carrier decks can be tricky. The P.1216 gained twin wheels on all oleos early on to allow it to use Invincible-class decks with their existing static load factors. The max planned operating weight from these ships went from 34,667lb to 50,667lb. thanks to this change, although single wheel units were deemed OK for land based ops (runways, roads and metal planks over soft ground).
 
So the UK government forgot to cancel its order for the F-35B when the decision was made to go with the F-35C for the Royal Navy? :eek: How many F-35B aircraft was it committed to before it could change its mind?
 
Re: UK F-35B flies and carrier U-turn

The UK has ordered 3 F-35s for tests, trials and maybe a little training. All originally B's, negotiations were begun after the SDSR to make the last one a C by swapping it for a B with the USN/USMC.

No significant production order has been made, and Lockheed Martin are 'agnostic' on which version the UK orders later on - they can deliver either version. Or maybe even A's if this farce continues!
 
Triton said:
So the UK government forgot to cancel its order for the F-35B when the decision was made to go with the F-35C for the Royal Navy? :eek: How many F-35B aircraft was it committed to before it could change its mind?
Click to expand...

The UK had already purchased 3 STOVL aircraft, of which BK-1 and BK-2 were already in build. BK-3 was swapped with the US and so now there is CK-1 (ex CF-17). The BK jet would still be useful for most of the training planned, just not carrier operations - which were someway down the line anyway.
 
Re: UK F-35B flies and carrier U-turn

now there is CK-1
Click to expand...

Let's hope we don't end up with the MoD placing an order for perfume from Calvin Klein. The way this story is going, who knows...!? :eek:
 
UK F-35B flies \ Video: First Flight of the First U.K. F-35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYD-F8SXfc


The first flight of the first F-35 for the United Kingdom on April 13, 2012. Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti flew the F-35B aircraft, known as BK-1, which is also the first international F-35 to fly. The jet will complete a series of company and government checkout flights prior to its acceptance by the U.K. Ministry of Defence.
Click to expand...


Code: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYD-F8SXfc
 
Re: UK F-35B flies and carrier U-turn

Fighter jets about-turn 'will harm capability' Britain will be less able to undertake military operations with the fighter jets that ministers are preparing to buy under a cost-saving exercise, secret defence plans show.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9217918/Fighter-jets-about-turn-will-harm-capability.html

The Telegraph has seen a DSTL operational analysis study. The one performance example given is of the B having a 20 minute loiter at 300nm from the carrier, compared to 80 minutes for the C. I would make a guess that proponents of the C (light or dark blue) leaked the document to support their case. It's a shame the assumptions from the study were not stated - having seen much OA work on the 1980s version of NST.6464, and performed JSF costings myself, it is clear small changes in assumptions can make a big difference.

Of particular interest would be to know if the paper is a big and simple, 'top down', DOAE-style study, or the smaller, more detailed 'bottom up' type that the old Systems Assessment Department at RAE Farnborough used to do. The two never used to match up, but the latter tended to be more realistic about the constraints. The talk of future scenarios makes it sound like the former, as does the focus on fuel load as the 'key issue', when in reality span loading/induced drag and fuel allowances at landing etc. are also vital.

For comparative purposes, the P.1216-16 was projected to loiter at 300nm from a carrier for 40 minutes on internal fuel, 85 minutes with 2 x 270 gallon tanks, and 115 minutes with 2 x 370 gallon fuel modules, plus weapons.
 
Sounds like someone in the MOD is fighting a doomed rearguard action to keep the F-35C.
 
Interesting... IF the quoted (Telegraph's) figures are to be beleived, F35B isn't as capable as P1216 was or was projected to be. Aaaah that's progress ;)

However, on a more serious note, considering just how important F35 is and to how many countries, I refuse to beleive that ultimately, it won't turn out to be an excellent platform. Also, it's a great moment to see our first one airborne - well done to all concerned.
 
shedofdread said:
Interesting... IF the quoted (Telegraph's) figures are to be beleived, F35B isn't as capable as P1216 was or was projected to be. Aaaah that's progress ;)
Click to expand...

How much could the P1216 carry internally? What was its RCS?
 
sferrin said:
shedofdread said:
Interesting... IF the quoted (Telegraph's) figures are to be beleived, F35B isn't as capable as P1216 was or was projected to be. Aaaah that's progress ;)
Click to expand...

How much could the P1216 carry internally? What was its RCS?
Click to expand...

As I'm sure I don't need to tell you, the answers to your questions in order are 'nothing' and (for the -53 version which was apparently LO), 'I've no idea'. Others may be able enlighten us all further on the second matter. Equally, did the -53 have internal carriage? I wouldn't think it impossible for the forward boom area to be made to carry something internally.

Don't missunderstand me; I'm FAR from being anti F35 and as I've already said I'm sure it'll prove to be a very capable platform but is it ideal for the UK? Maybe not. Is it the best we can realistically get? Yes.
 
shedofdread said:
sferrin said:
shedofdread said:
Interesting... IF the quoted (Telegraph's) figures are to be beleived, F35B isn't as capable as P1216 was or was projected to be. Aaaah that's progress ;)
Click to expand...

How much could the P1216 carry internally? What was its RCS?
Click to expand...

As I'm sure I don't need to tell you, the answers to your questions in order are 'nothing' and (for the -53 version which was apparently LO), 'I've no idea'. Others may be able enlighten us all further on the second matter. Equally, did the -53 have internal carriage? I wouldn't think it impossible for the forward boom area to be made to carry something internally.

Don't missunderstand me; I'm FAR from being anti F35 and as I've already said I'm sure it'll prove to be a very capable platform but is it ideal for the UK? Maybe not. Is it the best we can realistically get? Yes.
Click to expand...

So really then it's not "more capable".
 
sferrin said:
So really then it's not "more capable".
Click to expand...
Don't think that's what shedofdread really meant. The P.1216 had a very impressive projected performance for a pure ASTOVL fighter and it's a shame it never got the chance to prove it.

I like the JSF concept and the F-35 too, but it would have been nice to have avoided all the boring arguments ;D
 
It's just been on Channel 4 News, so must be true.

Chris
 
The best is the enemy of good enough.

Seems like they've realized the F-35B is good enough at last. Wonder how many millions got wasted working that out :(
 
Video confirming the u-turn http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18013638

It would have been so much easier if we hadn't ordered carriers sized for catapult and arrestor operations and an ASTOVL fighter with a more capable CV variant :D
 
SteveO said:
Video confirming the u-turn http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18013638

It would have been so much easier if we hadn't ordered carriers sized for catapult and arrestor operations and an ASTOVL fighter with a more capable CV variant :D
Click to expand...

Nope it would have been easier if we hadn't tied the Carrier Strike capability to JSF, the primary reason for the change is not the conversion costs to the carriers but rather the F-35C is going to be delayed (guess that means the damper tweak & hook revison quick fix has failed to solve the problem, not that we'll hear that from LM/JSF sources till the next NAO review). The concern now is what happens if the they find the F-35B is not fit for purpose either and it gets a similar delay :mad:
 
There are good points and bad points not pointed out in the media to consider.


Good point. V/STOVL is what the RN has been doing for the last 30 years, not CATOBAR.
Bad. Admittedly we wont have been doing it for nearly 10 years by the time we roll round squadrons onto decks
Good. All of our current support aircraft (think ASaC, ASW and load lifting) and their replacements, and the logistics support structure are geared around helos, which are compatible with V/STOVL. So we dont need to go purchasing additional new aircraft types and generating additional fixed wing carrier training.
Bad. This means our ASaC will continue to be heli-borne and will imply limits on the realistic range of operations (shorter than the B variants legs...) and means that replenishment will still be (short ranged) vert-rep and (slow) RFA based.
Good. From the capability that we have now, anything will be an improvement.


Did I miss anything?
 
I just wish I had bet someone on this. It was SOooooooo... predictable that this would happen right from the point they originally decided to change from the B to the C. Ah well, maybe next time I will bet someone.
 
Thorvic said:
the primary reason for the change is not the conversion costs to the carriers but rather the F-35C is going to be delayed (guess that means the damper tweak & hook revison quick fix has failed to solve the problem, not that we'll hear that from LM/JSF sources till the next NAO review). The concern now is what happens if the they find the F-35B is not fit for purpose either and it gets a similar delay :mad:
Click to expand...


Don't stop banging that drum...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom