UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

F-35 Climatic Testing [WOTNO ANTICLIMAX testin'?]
03 Apr 2015 Jeff Rhodes and Lauren Duda

"...Then the rains come. For its final test, the F-35 was taken into the center of a hurricane—so to speak. To gauge how a
Lightning II would hold up sitting uncovered on the flight line at a place such as Eglin, the McKinley Climatic Laboratory can be rigged with a system of frames that drench the jet with steady rainfall. During rain testing, the F-35 was soaked in rainfall ranging from 1.1 inches per hour up to 3.3 inches per hour. Following the steady soak, a spray bar was placed at various positions around the aircraft. A large industrial fan generated sustained winds of forty-four miles per hour in the direction of the spray bar and the F-35, thus creating a tropical storm-like environment...." [WOT!? NO DILBERT DUNKER?!]

Source: https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article ... tem_id=161

4 page PDF of 'icy blast from the past' is no longer at URL: https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/how ... ic-testing

PDF of OLD news doan keep: http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/ar ... sting.html

Fair enough Ric. But... it is not so much the depth as it is the salt water contamination.

Well, one of my earlier points was that salt corrosion isn't or should be immediate. What I meant is that an object being submerged under salt water doesn't instantly or immediately starts to corrode but it probably takes at least a few months before that same under salt water object starts to corrode (this obviously depends on the objects but I'm speaking in general terms).
For instance and while not being underwater, naval aircraft while on board of a carrier are also and always subjected to salt corrosion. While this same salt corrosion onboard a carrier is obviously less compared to being submerged in salt water these aircraft will still suffer from salt corrosion while onboard a carrier (and salt gets everywhere!) and this happens for a combined period that could be equivalent to several years during the entire livetime of these same aircraft.
On top of this, the F-35B (and also by extend the F-35C) was designed as naval/carrier-based aircraft so this means that measures to avoid salt corrosion were implemented in the aircraft.

Nevertheless and independently of who's right about salt corrosion, the pressure at 1500 meter is just too huge for the airframe of a fighter aircraft to keep its integrity.
For instance a Seawolf class submarine cannot get to that depth.

Yes that F-35C/B - whichever - joined the MILE LOW CLUB. Keep thinking about avionics/wiring and saltwater please.

138 (The Devil's Numbers.)
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... -35b-jets/

Britain confirms plans to purchase 74 F-35B jets
By George Allison - May 1, 2022
The head of the Royal Air Force has confirmed plans to purchase 74 F-35B jets adding that it is “possible” the UK may eventually have a fleet of 138 F-35s.

The specific number was revealed by Air Marshal Knighton during a Defence Select Committee meeting:
“I have said this to the Public Accounts Committee, and I will set it out for Committee members here. We have on contract to deliver 48 F-35B aircraft. As part of our planning assumption in the IR and SR that we have just been through, we have assumed an increase of a further 26 F-35B aircraft, which would take the total fleet to 74.
We have said that the decision about further purchase, beyond that 74, will be taken in the middle of the decade, in the context of what we decide to do on our Future Combat Air System programme. It is perfectly plausible to imagine a situation in which we could have the fleet of 138 F-35s that we originally described back in the early 2000s.”

Knighton added:
“We are in the process of negotiating that additional purchase beyond the 48 with the Joint Program Office and with Lockheed Martin. The Secretary of State has been very clear that the final commitment that we make to those aircraft will be dependent on the Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin demonstrating improvements in cost associated with support and the integration of UK weapons. But we have set aside the budget for that increase and for the additional infrastructure, support costs and people associated with it.”
How will the fleet look I hear you ask? Knighton answered that too.
“All 74 aircraft would be operational, but inevitably you will have a number that are in the operational conversion unit, teaching pilots to fly for the first time on the aircraft, and a number that will be going through routine maintenance.
We are talking about a relatively new aircraft that will evolve, in terms of its maintenance cycle, over the next decade, but we would expect, for a fleet of that size, probably about 20% of them—something like that—to be in maintenance at any one time.
If you want rough numbers, about 15 of them will be in maintenance, but as I said, that will evolve as we understand more about how we maintain this thing and how long it takes. That would leave you with 60-odd in the forward fleet.”
We reported recently that funding had been delegated for an additional tranche of F-35B jets for Britain beyond the 48 already ordered.

Kevan Jones, Member of Parliament for North Durham, asked via a written Parliamentary question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the planned equipment investments for (a) A400M and (b) F-35b will be delegated to the RAF’s TLB.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“Funding for a second tranche of F-35 Lightning has been delegated to Air Command as part of our recent annual budget cycle. Funding for Atlas A400M which not yet been delegated. A decision on future tranches of F-35B will be made in due course.”
For more on the planned additional A400M purchase see here, now, on to the F-35B.
I reported around Christmas time that the UK was undertaking “detailed analysis to evaluate the scale and timeline” for a purchase of a second tranche of F-35B Lightning aircraft.

Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, stated in December 2021:
“The 2021 Integrated Review confirmed our ambition to continue the growth of the UK Lightning Force beyond 48 aircraft. We are currently undertaking period of detailed analysis to evaluate scale and timeline for procurement of our second tranche of F35B Lightning aircraft together with associated infrastructure and support requirements.”
The former First Sea Lord said during a webcast earlier this year that the UK intends to purchase between 60-80 jets for four deployable squadrons, this matches with the above confirmation.

This is welcome news given the speculation the buy could be capped at 48.

Getting there but they still need 36 F-35B's per Air Wing plus the OCU and spares.....Which, always gets us back to the "138".

There's only a requirement for one 'airwing'. With 2 carriers one will be high readiness/deployed, the other at low readiness/maintenance. There was never the intention of running both simultaneously with full airwings. With, what is believed to be, the QE Classes maintenance/docking schedule 2 carriers will be floating for around 40% of the time. But that doesn't mean at sea, it can be alongside, low readiness, in training or deployed on other tasks. If we wanted 2 carriers at sea they would have needed to build 3 of them. They're also operated differently to USN CVN. No forward deployment is likely. Normal ops will probably mean 12 F-35B onboard, they'll exercise with 24 frequently. But 36 is likely to be surge for live operations and a couple of times for training only. Which for the UK is absolutely fine. 24 F-35B onboard a QE is enough to deal with most threats quite comfortably...36 can be saved for if the balloon really goes up.

In addition if we really wanted 2 'airwings' we'd need to dig the 8 Merlin HM.1 out of storage and upgrade to HM.2 standard to enable both to have a full ASW screen and CROWSNEST availability. And thats before we get to escorts availability and FSS.

Personally, I've said lots of times that this is likely to be the max. I wouldn't totally discount a further buy in the late 2020's (and I'd be in favour of a fleet of F-35B in the low 90's), but it would be small if at all. With the arrival of Vixen and Mosquito I suspect the need for further F-35B on decks to deliver effects will decrease, as will space.

Getting there but they still need 36 F-35B's per Air Wing plus the OCU and spares.....Which, always gets us back to the "138".

There's only a requirement for one 'airwing'. With 2 carriers one will be high readiness/deployed, the other at low readiness/maintenance. There was never the intention of running both simultaneously with full airwings. With, what is believed to be, the QE Classes maintenance/docking schedule 2 carriers will be floating for around 40% of the time. But that doesn't mean at sea, it can be alongside, low readiness, in training or deployed on other tasks. If we wanted 2 carriers at sea they would have needed to build 3 of them. They're also operated differently to USN CVN. No forward deployment is likely. Normal ops will probably mean 12 F-35B onboard, they'll exercise with 24 frequently. But 36 is likely to be surge for live operations and a couple of times for training only. Which for the UK is absolutely fine. 24 F-35B onboard a QE is enough to deal with most threats quite comfortably...36 can be saved for if the balloon really goes up.

In addition if we really wanted 2 'airwings' we'd need to dig the 8 Merlin HM.1 out of storage and upgrade to HM.2 standard to enable both to have a full ASW screen and CROWSNEST availability. And thats before we get to escorts availability and FSS.

Personally, I've said lots of times that this is likely to be the max. I wouldn't totally discount a further buy in the late 2020's (and I'd be in favour of a fleet of F-35B in the low 90's), but it would be small if at all. With the arrival of Vixen and Mosquito I suspect the need for further F-35B on decks to deliver effects will decrease, as will space.

Absurd....just because you have two Air Wings doesn't mean both would be fully worked up at the same time. Nonetheless, both Carriers have already deployed at the same time.

No sense in having two Carriers. If, you can't provide enough aircraft for both plus spares and attrition.

Lastly. we such a small fleet you enemy is likely to strike the airfields. Where those aircraft (F-35B) are based at. Now you don't even have enough to fully support a single Air Wing let alone two. Making your "Aircraft Carriers" worthless. As without aircraft nothing but a big target.......

...With 2 carriers one will be high readiness/deployed, the other at low readiness/maintenance.

Nonetheless, both Carriers have already deployed at the same time.

No sense in having two Carriers. If, you can't provide enough aircraft for both plus spares and attrition.

I believe this is a "classic example" of people confusing peacetime with wartime. I think people need to understand that things work very differently from peacetime versus wartime.
While during peacetime, yes the UK should often deploy one carrier at the time (while the other being in port) but the fact is that during or if/when wartime happens both carriers will be deployed at the same time, period!
A clear example of this was during the Falklands War in 1982 where all UK carriers at the time which were also two (2), the HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes were deployed (at the same time).
With this in mind, yes "provisions" must be made so that both aircraft carriers can each deploy a full complement of fighter aircraft at the same time.

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1562463967565340677

Looks like WESTLANT22 is about to begin with escorts getting ready to accompany HMS Prince of Wales to the US East Coast. Hopefully the SRVL technique will be proven to be fully within the capabilities of the F-35 for operational use!

It's leaving tomorrow: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/second-british-carrier-heading-to-u-s-for-f-35-trials/

20220623-ZM152_SI_Interim_Report [2 page PDF of report attached]
23 Jun 22 Defence Safety Authority

INTERIM REPORT FROM THE SERVICE INQUIRY (SI) INVESTIGATING THE ACCIDENT INVOLVING F-35B ZM152 ON HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH ON 17 NOV 21

"...Introduction...
...3. The pilot reported that the initial acceleration felt normal, but then decreased. On checking the engine displays they discovered that the power was low, at 74% ETR. The pilot then selected maximum (100% ETR) but the engine continued to deliver lower than expected power. Due to the resulting low speed of ZM152, the pilot attempted to abort the take-off but was unable to stop the aircraft before the end of the ramp and ejected. The ejection was successful, the parachute deployed, and the pilot landed on the flight deck suffering only minor injuries. The aircraft impacted the sea and was seen to be afloat passing down the port side of the Ship before it subsequently sank....

...Cause
7. Following analysis of the Flight Data Recorder by the manufacturer, and having completed an independent Airworthiness Review, the Panel has identified no technical issue with the aircraft. It is the Panel’s opinion that it is almost certain that a single engine intake blank remained inside the engine intake at the time of launch, causing a restriction in airflow to the engine such that it was unable to generate enough power for take-off.

Conclusion
8. Based on the evidence obtained, the Panel is confident that the primary causal factorof the event was the left-hand intake blank remaining in the aircraft prior to launch reducing the engine power. This was most likely due to a combination of human, organisational and procedural factors. Nevertheless, the inquiry continues to pursue a standard of evidence that will allow other lines of inquiry to be addressed across a range of possible causes. The Panel is focussing on potential mechanisms of movement of the intake blank and comparisons of UK servicing procedures with other F-35 operating nations...."

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... Report.pdf (88Kb)

“This was most likely due to a combination of human, organisational and procedural factors.”

Ya think?!

How the bleep do you start a jet w an intake blank still in-place, much less taxi it, put it on the tram and run it up for TO?

A real ‘wtfo?’…

DITTO - my mind boggles - I don't really know how F-35 red gear is accounted for on deck - my mind is boggled.

Britts gotta have their own name for everything.

Here is what happened.

USMC jets were on deck at the time of the accident, and had been for months.

One of the britts probably told a marine to "remove the blank from the other side of the jet while I remove the blank from this side."

The marine, not knowing what the blank the Britt was saying, filled in the blank instead of removing it.

Therefore, the blankty blank was still in when the engine was started.

How the blank the aircrew didn't notice it during their preflight walk around inspection is amazing.

Do they realy climb into a jet with the engine intake plugs still installed?

BlanketyBlank Don't Come Back (from YakityYak Doan Come Back - DA Song) and it would be BRIT - hoKay?

"LEFT HAND INTAKE BLANK" was LEFT IN is a very SINISTER scenario. How come the pilot gets in on the left side ladder can't look down the intake on that sinister side? LEFTIES ROOL. Somehow I suppose the blank can go further down intake?

The SUN tabloid reported this from unknown sources. It is hardly believable. Having one intake covered with the engine running then at full power in STO mode for take off without indications of a problem with the engine is just not possible.

If validated, 20 years from now, new pilots and maintainers may wonder why pre-flight checklist has *CHECK THE BL**DY COVERS ARE COMPLETELY OFF* in capital, bold with underline.

From pp 192. Thought this only happens to cameras. 1 year on, thoughts are mainly the same. Maybe add a few asterisks & exclamation marks for good measure.