Subscribe
Notify of
guest

152 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike

Very much looking forward to seeing 24 jets on HMS Prince of Wales. The RN moto is becoming more prescient by the day.

Andrew Harris

won’t be long now.

David MacDonald

Good but how many F35Bs to we, the UK that is, actually now have? Of these I understand 3 are in the USA as 17 Squadron; is that correct?

Also how many more are currently on order?

Last edited 7 months ago by David MacDonald
Hugo

Iirc currently mid 30s, this Tranche is for 48 by 2025 (1 disabled due to water damage), next tranche of 27 to bring it upto about 74 active.
Some od the test aircraft are being recalled to the UK for training or active duty purposes as well

Supportive Bloke

Big Ben did confirm a replacement for the water damaged F35B had been ordered or was budgeted for.

gke

wrong reply

Last edited 7 months ago by gke
DMJ01

Reported on Jane’s that the aircraft in the USA are having the test equipment removed and will relocate to the UK

Supportive Bloke

I wonder what for.

They are very early production examples so won’t be able to be Blk IV (let’s not start that debate again) compatible without a full rebuild.

So they might be used for T&E here or at Boscombe?

ATH

Or maybe used for basic flying practice to consolidate what new to type pilots have learnt in the sim.

gke

buddy tankers?

Andrew Harris

doubt it

Joe16

Am I being too optimistic to think that we might use them for the flight testing part of sovereign weapons integration?! Hate it all being down to LM…

Duker
Phil Chadwick

There is a commitment to the eventual purchase of the whole order of 138 over the lifetime of the programme.

F6Ar_g4WEAA5Wby
Duker

No commitment for that number . Its 74 is the only public number. And likely the limit

Random Commentator

I wouldn’t be surprised if we do get to 138 – at some stage there will be updated D,E & F models – but these will be replacements, not additional.

Mark Tucker

It will be a long time before we see another VTOL fighter to replace the F-35B. The RAF will not start buying is new toy until the 2040’s so there is plenty of time.

Easy to imagine procurement of the F-35B will continue at the rate of a few per year until something like 2038, that gets you the full quota of 138 aircraft.

We will not see a D,E or F, but will see a block V, VI,VII and VIII.

Last edited 6 months ago by Mark Tucker
Jonboy

The Fleet Air Arm is Back in Business. Great News!!!. Hopefully they will be based at RNAS Yeovilton in the fullness of time. BZ

Tim

I hope so! Though I doubt it.

Wiggy

Even when the Navy had its last F4 squadron it was moved to RAF Leuchers from RNAS Yeovilton. Can’t see them standing up a second base for the F35-B

Martin Anderson

Not to forget RNAS Lossiemouth where pilots were trained on painted on runways on the tarmac before assessment on a Carrier based in the Moray Firth. WW2.

ATH

Not really. All this means is at a squadron using the number of a historic FAA squadron is building up. The U.K. F35 force is a totally joint venture between the RAF and the RN. The number on a unit doesn’t make it any more or less RAF or FAA. A bunch of antiquated idiots will try to play this as a “real” FAA squadron and therefor better and more “naval”, that’s total nonsense.

Jonathan

Not likely, for three reasons

1) the noise zoning would be an issue. It would significantly change and the B zone would end up over a town..which would be a big planning issue.

2) then you would have a big capital investment in the infrastructure needed

3) yeovilton is full.

Last edited 7 months ago by Jonathan
Simon

F35b is both sea / land which is good use of limited UK asset’s and pilots get plenty of experience would imagine. F35c more range and load, does it have any other sea going advantages?

Andrew Harris

No, they both sink at the same rate.

Gareth D

Are not the two top photos that of 617 squadron markings?

Bob M

Perhaps I’m being cynical in my old age but that “Lighting bolt” also just happens to be the major signifying feature of the 617 Squadron badge. I see absolutely no problem with squadron badges being displayed on aircraft, even if they are ”pool” aircraft. Symbols still mean a great deal to those in all three services. Just look at individuals that are serving, their uniforms and vehicles have plenty of “tribal symbols displayed.

Duker

The badges of the squadrons are now just for the command element and pilots.

Jan Egan

The 809 squadron were the first to operate Buccaneers (white) onboard HMS Victorious

AlexS

Can F-35 fire Storm Shadow or anything more than a LGB?

QE1045

No

Duker

Paveway IV which is UK developed is 500lb laser glide bomb with 25km range

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8JHC_0XcAAsNhZ?format=jpg&name=large

am_bmb_paveway-iv_p011
AlexS

So? do you think 25km is ok today?

Duker

95% of targets , yes. Are you thinking of a $3 mill cruise missile with 200 km range is needed for everything

AlexS

So you think the other side will not have SAM’s with a mere 40km range?

Albert

It is not the cost of the Cruise missile but the cost of the F-35, about 100M each
That is the whole point of stand-off weapons.

Last edited 6 months ago by Albert
Joe16

My concern also, which is why I am very much hoping someone is coming up with a JDAM-ER style wing kit for it.

Hugo

Currently no. Only planned strike weapon I’ve seen so far is Spear 3 and I guess Paveway which it already has.

Duker

Could deliver US B61 nuclear bombs – probably the main reason the RAF even bothers with the F-35B.

Its not in inventory or even a political decision to train with them but its “possible”

1920px-B61_nuclear_bomb1
Supportive Bloke

I think it is only the Alpha variant that is nuclear cleared.

Nigel Collins
Last edited 6 months ago by Nigel Collins
Esteban

No it is not

Duker

Thats right. The weapons – when they fit- are cleared across the F35 range

Tim

F-35B is the worst varient the government went with. Shocking lack of range and payload due to that over noisy heavy engine with it’s ugly lift fan panel!

Mark

Due to the decision not to have cats and traps, very sort sighted.

Hugo

Don’t see it as short sighted. More like realistically what we could achieve with our budget and capabilities as well as bringing back carrier capability in any sort of good time.

Andrew Harris

So, tell us what aircraft we would have bought for a C&T Carrier ? 

Jake

There was going to be a typhoon variant but as usual someone miss placed it

or rather the drawing board variant was quiatly erased.

Whale Island Zookeeper

I think the canards would prove to be troublesome if there was need for a ‘manual’ landing……..

comment image

Note on Rafale-M they are further aft……….

comment image

Last edited 7 months ago by Whale Island Zookeeper
James

Placed so far back to improve stealth. No idea if it was designed to improve carrier landings but good point. But its principal use of the canard is of course performance in combat.

gwa

Rafale carnards are postioned close to the wing to generate additonal lift from the vortex that comes off of them. Good for manourvrability and slower speed high AOA, like during carrier landings. Typhoons are placed further forther for better pitch authority.

Whale Island Zookeeper

I don’t care why they were put there I am just saying they are not in the way. Computers don’t care obviously. But if you had to do it for reals sans George…….

comment image

Last edited 6 months ago by Whale Island Zookeeper
James

Yes, repressed by the government.

James

As you know, There was only a French aircraft, that no one could tolerate on a UK carrier, then the F/A18, an excellent but old platform neither compatible with such ab extreme ramp angle. There was a private company venture to develop the Sea Typhoon, but the government refused to get involved with Bae (British American Aerospace). It is what it is, too late now.

Andrew Harris

Exactly, “It is what it is” yet people still throw out all these comments about C&T’s and other aircraft when in reality only the F35C was the single most obvious option.
F35B is better than anything else out there and certainly a big leap from the Harriers.
A Sea Typhoon was a very brief proposal that realistically died in 1984 when the French went their own way. That’s a whole 40 years ago and some 20 years before the Carrier design was actually chosen.
F35B is the right aircraft at the right time.

Sean

BAE does not stand for British American Aerospace, that’s a really basic error.
Creating a Typhoon variant for carrier use would have been very expensive – strengthening airframe, new undercarriage, tail-hook – for a small U.K. only production run. The USN and French are the only NATO navies to operate cats and neither would have bought it.

Simon

Hard for French to tolerate F35c if their project with Germany doesn’t work.

Joe16

The big issue with C&T at the time was tech: non-nuclear steam systems are not hugely reliable and horribly inefficient; nuclear steam systems weren’t going to happen for obvious reasons; the only other solution was EMALS, or the UK equivalent. These were experimental at the time of decision, and the USN have had a very expensive and extended time getting the system working on USS Ford. Doing the same with us would probably have spiralled the costs to the point of cancelling/mothballing a hull.

Grinch

“shocking lack of range” ??? More than Typhoon & Rafale on internal fuel.

Grinch

*F-35B drop tanks will be acquired when they become available. They’re under development in the US.

David Broome

Completely agree and internal payload is for stealth as first strike with a payload and range far exceeding the old harriers.

Robert Blay

Carries morw fuel than a Typhoon. Can carry 2 x PW4, and 2 x AMRAAM internal with stealth is required. 8 x SPEAR3 will be carried internally when available. When stealth isn’t so critical. a total of 6 x PW4 and 4 x A2A missiles are carried. No external pods are needed for laser targeting or defensive aids as they are all part of the airframe. The F35 can hit M1.6 with full internal weapons and full. A speed very few aircraft can achieve with full fuel and external weapons and pods. Most are subsonic only in war fit.

Bloke down the pub

Most criticisms of the F35b don’t stand up to inspection of the facts. Many out there who gripe about it being an ‘American’ aircraft despite the fact that UK companies build far more of the overall orders than if they had built a fully British aircraft for our own needs.

Order of the Ditch

There is very little F35 work being carried out in the UK. Whilst 15% of every F35 is made by UK companies this includes work undertaken in the US by UK owned subsidiaries e.g the RR lift fan which isn’t made in the UK.
The F25 programme has been pretty terrible for the UK, especially as the only ‘Tier 1’ partner. Little workshare and glacial weapons integration. Israel on the other hand has got whatever it wanted and has been able to integrate its own EW components.
F35B gives us a good capability but in my opinion it is the last time we should ever buy an American fast jet.
European/Japanese joint programmes from now on only.

Hugo

Guess the Tempest partners will have to collab on a Vtol jet at some point otherwise our future option will probably be american

James

agreed, there is no special relationship with the Americans, plus if Trump is elected and puts the squeeze on NATO then we should put the squeeze on American companies and push for more European security pacts and joint purchase agreements of non American assets whenever possible.

AlexS

So for you is okay to live of USA military efforts.

Duker

Ask the UK servicemen and women who died in Afghanistan and Iraq for nothing about ‘living off’ the US efforts.
British and US interests dont always align nor their idea of always using force because they can

Nigel Collins

That might be the case!

Tuesday 16 July 2024 01:53, UK

“Britain’s armed forces must have the ability to confront a “deadly quartet” of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, the surprise pick to lead a major review of the UK’s shrunken defences has warned.

Lord Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary and former NATO chief, is being brought back to frontline military policy by Sir Keir Starmer after he led Labour’s last Strategic Defence Review (SDR) more than a quarter of a century ago.

In another novel twist, the government on Tuesday announced two other external experts will work with the peer on crafting the new blueprint for the future shape and size of the armed forces.

They include Fiona Hill, a former foreign policy adviser to the Donald Trump White House who testified against the former president during his impeachment trial.

Her appointment could draw criticism from Mr Trump – who could well be elected back into power later this year – just as the new prime minister and his top team stress the importance of the transatlantic alliance.

Ms Hill, a leading expert on Russia who is British but has US citizenship, has previously likened Mr Trump to President Vladimir Putin. He has said about her: “She doesn’t know the first thing she’s talking about. If she didn’t have the accent, she would be nothing.”

Speaking about the new role, Ms Hill said: “This review could not be more timely given the current global turmoil and rapid technological change. I am honoured to participate in this important and critical exercise.”

Duker

The RR ‘Liftsystem’ comprises:
the vertical fan
the drive shaft and clutch
the wing roll posts ( air from compressor)
3 bearing swivel duct nozzle

Some of this system is made at RR Bristol works, certainly the major lift vertical fan component is from UK

https://www.aero-mag.com/f-35-liftworks-liftsystem-rolls-royce-filton-bristol
The other location for RR is Indianapolis

Duker

Image from RR

liftsystem-engine1
Nigel Collins

Or even South Korea for that matter, they have a lot to offer and would make a great partner to have onboard on many fronts.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/kai-displays-model-of-kf-21n-boramae-variant-operating-from-aircraft-carrier/

Nigel Collins

KF-21N Carrier Version. I wonder if we could build a joint VTOL version? With Trump and JD Vance now on board it’s worth considering at the very least.

comment image

Last edited 6 months ago by Nigel Collins
Whale Island Zookeeper

Worth buying if they make all those funny electronic noises Korean electronic goods like to make………

It could play the Thunderbirds march as it rolls towards the runaway….. 🙂

Nigel Collins

Are these the noises you’re talking about? They sound just fine to me!
Internal weapons carriage is next on the list and it can fire Meteor and IRIS-T short-range air-to-air missiles already. It’s moving along quite nicely.

US-made F414-GE-400K twin engines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDk0HT2iLs

Last edited 6 months ago by Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins

Regarding engines for the KF-21
comment image

Nigel Collins

Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning:

“Combat radius: on internal fuel more than 450nm (833km) Maximum altitude: 50,000ft. Armament: typically two AAMs and two bombs carried internally, with optional underwing pylons enabling stores carriage up to 15,000lb (6,800kg)”

Typhoon

“The CFTs, which can be fitted to any Tranche 3 aircraft, could carry 1,500 litres each to increase the Typhoon’s combat radius by a factor of 25% to 1,500 nm (2,778 km).”

Last edited 7 months ago by Nigel Collins
Duker

better than F-18E the conventional equivalent
All the panels close
The F-35C has more range because larger fuselage fuel tank and longer wingspan-reduces cruise induced drag

Andrew Harris

Why ? why is it the worst, surely the only other version would be the C, that would have meant spending billions more to actually install the un-tested EMALS and it would lack the %/£ benefit of the B.
I suppose we could have bought the Rafale (ooo la la) but that’s not a 5th Gen aircraft and the F18 is a bit long in the tooth so I reckon the B is the best version. Range and payload are pretty decent especially compared to the Harriers and the Stealth/Tech combo is unique for any carrier aircraft afloat.
As for the noisy engine, aren’t they all ? Ugly lift fan panel, does it matter ?

Supportive Bloke

The other issue with C is that the ONLY other user is USN. So the upgrades, or lack of them, will be solely USN determined.

So if USN go off in another direction then…..

Whereas B variant has a lot of international customers so long term support and spiral upgrades are pretty much guaranteed. Even if USMC moved on from B there is enough user base for LM to continue support.

Andrew Harris

Exactly, people are quick to slag it off but fail to see or even dare to say what would have been a better option.

Whale Island Zookeeper

The RN did well out of F35b as a replacement for SHAR. They went from a 2 generation old small city car pushed to its limits to a modern saloon car. The USMC didn’t benefit as much. Yes as I just said F35b is quite an upgrade over AV8x but it is too much of an upgrade. They need a CAS platform mainly. They have got an all singing and dancing aeroplane that mimics those in the fleet carriers. Bravo is a huge beasty too to be housed on a platform who primary purpose is vertical assault. It is like having a Ferrari to go down the road to shops in.

Last edited 7 months ago by Whale Island Zookeeper
Supportive Bloke

RN, Italians, Japanese…..all did very well out of F35B.

Whale Island Zookeeper
                                  

Yes. In the end Bravo will fly from more decks than C. But because to the US it is a specialist plane it won’t receive support systems and we are too cheap to provide them. Meaning CTOL is still the main thrust of carrier aviation.

Duker

The F35 upgrades are generic to the whole range …A, B,C
new radars, engines changes , CPUs, passive aids etc
The weapons bay size limits are the only restriction on the B

Jonathan

Shocking range as in better than all other fourth generation carrier options…an F18 has a combat radius of around 822kms vs the 833kms of an F35b…what a lame duck….

Nigel Collins

Presently, no. OnceTR-3 and Block 4 have been fully tested and installed, they will have additional weapons fitted like the Meteor and Spear 3 in our case.

Due to the endless delays, there will be a long queue for weapons fitting, so we will have to see where the UK fits in.

LRSM, JAGM, JSM, HARM, JASSM, JASSM-ER, are just some other examples.

“These upgrades are critical for enhancing the F-35’s capabilities, such as carrying more weapons and improving electronic warfare. The timeline for the Block 4 upgrades has been pushed back to 2029 from the original 2026 plan, and the cost has increased from $10.6 billion to $16.5 billion. 28 Mar 2024″

https://www.twz.com/air/f-35-deliveries-finally-cleared-to-resume-new-jets-will-be-limited-to-training

Nigel Collins
Last edited 7 months ago by Nigel Collins
AlexS

Thank you Nigel, a depressing sight that an aircraft in service for more than a decade still only have LGB’s today as attack weapons.

Last edited 7 months ago by AlexS
Nigel Collins

And it might be a while yet before we see TR-3 and Block 4 with ever-increasing costs.

Sean

Curious…
You put a block of text in quotation marks about Block 4 being pushed back to 2029, and you include a url directly beneath this text…

But what you have in quote marks appears nowhere in the article you link to.

Nigel Collins

Because its from another post.

Sean

The only post I’ve seen mentioning 2029 is one that quotes that year for completion of the Block 4 upgrade programme – as in all existing jets upgraded to Block 4 by then.

Nigel Collins

TR-3 completion has been pushed back, yet again, and could be delayed by up to one year. As for the engine upgrade, 2029 at best???

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107177

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/new-engine-core-upgrade-f-35-preliminary-design-review/

Last edited 6 months ago by Nigel Collins
Whale Island Zookeeper

Weapons integration. We need more whizz bangs. 🙂

James

WEll we will not be getting them in the next delivery as they are being shipped off with only a partial software update. so no wizzers or banger yet.

Whale Island Zookeeper

🙁

Yes I know…….

We have aircraft costing 10 millions that can hardly impact the enemy in any meaningful way. The only weapons that can be used have to be fired well within the zone were F35’s stealth capability is no longer a factor. No decent anti-ship missiles.
Though I am sure some comedian will pipe up and speak and talk utter rubbish about SPEAR 3. Never mind the RN has no organic seaborne BVR control of missiles via the ASaC platform.

Last edited 7 months ago by Whale Island Zookeeper
Theoden

Defense News Air
Pentagon to accept deliveries of Lockheed F-35s after yearlong pause
Half full or half empty news.

James

But the latest upgrade is being delivered only partially completed!

Duker

Yes. Its almost comical . The previous upgrade mostly to hardware TR3 is now to be split into ‘stages’
It seems that the F-35 has become un upgradeable in practice.

Sean

Because each year the DoD added more and more requirements to TR3 and Block 4 – classic scope creep. Even if they only deliver part of what is planned for Block 4 it will still be far more capable than the existing aircraft.

Duker

No they havent . TR3 hasnt had more features added.
Chief Executive Officer Jim Taiclet said there will be two releases of TR-3: a “combat training-capable” version that should be delivered in the third quarter of this and a “fully combat-capable” version in 2025.’

Same goes for the various Block upgrades each time a definition is made its never completed as such and the missed capability’s get pushed into new block sub sections that were never envisioned

Meanwhile, the F-35 program office says the Block 4 program will be “reimagined,” with many of the planned capabilities now deferred to the 2030s.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/f-35-tech-upgrade-2025-truncated/

Block 5 will probably be announced in 3 or 4 years time to make all the changes promied in Block 3 and 4 but not done
Remember Block 3F was to be ‘full capability’ from 2017
a 2015 report from DOT&E said

  • ‘Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;”
Nigel Collins

Very interesting, thank you. I wonder when we will achieve FOC with our weapons fit, mid-thirties perhaps?

Do you happen to know when the engine upgrades will be finalised?

Last edited 7 months ago by Nigel Collins
Sean

Block 4 was due to deliver an additional 37 weapons; though this figure included Turkish requests prior to their expulsion from the programme.
Contrary to what the conspiracy theorists think, it’s not just U.K. weapons that are delayed, U.S weapon integrations were delayed too.

Nigel Collins

“U.S weapon integrations were delayed too.”
As I posted above regarding our position in the queue.

Last edited 7 months ago by Nigel Collins
Sean

Yes they have. Why don’t you bother reading comments fully before commenting???
The capabilities required have increased from 66 to 80. What we are now seeing is the reappraisal and rescheduling of requirements. The requirements should have been fixed at the start of TR3 with new ones being added to later updates, now they’re realising this. It’s basic project management.

Duker

What new capabilities were added for TR3 ?
Its well established that many capabilities never get done that were promised, why would they be adding more when the schedule is already ‘overful’

Do you have examples of additions that you speak of

Dave

Too few planes, hell if we put all our f35s on board it wouldn’t fill one of the carriers (assuming we can find a tug boat to tow the carrier round when it breaks down again

Andrew Harris

Harsh but actually true though.

Sean

You wouldn’t want to, as the hanger can only accommodate around 20 or so F35s. As the USN discovered, you ideally don’t want to have the exotic stealth coverings exposed on the flight-deck more than necessary. However that would still outnumber the available 5th gen fighters available to the VLS.

Duker

https://www.navylookout.com/development-of-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-a-design-history/
Yes,20 seems to be the max in the hangar plus some on deck. I presume they are rotated

Sean

Yes know, that’s why I posted it.
I post facts, I actually recheck them myself before posting… if only others did.

Duker

I provide details. You just make grand statements which funnily enough despite your claimed research dont provide the details

I was checking your claim because the number could have been 24-25.

Sean

You provide unsupported conspiracy theories – I assume you’re still denying manmade climate change?

Jon

How come there are no portable freestanding “hangars”, sized to fit a single aircraft, that can be erected quickly, lit for working and can keep the salt spray out? There would be easily enough room on a QE class for 4 of these for the extra F-35s, and for a lot more besides. It’s the sort of thing that could be erected around a helo on a River class, an Albion or a Bay. We are short of ships with hangar facilities. I don’t get why temporary hangars are such a difficult problem. Even if they have to be rated within a certain weather conditions, couldn’t they still be used 99% of the time?

Last edited 7 months ago by Jon
Whale Island Zookeeper

Aircraft have always sat on the ‘roof’. They are weather proof. They mostly go below for work. It has always been so……..

Sean

Fairly Swordfish didn’t have stealth coatings.
For CSG21 the F35Bs were predominantly kept in the hanger when aboard ship, and it was no surprise that their coatings did not exhibit the wear that the USN has been having.
https://www.twz.com/44067/the-f-35cs-radar-absorbent-skin-is-looking-pretty-rough-after-months-at-sea#:~:text=After%20all%2C%20rust%20only%20affects,to%20the%20harsh%20saltwater%20environment.

Sean

Sopwith Camels didn’t have stealth coatings, try and drag yourself out of the 20th century.
It’s the stealth coatings which the USN has found to be affected by keeping their F35s up top all the time. Whereas the RN keeps the majority of its F35s in the hanger.

Whale Island Zookeeper

It’s the stealth coatings which the USN has found to be affected by keeping their F35s up top all the time. Whereas the RN keeps the majority of its F35s in the hanger.

No they don’t.

And once more please don’t respond my comments.

Sean

Temporary hangers would possibly be an idea, eg for any alert fighters kept on deck. But they certainly wouldn’t maintain them there, for that they’d be transported to the hanger deck.

Supportive Bloke

No way.

A temporary hangar on a carrier deck would be a nightmare.

Catch it with jet blast or downwash……eeeeekkkkk.

You want as few things on a flight deck as possible and everything there has to be able to take knocks without disintegrating to produce FOD.

A temporary hangar would be a nightmare in that regards.

Nope, keep QR on the roof and the rest in the nice big hangar we thoughtfully built with our massive carriers.

Whale Island Zookeeper

comment image?20180804221413

Sean

Would depend on what the hanger is made of, secured etc. I could see more use of something like this for tropical deployments to shade the QR aircraft.

But as I pointed out to Zoophiliac when I corrected him, the RN keeps the majority of its F35s in the hanger. Though this does limit numbers carried to the 20s.

N-a-B
  1. It’s hangar.
  2. No, they don’t.
Whale Island Zookeeper

I don’t think he quite grasps that moving aircraft around a carrier is far from a trivial exercise and verges on being a pain in the bum.

Whale Island Zookeeper

when I corrected him

Bless. Simple Sean crayoning all over another thread of comments with his snide supercilious statements that add nothing to the conversation just lower the tone and spoil everybody else’s fun. How many comments of yours were removed in that other thread because of your foot stamping? Was it 6? Or was it 8?

Andrew Harris

It’s a strange site, I took a while to post a well thought-out and balanced reply to the whole “Sea Typhoon” thing early this morning. It was then shown as “pending” and deleted soon after. For the life of me I really can’t see why. Yet certain posters on here seem to be able to post abusive and non constructive content with no real restrictions.
I was reading this “Hanger” conversation and didn’t see anything you wrote that needed “Correcting” but last time I agreed with you, I seemed to attract some really strange attention from certain regulars and a couple of new members that popped up and have never appeared again.
Don’t you just love the Multi account Trolls ?

Andrew Harris

They don’t need Deck Hangers, there are far too few aircraft available to even crowd the below deck hanger. Even if it was full and overflowing, where exactly would these “Deck Hangers” be stored ? Would they be taking space otherwise allocated to the maintenance and storage of the F35’s ? Have you ever seen a Temporary hanger in a storm at 26 Knots ? Would you even be able to pack it away in it’s bag when it’s windy and raining ? have a look at HMS Warriors Web Cam, HMS Queen Elizabeth has various Tents erected on deck, none of which would ever go to sea, Even rigid covers would be a non event. Silly stuff really.

Bob M

It would be nice to see the 809 badge on the tail together with “Royal Navy” on the side albeit in grey low visibility markings. Yes, I know the aircraft are “owned” by the RAF etc. etc. However, projecting a “Fly Navy” message would I’m sure be great publicity and help RN recruitment generally. I also understand (I live locally to RAF Marham), That deploying for lengthy periods on board the carriers isn’t everyone’s cup of tea amongst serving RAF personnel. Just anecdotes I’ve picked up which of course may well not be representative across the RAF’s F-35 community generally

Duker

Surely ‘deployments’ at inhospitable places have always been part of RAF and the carriers are so big now that they have good seakeeping

Supportive Bloke

It isn’t a 5* hotel….

Joking apart: that was always the problem with joint Harrier that RAF didn’t like being away at sea for months at a time.

Whale Island Zookeeper

comment image?raw=true

James

Massive investments still required, no alternate RR engine, no UK developed helmet, both trashed by the US Government long ago, no tier 4 full software upgrade, no room for a conformal fuel tank, logistics chain and system still a problem, tight fit for new weapons in internal bay. Not enough aircrew and technicians, not enough mass when the scramble is called.

Sean

• The Typhoon is still getting massive investments. If you stop investing you end up being overtaken by the opposition.
• How many alternative engines does the Typhoon have? Something which would be more investment, which you’re complaining about already.
• “No UK helmet” – why bother spending more doing this????
• Israel is developing/ has developed conformal tanks for its F35s. According to LM no other customers have requested these.

Duker

Its a stealth aircraft so conformal is out , removeable wing tanks are on the way alongside other wing stores.
Why should it have an RR engine- apart from the Liftsystem which is RR

Andrew Harris

Erm, I posted a reply earlier and it said “Pending Approval”, it disappeared an hour or so later,I have no idea why as there was nothing at all untoward in the post, any ideas what I did wrong ?

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

All

The critical issue with the RN / FAA is surely that the whole of the UK’s F35 programme is now running several years late, and it is therefore also now massively overbudget.

Order of the Ditch (directly above) has used the word “glacial” = which I think sums up their progress to date…. or rather the lack of it….rather nicely……

This project team (Aka “FLYING CIRCUS”) need to be kicked up the backside = very hard.

As others have quite-correctly noted above, we now need more F35B jets in service – and the way the world is now going, we need them in service ASAFP…….

——————————-

It is truely frightening what N-a-B has just said (directly above)….

So, when is the RN going to (finally?) learn that their two hangers on-board their two very-expensive aircaft carriers should be used for their intended purpose?? = for keeping their very few, and very expensive, aircraft warm and dry?

Any low observable (aka stealth) aircraft that goes into action with even a very-slightly-degraded surface covering is not a strike platform…..it simply becomes a Very Easy Target.

(Note. If in any doubt, please see my comments, made over a year ago, about the effect that overdosing with WD40 had on very severe adversely affecting the radar performance of the RAF’s Harriers – a mistake made whilst they were being shipped (literally) down to the Falkland’s War.

The QE hangers must be where ALL RN F35’s are stored = ALL THE F*****G TIME!!!!

To conclude – this topic is one my old boss used to call “pretty basic stuff”.

——————-

Thirdly, when are the RAF (and RN?) going to start reguarly practicing proper dispersed airfield operations? (aka austere foward basing – sometimes known as “tenting”)?

The war in Ukraine has reminded us what was always assumed by NATO way back in the 1970’s and 1980’s = that fixed forward airbases are a prime target for the enemy to attack in times of war…..

(Hence the very nice photo of a Harrier, which has been posted directly above, seen here playing a deadly game of “hide and seek” whilst out camping for a few weeks).

——————–

Lastly, and by no means least… when it comes to carrier aviation, why are the readers of NL “stuck in their ways”? You lot are only considering aircraft built by the usual suspects: USA, UK, France etc (so Falcon / Typhoo / Raffle)..

If the RN wants a second type of non-stealthy airframe onboard its carriers – to have a hugely capable fighter / bomber that is also capable of carrier based STOL – to get really serious please look no further than the Swedish SAAB JAS 39 Grippen E.

Superb ariel performance, also cheap to buy, extremely cheap to run and it requires a bare mimimum of deck / ground crew. (Note: it was originally designed to be serviced by just half-a-dozen conscript mechanics, and just one professional NCO (one stripe) needed to supervise those six kwik-fit fitters).

Accordingly, I suggest the UK loan the Swedish Navy POW over the next few summer months, for some proper sea-going aviation trials. In official speak, this will be called “practicing inter-operability with our new Scandinavian allies” (note 2).

Then lets see whether the Swedes can get one of their Gripen’s E to take-off and then land on a QE class carrier (note 1)….

Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Note 1:
The stated STOL figures for a SAAB Gripen are a 500m take-off run and 600m landing run (Technical Note: Both quoted here in still air and at sea level). Therefore, with a 30 knot headwind and also the much-added benefit of launching off a ski-jump ….“Eric The Flying Viking” should be able to do much better than that…..

PS
Who needs “cats & traps” in 21st century? That was steam-aged technology = literally!

Note 2
And not to be mentioned during wargaming was first war of 1066: which the Vikings lost….

N-a-B

It’s still hangar.Conflation of something that happened to RAF GR3 forty years ago with normal maritime aircraft operations isn’t particularly relevant.Do you honestly think that your F35s are going to be flying around rainclouds? I guarantee you that being exposed to maritime spray on deck at some low tens of knots windspeed is somewhat less damaging than rain/hail at several hundred knots. Just a thought…..There’s quite a bit of difference in landing attitude between a STOL recovery on a road and a recovery on a ship. Might just affect landing gear loads.

Last edited 6 months ago by N-a-B
Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

N-a-B

Answering in reverse order:

Landing Gear Loadings

  1. Agreed (i.e. loadings are greater on board a ship than when landing on a road).
  • I suspect that the need to strengthen its landing gear is one key reason (of just a few) why those very nice chaps and chapesses over SAAB are now developing a marinised version of their “already excellent” Grippen E.
  • I bet their “E/M” version will be “a very nice bit of kit….”

Dispersed Operations

I have only just realised why the RAF cannot practice landings and take-offs from their local A roads in Norfolk………….its a very-clear-cut case of TMP…..

  • (For newbees, the TLA Transalator of “TMP” = Too Many Potholes…)

Low Observability

I was quite-clearly using the WD40 issue – from 40+ years ago – as a prize example of “how and why” modern low observable aircraft need to be looked after “indoors”.

I could have used the example you alluded to in your post – when very early versions of the USAF’s B2 “batwing bomber” significantly increased their radar signature when flying through rainclouds. That was a “back to the drawing board moment”, which only occured at a “surprisingly late” stage of the B2’s flight testing programme….

With regards to the importance of hangering – its obviously time for the “bleeding obvious” question:

  • Why do the RN leave their planes outdoors (i.e. parked topside on a carrier deck) when the RAF, who are flying exactly the same planes, always keep them indoors = and therefore why the RAF have just spent £350M on building several brand-new hangers at RAF Marham?

Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer).

Footnote to the editor.

  • Nice photo of the F35 inside a spotlessly clean hanger at RAF Turnipland.
  • However, as this is Navy Lookout, can we please have photo of an F35 inside the hanger (singular) of an equally spotless clean QE class carrier?

PS If I was a nasty and suspicious person…..which (obviously) I am not…..I would suspect that the £350M quid of taxpayers hard earned cash was spent at RAF Marham, in the very heart of Turnipland, because it used to be the “home turf” of a very senior politician….the “Forty-Niner” former PM, Liz Truss.

N-a-B
  1. It is still hangar.
  2. You haven’t understood the “attitude” bit wrt landing. Loads are just one element.
  3. If you look at Yeovilton (South Side) you’ll see some lovely hangars there as well, which were used to line and depth maintain the SHAR force back in the day. Didn’t stop them living on the roof when at sea. You’ll be suggesting the carriers should be refitted to include 5* accommodation next…..
Whale Island Zookeeper

Good grief they are not still arguing the toss over this are they?

Wow.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

N-a-B

  1. Hanger: noted and agreed.
  2. I do fully understand your point about “attitude”. Also, I know you do…. therefore I simply did not bother to say anything about it in either one of my posts. Furthermore, I am quite sure that those very nice chaps working in SAAB’s avaition aeronautics department also understand the concept (note: very well).
  3. After all, all Swedish jet-propelled warplanes have always been designed for proper STOL (dating right back to the early 1960’s).
  4. I look forward to reading the spec-sheet on the Grippen E/M when it is published = because I am sure it will be a great plane.
  5. With regards to the hangers at Yeovilton….: yes I am fully familiar with with them…..
  6. ….they were orginally newly-built in the mid 1990’s, so they were one of the first big infrastructure projects built by the MOD after the Cold War ended (2003/04 – “ish”).
  7. Those big hangers were all orginally constructed with their main door heights being about 300mm too low – so just low enough such that the warplanes could not get into the hanger….

….and the lady in the civil service who was directly responsible for “that quite spectacular cock-up” then got prompted….

……and the last time I met her was way back in April 2016….

……when she was the personal advisor to Prime Minister David Cameron ………..advising him during Prime Ministers Question Time.

….so the fact that a “complete and utter blithering idiot” can not only get away scot-free with that type of very basic, and very expensive mistake – but then also then gets promoted into a very-senior (and well-paid job) in the highest echelons of the civil service = sort of nicely sums up what keeps going so very wrong with so many of the UK’s very big and very expensive defence procurement programmes..

……and thus explains why we nowdays quite-often buy Swedish kit…

regards Peter (IrateTtaxpayer)

PS ….and if the RN is really serious about having RN (and especially RAF) F35 pilots being permenently sea-based: then yes, seriously considering building five-star pilot accomodation into the QE might well be a very good idea ….

………….then sound-proofing their cabins, so the pilots always get a good night sleep, would be an even better idea….

…….thus the F35 pilots (“The Few”) would not be kept awake at night …..by the sounds of the QE/POW’s Scottish-made prop-shafts gently rattling against the ship’s hull…..

PPS. Have you been into, and inspected any of the en-suite cabins being fitted on-board the very-latest USN carrier yet? Those cabins are definitely one for the editor of Navy Lookout to cover in a near-future article.

Duker

Inside Hangar from UKDJ
Im still amazed how much space is taken by the ship stores department

f35bSqnlzHANGAR1
Whale Island Zookeeper

Oostende the first of the Dutch-Belgian-French MCM ships under trials.

comment image.webp

Nigel Collins

BriteCloud has been accepted for use on US F-35s, which is good news for Leonardo and Britain.

https://www.twz.com/air/f-35s-set-to-get-missile-luring-expendable-active-decoys

comment image

Last edited 6 months ago by Nigel Collins
Andrew Harris

good news

Nigel Collins

July 20, 2024 at 9:22 AM

Further information regarding the timescale for TR-3 can be found via this link.
At least another year it appears.

comment image

Last edited 6 months ago by Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins

Some interesting new developments seem to be taking place for carrier-capable Gambit drones.

https://www.twz.com/air/new-carrier-based-version-of-the-gambit-family-of-combat-drones-is-in-the-works
comment image