UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 07 Oct 2016, 05:18

Nope... many who worked as "an Engineer" on carriers that had Sea Harriers complains about the F-35B being better than the Harrier in every way possible.. but somehow not good enough???

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 07 Oct 2016, 09:28

SpudmanWP wrote:Nope... many who worked as "an Engineer" on carriers that had Sea Harriers complains about the F-35B being better than the Harrier in every way possible.. but somehow not good enough???

Exactly. If F-35B is not good enough, just choose another supersonic STOVL VLO stealth fighter...

shagbat · by **shagbat** » 07 Oct 2016, 11:17

>"No IFR (In Flight Refuelling) capability"

>picture clearly shows F-35B with Probe extended :doh:

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 07 Oct 2016, 15:07

shagbat wrote:>"No IFR (In Flight Refuelling) capability"

>picture clearly shows F-35B with Probe extended

BAHAHAHAHA! Had not noticed that! Nice!!

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 07 Oct 2016, 15:10

SpudmanWP wrote:Nope... many who worked as "an Engineer" on carriers that had Sea Harriers complains about the F-35B being better than the Harrier in every way possible.. but somehow not good enough???

It's also the same cryptic BS. "It doesn't have enough range"

OK using Kilometers as an actual tangible measurement, what is the F-35s range, and how much range do you think it requires for what you speak of?

Of course that would require actually learning the F-35s range...

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 07 Oct 2016, 15:33

shagbat wrote:>"No IFR (In Flight Refuelling) capability"

>picture clearly shows F-35B with Probe extended

He was all over the map but I think his complaint was UK specific to the lack of an IFR asset on their ships.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 07 Oct 2016, 15:43

SpudmanWP wrote:
shagbat wrote:>"No IFR (In Flight Refuelling) capability"

>picture clearly shows F-35B with Probe extended

He was all over the map but I think his complaint was UK specific to the lace of an IFR asset on their ships.

"No IFR capability, a minimum to extend some of the above"

Im taking it literally. He thinks the F-35 has no IFR capability.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 Oct 2016, 11:22

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 14 Oct 2016, 15:57

XanderCrews wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Nope... many who worked as "an Engineer" on carriers that had Sea Harriers complains about the F-35B being better than the Harrier in every way possible.. but somehow not good enough???

It's also the same cryptic BS. "It doesn't have enough range"

OK using Kilometers as an actual tangible measurement, what is the F-35s range, and how much range do you think it requires for what you speak of?

Of course that would require actually learning the F-35s range...

I was under the impression the F-35's range was damn impressive. Meaning it carries 18.000lbs of fuel (about the same as a Raptor), but only ONE engine, and consequently lower burn rate. This is all the more true for the C model, with 19,000lbs of fuel.

One person here aptly described it as a "flying fuel tank". Even more telling, there are no plans for external drop tanks. Speaks volumes IMO. You can knock the F-35 on a lot of things (most can be debunked), but one of those is NOT that she doesn't have legs..

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 Oct 2016, 18:56

There is a lot of 'will they' / 'won't they' about external/conformal fuel tanks (particularly from Israel but apparently gave up idea one year ago) so it is in the wind. But I do not like the look of this last sentence above by 'mixelflick':

"...You can knock the F-35 on a lot of things (most can be debunked), but one of those is NOT that she doesn't have legs.."

How can the F-35 be knocked with debunkables?

zerion · by **zerion** » 18 Nov 2016, 02:00

Britain Planning First F-35B Operational Carrier Embark

LONDON—British officials have begun planning for the first operational embark of the F-35B on the UK’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/awindefense/b ... ier-embark

Any subscribers

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 15 Dec 2016, 06:39

'Sharkey' Ward has gone full bonkers - where is the evidence for his ludicrous claims - the mind boggles with his very own. UK F-35B pilot and maintainers have just completed DT-III with USMC aboard USS America - some of it carried out in adverse weather conditions with heavy & asymmetrical load outs. Sharkey must be senile.

Falklands Harrier hero raises fears over navy’s new aircraft carriers
14 Dec 2016 TOM COTTERILL

"...the war hero has written to the government’s defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon and head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Philip Jones, expressing his concerns over the new Queen Elizabeth-class carriers.

Cdr Ward claims the two giant 65,000-tonne vessels suffer from a ‘hogging of the hull’ – an issue that causes a ship’s centre to bend upwards.

And he says the navy’s new fighter jets, the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing aircraft – which are to replace the Harriers that were scrapped in 2010 – are ‘extremely limited’ in capability, especially in bad weather or heavy seas....

...Hitting back, the Ministry of Defence denied Cdr Ward’s claims, saying they were untrue.

The MoD said ‘hogging’ of a ship’s structure was due to sea conditions and was a well-known phenomenon in naval architecture.

The MoD added it was confident the new carriers and F-35Bs would be able to operate in a wide range of conditions, including ‘moderate to heavy’ seas.

Speaking to The News, a source said: ‘There is no design anomaly in the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, and the F-35B has been designed to operate from them in bad weather and heavy seas.

‘We are confident that both platforms offer the best capability for our armed forces.’"

Source: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defenc ... -1-7732473

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 15 Dec 2016, 12:59

The right to remain silent can save teeth from Shoe leather

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 16 Dec 2016, 06:50

On NavWeaps forum 'Hindpool' [design?] has a lot of expert knowledge about CVF but his prejudice against F-35B is clear and I'm not sure he even understands what the F-35 variants can do - especially compared to the Hairier. Be that as it may.... and about the 'cats n'flaps' brief alternative - seems he is OFF the planet.

"...Sharky Ward is right about the Hogging problem, but economical about the solution. We knew all along about ship's structural deck stresses and many hours, nay years were spent computer modelling the dynamic structural stress and deflections under all manner of circumstances. The areas of highest stress are around the Aircraft Lift Apertures at the flight deck, all of which are massively reinforced with flitch plates accordingly. Why do you think the A/C lift inner apertures have stress reduction parabolic curves at the deck cut-out?..."

Source: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... ply-538413

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Dec 2016, 00:13

Signed confirmation of what was announced a few months (USMC on CVF) ago plus some other details.

US Marine F-35B Fighter Jet Deployment Onboard British Warship Made Official
16 Dec 2016 Andrew Chuter

"LONDON — US Marine Corps F-35Bs are to be deployed onboard the British Royal Navy’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier when it undertakes its first operational tour, the two governments have announced. British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon and his US counterpart, Ash Carter, signed the deal Dec. 15 on the sidelines of a UK-hosted meeting of the coalition fighting the Islamic State group. The intention to deploy US Marine F-35s was announced in September this year, but the formal signing confirms the deal.

Both forces will operate the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing version of the Lightning II strike jet. It’s unclear at this stage how long the US Marine deployment will last or whether the service will also deploy V-22 Osprey aircraft as part of the package. A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said the agreement allows for deployment planning to continue, but did not offer additional details....

...The first of two 70,000-ton carriers is now virtually complete, and the warship is due to start sea trials in the first half of next year. If things go as planned, the first operational deployment will take place in 2021....

...Queen Elizabeth is expected to start fixed-wing flight trials with three British F-35Bs off the East Coast of the United States at the end of the summer of 2018. Helicopter flight trials with the Merlin and Chinook are scheduled to take place earlier in the year....

...The opportunity to deploy US Marine F-35s on the Royal Navy warship has in part been triggered by Britain’s inability to fund the acquisition of sufficient aircraft to provide a credible strike force in the years immediately following the introduction into service of the Queen Elizabeth. Kyd confirmed in September that few British jets would be available for the first operational deployment.

“We are constrained by the F-35 buy rate even though that was accelerated in SDSR in 2015, so initial operating capability numbers in 2020 are going to be very modest indeed. We will flesh it out with helicopters, and a lot depends on how many USMC F-35s come on our first deployment in 2021. But by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away [to say]," he said...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us- ... e-official